DETAILED ACTION
This application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “an” (Line 4) should be amended to recite “a.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0315002 A1 to Haddadin (hereinafter “Haddadin_1”).
Claim 1: Haddadin_1 discloses a manipulator for an industrial robot M1, comprising at least one dual joints assembly, comprising:
a housing comprising a first part extending in a first axial direction X and a second part extending in a second axial direction Z orthogonal to the first axial direction X, the first part being offset from the second part by a distance in a third axial direction Y orthogonal to the first axial direction X and the second axial direction Z.
PNG
media_image1.png
517
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing that the first part of Haddadin_1 defines a first chamber similar to the chamber shown in the part illustrated in FIG. 3, and that the second part defines a second chamber similar to the chamber shown in the part illustrated in FIG. 3, because the first part and the second part of the dual joints assembly define degrees of freedom of the assembly robot M1 which would contain a first joint and a second joint, respectively. The Office further finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing that the first and second joints defined by the first and second parts shown in annotated FIG. 1a above comprise a first power output shaft and a second power output shaft, respectively, which are configured to rotate around the first and second axial directions, respectively, in order to drive rotation of the respective joints.
Claim 8 depends directly from Claim 1 but does not introduce any limitations which distinguish from the structure of the manipulator recited in Claim 1.
As provided in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. "The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Based on the foregoing, the Office finds that the manipulator recited in Claim 8 is unpatentable over Haddadin_1.
Claim 9: Haddadin_1 discloses wherein the first part and/or the second part is substantially of a cylindrical shape (see FIG. 1a). Thus, the manipulator recited in Claim 9 is rendered obvious over Haddadin_1.
Claim 10: The first part and the second part of the manipulator disclosed by Haddadin_1 overlap with each other in the third axial direction Y to define an overlapped part which defines a channel communicating the first chamber and the second chamber. Thus, the manipulator recited in Claim 10 is rendered obvious over Haddadin_1.
Claim 11: Paragraph [0074] of Haddadin_1 discloses that drive units 9 (of robot 2) include “motor, gearbox, control, output housing.” It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing that the “control” of drive units 9 may include one or more sensors configured to sense a position of the rotation shaft of the motor of drive unit 9.
The Office further finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing that the first and second joints of the assembly robot M1 each comprise:
a motor;
a rotation shaft coupled to the motor; and
one or more sensors configured to sense a position of the rotation shaft,
in order to safely control rotation of the first and second joints.
Claim 12: Haddadin_1 discloses at least one structural member (see annotated FIG. 1a above) configured to connect two adjacent dual joints assembly or connect one dual joints assembly and a single joint assembly. Thus, the manipulator recited in Claim 12 is rendered obvious over Haddadin_1.
Claim 13: Haddadin_1 discloses an industrial robot M1, comprising:
a base (see annotated FIG. 1a above).
As described above, the manipulator according to claim 1 is rendered obvious over Haddadin_1.
Thus, the industrial robot recited in Claim 13 is obvious over Haddadin_1.
Claims 2, 4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0315002 A1 to Haddadin, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,762,801 B2 to Ciniello et al.
Claim 2: Haddadin_1 discloses the manipulator according to claim 1, but does not necessarily disclose wherein the first part comprises a first axial end comprising a first opening and a second axial end opposite to the first axial end in the first axial direction comprising a second opening.
Ciniello teaches a similar dual joint assembly 42. The first part of the dual joint assembly 42 comprises a first axial end comprising a first opening and a second axial end opposite to the first axial end comprising a second opening.
In view of the Ciniello teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the manipulator disclosed by Haddadin_1, such that the first part comprises a first axial end comprising a first opening and a second axial end opposite to the first axial end in the first axial direction comprising a second opening, in order to more easily assemble and maintain the dual joint assembly.
Claim 4: Haddadin_1, as modified above by Ciniello in the rejection of Claim 2 (such that the first part comprises opposite first and second openings), discloses the manipulator according to claim 2. Haddadin_1 further discloses a structural member (see annotated FIG. 1a above). Ciniello teaches covers 48 configured to enclose openings of several joints 22.
In view of the Ciniello teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to attain, with a reasonable expectation of success, the manipulator described above in the rejection of claim 2, which further comprises:
a first cover (similar to cover 48 of Ciniello) configured to enclose the first opening (taught by Ciniello according to the rejection of Claim 2 above) in order to cover/close the first joint (see Col. 7, Lines 1-3 of Ciniello); and
a structural member which is connected to the first power output shaft at the second opening, in order to drive rotation of the first joint.
Claim 6: Haddadin_1 discloses the manipulator according to claim 1, but does not necessarily disclose wherein the second part comprises a third axial end comprising a third opening and a fourth axial end opposite to the third axial end in the second axial direction comprising a fourth opening.
Ciniello teaches a similar dual joint assembly 42. The second part of the dual joint assembly 42 comprises a third axial end comprising a third opening and a fourth axial end opposite to the third axial end comprising a fourth opening.
In view of the Ciniello teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the manipulator disclosed by Haddadin_1, such that the second part comprises a third axial end comprising a third opening and a fourth axial end opposite to the third axial end in the second axial direction comprising a fourth opening, in order to more easily assemble and maintain the dual joint assembly.
Claim 7: Haddadin_1, as modified above by Ciniello in the rejection of Claim 6 (such that the second part comprises opposite third and fourth openings), discloses the manipulator according to claim 6. Haddadin_1 further discloses a second structural member 4. Ciniello teaches covers 48 configured to enclose openings of several joints 22.
In view of the Ciniello teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to attain, with a reasonable expectation of success, the manipulator described above in the rejection of claim 6, which further comprises:
a second cover (similar to cover 48 of Ciniello) configured to enclose the third opening (taught by Ciniello according to the rejection of Claim 6 above) in order to cover/close the second joint (see Col. 7, Lines 1-3 of Ciniello); and
a second structural member which is connected to the second power output shaft at the fourth opening.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0315002 A1 to Haddadin, in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,762,801 B2 to Ciniello et al., as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. 113103271 A to Frey et al.
Claim 3: The combination of Haddadin_1 and Ciniello does not disclose the elliptically-shaped opening recited in Claim 3.
The prior art contains several examples of joint housings in which one axial end is defined by an elliptically-shaped opening covered by a cover, and a second axial end opposite to the first axial end which is defined by a circular opening. One such prior art reference which discloses these features is Frey.
In view of the Frey teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the manipulator disclosed by Haddadin_1, as modified above by Ciniello such that the first part includes opposite first and second openings, such that the first opening is of an elliptical shape, and the second opening is of a circular shape, because the prior art teaches this specific geometry.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0315002 A1 to Haddadin, in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,762,801 B2 to Ciniello et al., as applied to Claims 2 and 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,584,027 B2 to Zhang et al.
Claim 5: The combination of Haddadin_1 and Ciniello does not appear to disclose the limitation recited in Claim 5, in which the first cover is made of a different material from the housing of the dual joints assembly.
Zhang teaches a “joint of [a] collaborative robot, and housing therefor” in which a cover is made of a different material from a housing (“The housing 2 of the joint may be an aluminum alloy material” Col. 4, Lines 57-58, and “The rear cover 5 may be made of a non-metallic material, and therefore, the rear cover 5 may be arranged at a position with less heat generation, i.e., a position corresponding to the electrical component 4, so that the use amount of metals may be reduced, and the costs of the joint may be reduced” Col. 6, Lines 4-10).
In view of the Zhang teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the manipulator disclosed by Haddadin, as modified by Ciniello in the rejection of Claims 2 and 4 above, such that the first cover (taught by Ciniello) is made of a different material from the housing, so that the costs of the joint may be reduced, as taught by Zhang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDELL J KRUG whose telephone number is (313) 446-6577. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00-14:00 AZ time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RANDELL J KRUG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights