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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject t333o AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being Anticipated by Angerer et al. (US 20240091843 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Angerer discloses:
A workpiece transferring tool (12 & 13 & 14 & 16 & 16 & 17 & 18 & 19 & 20 & 21 & 22 & 23 & 24 & 25 & 26 & 27 & 28) comprising:
a base (20) mounted on a distal end of a robot (6 & 8 & 10) (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2) [0053 & 0054 & 0055 & 0056 & 0057 & 0058];
a rotatable member (12) that is attached to the base and that is rotatable around a rotation axis (11) of a distal end of the wrist (Fig. 2) [0053 & 0054 & 0056]; and
a workpiece holder (13) whose proximal end is attached to the rotatable member (Fig. 2), wherein a workpiece (16) is hung on a distal end of the workpiece holder [0013 & 0017 & 0018 & 0022],
wherein the proximal end of the workpiece holder is attached to the rotatable member so that the proximal end is distant from the rotation axis at any time (Fig. 1), and
wherein the rotatable member rotates due to an inertia force acting on the workpiece by moving the workpiece by the robot [the rotatable member would necessarily rotate due to inertial force acting on the workpiece when stopping the workpiece during rotation due to the elastic nature of the belt (28)].
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being Anticipated by Ramunas (US 4797564 A).
Regarding Claim 11, Ramunas discloses:
A robot comprising:
a robot arm (12);
a controller (44) configured to control the robot arm [Column 3 Lines 6-55]; and
a workpiece holder (13) capable of holding a workpiece [abstract & Column 1 Lines 6-10 & 64-68 & Column 2 Lines 29-35],
wherein the controller has a safety stop function to stop the robot arm for safety based on a force applied to the robot arm [abstract & Column 1 Lines 32-68 & Column 2 Liens 1-12 & Column 2 Lines 29-39 & Column 3 Lines 18-68 & Column 4 Lines 36-66],
wherein the robot further comprises a movable connection unit (51 & 52 & 53 & 77 & 78 & 79) connecting the workpiece holder to a base (22) provided at a distal end of the robot so that the workpiece holder is displaceable in an escape direction of an inertia force acting on the workpiece [Column 3 Lines 56-68 & Column 4 Lines 1-68 & Column 5 Lines 1-9],
wherein the movable connection unit comprises a first linear movement mechanism (79) that is fixed to the base and that has a first slider linearly movable in a first horizontal direction, and a second linear movement mechanism (77 & 78) that is supported by the first slider and that has a second slider (77) linearly movable in a second horizontal direction orthogonal to the first horizontal direction (Fig. 5 & Fig. 6 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8) [Column 4 Lines 23-66],
wherein the workpiece holder is supported by the second slider of the second linear movement mechanism (Fig. 5 & Fig. 6 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8) [Column 4 Lines 23-66], and
wherein, when the robot arm executes a motion in a state in which the workpiece is held by the workpiece holder, the workpiece holder is displaced due to the inertia force so as to prevent an erroneous stop of the robot arm caused by the safety stop function [Column 4 Lines 23-68 & Column 5 Lines 1-20].
Regarding Claim 14, Ramunas discloses:
the movable connection unit is configured so that the workpiece holder is displaced in response to movement of the workpiece by the robot arm [Column 4 Lines 23-68 & Column 5 Lines 1-20], and
the movable connection unit is capable of preventing the erroneous stop due to an effect of the inertia force by keeping the safety stop function for the safety not executed by the inertia force while keeping the safety stop function workable fora safety purpose [Column 4 Lines 23-68 & Column 5 Lines 1-20].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnoor et al. (US 20040265110 A1) in view of Ramunas (US 4797564 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Schnoor teaches:
A robot comprising:
a robot arm (1.0);
a controller configured to control the robot arm [0001 & 0018];
a workpiece holder (5.3) capable of holding a workpiece (5.4) (Fig. 5a & Fig. 5c) [0053 & 0054]; and
wherein the controller is configured to control the robot arm to prevent a force applied to the robot arm due to inertia force of the workpiece caused by moving the workpiece with the robot arm from exceeding a predetermined value while the robot arm is operating [0046 & 0057 & 0058 & 0061],
wherein the robot further comprises a movable connection part (5.8 & 5.8a & 5.9) connecting the workpiece holder to a base (5.1 & 5.2 & 5.3) provided at a distal end of the robot (Fig. 5a & Fig. 5c) [0053 & 0054 & 0055] so that the workpiece holder is displaceable in an escape direction of an inertia force acting on the workpiece [0053 & 0054],
wherein the movable connection part has a rotation support mechanism to which the workpiece holder, is connected, and the rotation support mechanism is configured to support the workpiece holder in a freely swingable manner about at least an axis orthogonal to a moving-direction of the workpiece (Fig. 5a & Fig. 5c) [0053 & 0054 & 0055], and,
wherein, when the robot arm executes a motion in a state in which the workpiece is held by the workpiece holder, the workpiece holder swings due to the inertia force so as to prevent the workpiece inertia force from exceeding a predetermined value while the robot arm is operating (Fig. 4 & Fig. 5a & Fig. 5c) [0053 & 0054 & 0055].
Schnoor does not explicitly teach:
the controller has a safety stop function to stop the robot arm for safety based on a force applied to the robot arm;
the workpiece holder prevents an erroneous stop of the robot arm caused by the safety stop function.
Ramunas teaches:
A robot comprising:
a robot arm (12);
a controller (44) configured to control the robot arm [Column 3 Lines 6-55]; and
a workpiece holder (13) capable of holding a workpiece [abstract & Column 1 Lines 6-10 & 64-68 & Column 2 Lines 29-35],
wherein the controller has a safety stop function to stop the robot arm for safety based on a force applied to the robot arm [abstract & Column 1 Lines 32-68 & Column 2 Liens 1-12 & Column 2 Lines 29-39 & Column 3 Lines 18-68 & Column 4 Lines 36-66],
wherein the robot further comprises a movable connection part (51 & 52 & 53 & 77 & 78 & 79) connecting the workpiece holder to a base (22) provided at a distal end of the robot so that the workpiece holder is displaceable in an escape direction of an inertia force acting on the workpiece [Column 3 Lines 56-68 & Column 4 Lines 1-68 & Column 5 Lines 1-9],
wherein the movable connection unit comprises a first linear movement mechanism (79) that is fixed to the base and that has a first slider linearly movable in a first horizontal direction, and a second linear movement mechanism (77 & 78) that is supported by the first slider and that has a second slider (77) linearly movable in a second horizontal direction orthogonal to the first horizontal direction (Fig. 5 & Fig. 6 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8) [Column 4 Lines 23-66],
wherein the workpiece holder is supported by the second slider of the second linear movement mechanism (Fig. 5 & Fig. 6 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8) [Column 4 Lines 23-66], and
wherein, when the robot arm executes a motion in a state in which the workpiece is held by the workpiece holder, the workpiece holder is displaced due to the inertia force so as to prevent an erroneous stop of the robot arm caused by the safety stop function [Column 4 Lines 23-668 & Column 5 Lines 1-20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handling robot taught by Schnoor with the handling robot with external force sensing and shutdown protection controller that is configured to stop the robot arm when a force applied to the robot arm due to inertia force of the workpiece caused by moving the workpiece with the robot arm exceeds a predetermined value while the robot arm is operating taught by Ramunas in order to provide a means of preventing damage to the transfer robot and workpiece by preventing overload due to movement of the robot arm in a manner which could cause disengagement of the object to the gripper in order to prevent failure in the process and damage to the object being transported due to disengagement from force overload.
Regarding Claim 2, Schnoor teaches:
A robot comprising:
a robot arm (1.0);
a controller configured to control the robot arm [0001 & 0018];
wherein the controller is configured to control the robot arm to prevent a force applied to the robot arm due to inertia force of the workpiece caused by moving the workpiece with the robot arm from exceeding a predetermined value while the robot arm is operating [0046 & 0057 & 0058 & 0061],
wherein the robot further comprises a movable connection part (5.8 & 5.8a & 5.9) connecting the workpiece holder to a base (5.1 & 5.2 & 5.3) provided at a distal end of the robot (Fig. 5a & Fig. 5c) [0053 & 0054 & 0055] so that the workpiece holder is displaceable in an escape direction of an inertia force acting on the workpiece [0053 & 0054],
wherein the movable connection part has a rotation support mechanism to which the workpiece holder, is connected, and the rotation support mechanism is configured to support the workpiece holder in a freely swingable manner about at least an axis orthogonal to a moving-direction of the workpiece (Fig. 5a & Fig. 5c) [0053 & 0054 & 0055], and,
wherein, when the robot arm executes a motion in a state in which the workpiece is held by the workpiece holder, the workpiece holder swings due to the inertia force so as to prevent the workpiece inertia force from exceeding a predetermined value while the robot arm is operating (Fig. 4 & Fig. 5a & Fig. 5c) [0053 & 0054 & 0055].
wherein the movable connection part is configured so that the workpiece holder swings in response to movement of the workpiece by the robot arm (Fig. 4 & Fig. 5a & Fig. 5c) [0049 & 0050 & 0053 & 0054 & 0055], and
wherein he movable connection part is capable of mitigating inertia during acceleration of the system thereby preventing the inertia of the workpiece from exceeding a predetermined value while the robot arm is operating (Fig. 4 & Fig. 5a & Fig. 5c) [0053 & 0054 & 0055].
Schnoor does not explicitly teach:
the controller has a safety stop function to stop the robot arm for safety based on a force applied to the robot arm;
the workpiece holder prevents an erroneous stop of the robot arm caused by the safety stop function.
Ramunas teaches:
A robot comprising:
a robot arm (12);
a controller (44) configured to control the robot arm [Column 3 Lines 6-55]; and
a workpiece holder (13) capable of holding a workpiece [abstract & Column 1 Lines 6-10 & 64-68 & Column 2 Lines 29-35],
wherein the controller has a safety stop function to stop the robot arm for safety based on a force applied to the robot arm [abstract & Column 1 Lines 32-68 & Column 2 Liens 1-12 & Column 2 Lines 29-39 & Column 3 Lines 18-68 & Column 4 Lines 36-66],
wherein the robot further comprises a movable connection part (51 & 52 & 53 & 77 & 78 & 79) connecting the workpiece holder to a base (22) provided at a distal end of the robot so that the workpiece holder is displaceable in an escape direction of an inertia force acting on the workpiece [Column 3 Lines 56-68 & Column 4 Lines 1-68 & Column 5 Lines 1-9],
wherein the movable connection unit comprises a first linear movement mechanism (79) that is fixed to the base and that has a first slider linearly movable in a first horizontal direction, and a second linear movement mechanism (77 & 78) that is supported by the first slider and that has a second slider (77) linearly movable in a second horizontal direction orthogonal to the first horizontal direction (Fig. 5 & Fig. 6 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8) [Column 4 Lines 23-66],
wherein the workpiece holder is supported by the second slider of the second linear movement mechanism (Fig. 5 & Fig. 6 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8) [Column 4 Lines 23-66], and
wherein, when the robot arm executes a motion in a state in which the workpiece is held by the workpiece holder, the workpiece holder is displaced due to the inertia force so as to prevent an erroneous stop of the robot arm caused by the safety stop function [Column 4 Lines 23-668 & Column 5 Lines 1-20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handling robot taught by Schnoor with the handling robot with external force sensing and shutdown protection controller that is configured to stop the robot arm when a force applied to the robot arm due to inertia force of the workpiece caused by moving the workpiece with the robot arm exceeds a predetermined value while the robot arm is operating, where the controller has a safety stop function to stop the robot arm for safety based on a force applied to the robot arm taught by Ramunas in order to provide a means of preventing damage to the transfer robot and workpiece by preventing overload due to movement of the robot arm in a manner which could cause disengagement of the object to the gripper in order to prevent failure in the process and damage to the object being transported due to disengagement from force overload.
Regarding Claim 4, Schnoor discloses:
the rotation support mechanism is a universal joint or a spherical bearing (Fig. 5a & Fig. 5c) [0053 & 0054 & 0055].
Regarding Claim 7, Schnoor teaches:
an urging means (5.11 & 5.12) provided between the base and the workpiece holder to forcibly return the workpiece holder toward a standard position relative to the base [0055].
Regarding Claim 8, Schnoor does not teach:
the workpiece holder is a hook on which the workpiece is hung.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a hook instead of a gripper for holding an article to be supported in order to provide a means for securing an article with a curved shape more securely to prevent loss of an article being transferred since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that hooks for supporting transferred articles were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 9, Schnoor teaches:
the workpiece holder is a hand that grips the workpiece [0006 & 0008].
Regarding Claim 10, Schnoor teaches:
the workpiece holder is a suction device that attracts the workpiece [0006 & 0009 & 0043 & 0047].
Regarding Claim 13, Schnoor teaches:
the workpiece holder is configured to hang the workpiece through a hanging member (5.2 & 5.8 & 5.8a & 5.9 & 5.10 & 5.3),
an upper part (5.2 & 5.8) of the hanging member is held by the workpiece holder, and the hanging member and the workpiece swing around the upper part due to the inertia force (Fig. 4 & Fig. 5a).
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramunas (US 4797564 A) in view of Angerer et al. (US 20240091843 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Ramunas teaches:
A robot comprising:
a robot arm (12);
a controller (44) configured to control the robot arm [Column 3 Lines 6-55]; and
a workpiece holder (13) capable of holding a workpiece [abstract & Column 1 Lines 6-10 & 64-68 & Column 2 Lines 29-35],
wherein the controller has a safety stop function to stop the robot arm for safety based on a force applied to the robot arm [abstract & Column 1 Lines 32-68 & Column 2 Liens 1-12 & Column 2 Lines 29-39 & Column 3 Lines 18-68 & Column 4 Lines 36-66],
wherein the robot further comprises a movable connection part (51 & 52 & 53 & 77 & 78 & 79) connecting the workpiece holder to a base (22) provided at a distal end of the robot so that the workpiece holder is displaceable in an escape direction of an inertia force acting on the workpiece [Column 3 Lines 56-68 & Column 4 Lines 1-68 & Column 5 Lines 1-9],
wherein the movable connection unit comprises a first linear movement mechanism (79) that is fixed to the base and that has a first slider linearly movable in a first horizontal direction, and a second linear movement mechanism (77 & 78) that is supported by the first slider and that has a second slider (77) linearly movable in a second horizontal direction orthogonal to the first horizontal direction (Fig. 5 & Fig. 6 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8) [Column 4 Lines 23-66],
wherein the workpiece holder is supported by the second slider of the second linear movement mechanism (Fig. 5 & Fig. 6 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8) [Column 4 Lines 23-66], and
wherein, when the robot arm executes a motion in a state in which the workpiece is held by the workpiece holder, the workpiece holder is displaced due to the inertia force so as to prevent an erroneous stop of the robot arm caused by the safety stop function by movement of the linear movement mechanisms caused be the inertia force acting through the workpiece holder, on the linear movement mechanisms [Column 4 Lines 23-68 & Column 5 Lines 1-20].
Ramunas does not teach:
the movable connection part comprises a rotatable member that is attached to the base member and that is rotatable around a rotation axis extending in an up-down direction,
wherein a proximal end of the workpiece holder is attached to the rotatable member so that the proximal end is distant from the rotation axis at any time even when the rotatable member rotates.
Angerer teaches:
A workpiece transferring tool (12 & 13 & 14 & 16 & 16 & 17 & 18 & 19 & 20 & 21 & 22 & 23 & 24 & 25 & 26 & 27 & 28) comprising:
a base (20) mounted on a distal end of a wrist of a robot (6 & 8 & 10) (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2) [0053 & 0054 & 0055 & 0056 & 0057 & 0058];
a rotatable member (12) that is attached to the base member and that is rotatable around a rotation axis (11) of a distal end of the wrist (Fig. 2) [0053 & 0054 & 0056]; and
a workpiece holder (13) whose proximal end is attached to the rotatable member (Fig. 2), wherein a workpiece (16) is hung on a distal end of the workpiece holder [0013 & 0017 & 0018 & 0022],
wherein the proximal end of the workpiece holder is attached to the rotatable member so that the proximal end is distant from the rotation axis at any time (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handling robot utilizing inertia driven cartesian workpiece holder mount movable part for preventing damage to the robot taught by Ramunas with the handling robot a workpiece holder mounted to a movable part on the wrist, the movable part comprises a rotatable member that is attached to the base member and that is rotatable around a rotation axis extending in an up-down direction, where a proximal end of the workpiece holder is attached to the rotatable member so that the proximal end is distant from the rotation axis at any time even when the rotatable member rotates taught by Angerer in order to provide a means of preventing damage to the transfer robot and workpiece by preventing overload due to movement of the robot arm in a manner which could cause disengagement of the object to the gripper which better compensated for arcuate motion of the robot wrist in order to prevent failure in the process and damage to the object being transported due to disengagement from force overload.
Regarding Claim 15, Ramunas teaches:
the movable connection part is configured so that the workpiece holder is displaced in response to movement of the workpiece by the robot arm [Column 4 Lines 23-68 & Column 5 Lines 1-20], and
the movable connection partis capable of preventing the erroneous stop due to an effect of the inertia force by keeping the safety stop function for the safety not executed by the inertia force while keeping the safety stop function workable for a safety purpose [Column 4 Lines 23-68 & Column 5 Lines 1-20].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/06/22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1, especially as it relates to the limitation of “the workpiece holder swings due to the inertia force so as to prevent an erroneous stop of the robot arm caused by the safety stop function”:
Applicant’s assertion that Ramunas does not teach or suggest a situation where the movement of the tool by an inertia force becomes a problem and therefore cannot teach displacing the tool by an inertia force to prevent an erroneous stop of the robot or a stop of the robot is not persuasive as features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Per MPEP 2114.I. In this case the structure of Ramunas is capable of accomplishing all of the functional limitations in the claim.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 11, especially as it relates to the limitation of “the workpiece holder is displaced due to the inertia force so as to prevent an erroneous stop of the robot arm caused by the safety stop function”:
Applicant’s assertion that Ramunas does not teach or suggest a situation where the movement of the tool by an inertia force becomes a problem and therefore cannot teach displacing the tool by an inertia force to prevent an erroneous stop of the robot or a stop of the robot is not persuasive as features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Per MPEP 2114.I. In this case the structure of Ramunas is capable of accomplishing all of the functional limitations in the claim.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 12, especially as it relates to the limitation of “the workpiece holder is displaced due to the inertia force so as to prevent an erroneous stop of the robot arm caused by the safety stop function”:
Applicant’s assertion that Ramunas does not teach or suggest a situation where the movement of the tool by an inertia force becomes a problem and therefore cannot teach displacing the tool by an inertia force to prevent an erroneous stop of the robot or a stop of the robot is not persuasive as features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Per MPEP 2114.I. In this case the structure of Ramunas is capable of accomplishing all of the functional limitations in the claim.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 6, especially as it relates to the limitation of “the rotatable member rotates due to an inertia force acting on the workpiece by moving the workpiece by the robot”:
Applicants assertion that the apparatus of Angerer does not disclose that the rotatable member rotates due to an inertia force acting on the workpiece by moving the workpiece by the robot is not persuasive as the rotatable member would necessarily rotate due to inertial force acting on the workpiece when stopping the workpiece during rotation due to the elastic nature of the belt (28).
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 13, especially as it relates to the limitation of “the workpiece holder is configured to hang the workpiece through a hanging member, an upper part of the hanging member is held by the workpiece holder, and the hanging member and the workpiece swing around the upper part due to the inertia force”:
Applicant’s assertion that neither Schnoor nor Ramunas teaches that the workpiece holder is configured to hang the workpiece through a hanging member, an upper part of the hanging member is held by the workpiece holder, and the hanging member and the workpiece swing around the upper part due to the inertia force is not persuasive as Schnoor teaches: the workpiece holder is configured to hang the workpiece through a hanging member (5.2 & 5.8 & 5.8a & 5.9 & 5.10 & 5.3), an upper part (5.2 & 5.8) of the hanging member is held by the workpiece holder, and the hanging member and the workpiece swing around the upper part due to the inertia force (Fig. 4 & Fig. 5a).
Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE as it relates to the use of a hook instead of a gripper for holding an article to be supported in order to provide a means for securing an article with a curved shape more securely to prevent loss of an article being transferred is taken to be admitted prior art due to the Applicant's failure to traverse the Examiner's assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patent publication US 20220161419 A1 has been cited by the examiner as pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure because it teaches: a robotic arm utilizing a universal joint for movement between the distal end of the arm and gripper.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN P TIGHE whose telephone number is 571-272-4872. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30 EST
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAUL RODRIGUEZ can be reached on 571-272-7097. 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.
/BRENDAN P TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/GREGORY W ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
