DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species 1 in the replies filed on 07/02/26 and 08/27/26 is acknowledged. Claims 5, and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions II and III, and Species 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 1-4 are objected to for being overly shaded. Applicant is reminded that when drawings are further printed within a patent, overly dark drawings will tend to become difficult to decipher blobs.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a compliance value is adjustable by modifying at least one of (i) spring stiffness or (ii) the allowable travel length (Claim 4)” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “driving subsystem” in claims 1-4, 8-11, 13 and 14.
The “holding subsystem” in claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-14.
The “compliance mechanism” in claims 1, 2, 6-14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Several of the claims appear to recite limitations that appear to invoke 112, 6th paragraph as described above. Including: the “driving subsystem” in claims 1-4, 8-11, 13 and 14; the “holding subsystem” in claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-14 and the “compliance mechanism” in claims 1, 2, 6-14. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to what constitutes the structural limitations of the “driving subsystem”, the “holding subsystem” and the “compliance mechanism” when 112, 6th paragraph is invoked?
Claim 4 recites “a compliance value is adjustable by modifying at least one of (i) spring stiffness or (ii) the allowable travel length.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the spring could be modified as the disclosure does not appear to definitely state how this is to be done?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 122,927 (Walker).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 9, 10, and 14, Walker teaches: Claim 1 - an end effector system for use with a robotic manipulator, comprising: a driving subsystem (AA) configured to engage a fastener component and to apply rotational motion to the fastener component; and a holding subsystem (BB) configured to engage and stabilize a corresponding fastener component positioned on an opposite side of a fastening surface relative to the fastener component engaged by the driving subsystem (AA), wherein the holding subsystem (BB) includes a compliance mechanism (CC) configured to accommodate misalignment between the fastener component and the corresponding fastener component while enabling controlled application of torque during a fastening operation, (Annotated Figure 1 Below); Claim 2 – wherein the compliance mechanism (CC) is configured to provide compliance along a selected axis (horizontal) while remaining substantially rigid along one or more other axes (vertical), (Annotated Figure 1 Below); Claim 3 - wherein the compliance mechanism (CC) comprises a spring-loaded slider defining an allowable travel length along the selected axis, (Annotated Figure 1 Below); Claim 9 – wherein the holding subsystem (BB) comprises an adjustable extension structure (DD) configured to reach fasteners located in restricted or obstructed spaces, (Annotated Figure 1 Below); Claim 10 –wherein the adjustable extension structure (DD) is configured to function as a lever arm to resist or apply torque during the fastening operation, (Annotated Figure 1 Below); Claim 14 - wherein the driving subsystem (AA) and the holding subsystem (BB) are configured to operate independently or cooperatively for dual-side or single-side fastening operations, (Annotated Figure 1 Below).
PNG
media_image1.png
393
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 2,943,335 (Daniel et al.).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 6, 11, 12, and 14, Daniel et al. teaches: Claim 1 - an end effector system for use with a robotic manipulator, comprising: a driving subsystem (33) configured to engage a fastener component and to apply rotational motion to the fastener component; and a holding subsystem (34) configured to engage and stabilize a corresponding fastener component positioned on an opposite side of a fastening surface relative to the fastener component engaged by the driving subsystem (33), wherein the driving subsystem (33) includes a compliance mechanism (105) configured to accommodate misalignment between the fastener component and the corresponding fastener component while enabling controlled application of torque during a fastening operation, (Figures 1-16); Claim 2 – wherein the compliance mechanism (105) is configured to provide compliance along a selected axis (horizontal) while remaining substantially rigid along one or more other axes (vertical), (Figures 1-16); Claim 3 - wherein the compliance mechanism (105) comprises a spring-loaded slider defining an allowable travel length along the selected axis, (Figures 1-15); Claim 6 - wherein the driving subsystem (33) comprises an electrically powered motor (96) configured to provide controlled rotational speed, torque, or angular position, (Figures 1-15); Claim 11 – wherein the compliance mechanism (105) is positioned between the driving subsystem (33) and a connection interface (30) configured to couple to the robotic manipulator, (Figures 1-15); Claim 12 – wherein the driving subsystem (33) comprises a motor (96) and a fastener engagement interface (33), and wherein the compliance mechanism (105) is positioned between the motor (96) and the fastener engagement interface (33), (Figures 1-15); Claim 14 - wherein the driving subsystem (33) and the holding subsystem (34) are configured to operate independently or cooperatively for dual-side or single-side fastening operations, (Figures 1-15).
Claim(s) 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 112404969 (Sun et al.).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Sun et al. teaches: Claim 1 - an end effector system for use with a robotic manipulator, comprising: a driving subsystem (8-11) configured to engage a fastener component and to apply rotational motion to the fastener component; and a holding subsystem (12-14) configured to engage and stabilize a corresponding fastener component positioned on an opposite side of a fastening surface relative to the fastener component engaged by the driving subsystem (8-11), wherein the driving subsystem (8-11) and the holding subsystem (12-14) includes a compliance mechanism (9 or 14) configured to accommodate misalignment between the fastener component and the corresponding fastener component while enabling controlled application of torque during a fastening operation, (Figures 1-4); Claim 8 - wherein the holding subsystem (12-14) comprises an interchangeable holding socket (15 - socket is replaceable as described in the description) configured to engage different fastener types or sizes, (Figures 1-4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 118635863 (YIN et al.) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,174,341 (Maischberger et al.).
Regarding Claims 1, 7 and 13, YIN et al. teaches: Claim 1 – an end effector system for use with a robotic manipulator, comprising: a driving subsystem (1) configured to engage a fastener component and to apply rotational motion to the fastener component; and a holding subsystem (2) configured to engage and stabilize a corresponding fastener component positioned on an opposite side of a fastening surface relative to the fastener component engaged by the driving subsystem, (Figures 1 and 2).
YIN et al. does not teach: wherein at least one of the driving subsystem or the holding subsystem includes a compliance mechanism configured to accommodate misalignment between the fastener component and the corresponding fastener component while enabling controlled application of torque during a fastening operation (Claim 1); wherein the driving subsystem comprises an interchangeable screw driver tip configured to engage different fastener types or sizes (Claim 7); and one or more sensors configured to provide feedback including at least one of force, torque, position, velocity, or visual information (Claim 13). However, Maischberger et al. teaches: Claim 1 – a driving subsystem (7) including a compliance mechanism (38) configured to accommodate misalignment between a fastener component and a corresponding fastener component while enabling controlled application of torque during a fastening operation, (Figures 1-7); Claim 7 – wherein the driving subsystem (7) comprises an interchangeable screw driver tip (8) configured to engage different fastener types or sizes (See Column 7, Lines 5-12 which describes the tool (8) being interchangeable), (Figures 1-7); Claim 13 - one or more sensors (19 or 20) configured to provide feedback including at least one of force, torque, position, velocity, or visual information (Column 7, Lines 31-55; and Column 8, Lines 28-50), (Figures 1-7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of YIN et al. to have wherein at least one of the driving subsystem or the holding subsystem includes a compliance mechanism configured to accommodate misalignment between the fastener component and the corresponding fastener component while enabling controlled application of torque during a fastening operation (Claim 1); wherein the driving subsystem comprises an interchangeable screw driver tip configured to engage different fastener types or sizes (Claim 7); and one or more sensors configured to provide feedback including at least one of force, torque, position, velocity, or visual information (Claim 13) as taught by Maischberger et al. as it represents the simple substitution of one known driving subsystem (the driving subsystem of Maischberger et al.) for another (the driving subsystem of YIN et al.) to obtain the predictable result of having a driving subsystem which includes a compliance mechanism and sensor system.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 122,927 (Walker) in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,627,169 (Zafred et al.).
Regarding Claim 4, Walker teaches the system as described above, but does not teach: wherein a compliance value is adjustable by modifying at least one of (i) spring stiffness or (ii) the allowable travel length (Claim 4). However, Zafred et al. teaches: Claim 4 – a compliance mechanism (10), wherein the compliance mechanism (10) includes adjustable springs (33) designed to have a compliance value being adjustable by modifying at least one of (i) spring stiffness using adjustable screws (36), (Figures 1-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Walker to have wherein a compliance value is adjustable by modifying at least one of (i) spring stiffness or (ii) the allowable travel length (Claim 4) as taught by Zafred et al. for the purposes of being able to adjust the stiffness of the compliance spring of Walker as it would have been obvious to try.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 271467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights