DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 4, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-9 and 11-19 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.
Claim 1 (lines 7-10) and claim 11 (lines 7-10) each recite “where the collaborative space includes an operator interface configured so that the operator and articulated arm have coincident or coexisting access to the operator interface for pick or place operations of a workpiece in a collaborative action of the operator and the articulated arm”.
Claims 1 and 11 each fail to recite any limitations which enable one to properly determine what structural features define an “operator interface” such that it is “configured so that the operator and articulated arm have coincident or coexisting access to the operator interface for pick or place operations of a workpiece in a collaborative action of the operator and the articulated arm”. It is unclear as to whether such “operator interface” is merely defined by the workspace defined by the collaborative space, which is merely capable of allowing the operator and articulated arm to have coexisting access thereto such to be capable of allowing pick or place operations of a workpiece in a collaborative action; or whether such “operator interface” is defined by specific structural elements, such as the workpiece holding station or the mobile carts from which and to which such workpiece is transported, respectively. Accordingly, one is unable to properly determine the metes and bounds of such claims. Claims 2-9 and 12-19 depend from claims 1 and 11 and are likewise rejected as being indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knasel et al. (US 4,786,769).
As to claim 1 as best understood, Knasel et al. disclose a robotic transport system comprising:
a frame A (Figure 1 reprinted below with annotations);
a drive section B connected to the frame;
an articulated arm 18 operably coupled to the drive section providing the articulated arm with arm motion in at least one axis of motion moving at least a portion of the articulated arm In a collaborative space, corresponding to the frame, from a first location to another different location of at least the portion of the articulated arm in the collaborative space (a “collaborative space” is defined by the workspace surrounding the robotic transport system which encompasses the path of the transfer device; Figure 1; C2 L59-63), where the collaborative space includes an operator interface capable of allowing the operator and articulated arm to have coincident or coexisting access thereto such to be capable of allowing pick or place operations of a workpiece in a collaborative action of the operator and the articulated arm (the workspace surrounding the robotic transport system which encompasses the path of the transfer device includes a workspace defining an “operator interface” which is capable of allowing the operator and articulated arm 18 to have coexisting access thereto such to be capable of allowing pick or place operations of a workpiece in a collaborative action; Figure 1; C2 L59-63);
the articulated arm having an end effector C with a workpiece grip having workpiece engagement members 26 engaging and holding a workpiece during workpiece transport, by the arm motion in the at least one axis of motion;
wherein at least one of the workpiece engagement members is frangible compliant, having a frangible compliant coupling 25 between a distal portion of the at least one of the workpiece engagement members and a base portion 21 of the end effector from which the at least one of the workpiece engagement members depends (upon impact with an object in the tool path, break-away slip coupling 25, upon relative movement and separation between balls 58 and contact plates 61, stops all movement of the robot; the separation between the balls and contact plates and the resultant drive slip thus defining a “frangible compliant” coupling; Figures 1-6; C4 L23-34).
[AltContent: textbox (C)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
352
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Knasel et al. inherently disclose that the frangible compliant coupling 25 has a yield force that complies with industry safety standards effecting operability of the portion of the articulated arm 18 at the operator interface within the collaborative space (upon impact with an object in the tool path, break-away slip coupling 25 stops all movement of the robot; Figures 1-6; C4 L23-34).
Knasel et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the frangible compliant coupling has a yield force that complies with at least one of ANSI R 15.06 standards, ISO 10218-1 standards, or ISO/TS-15066 standards. Knasel et al. do not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the yield force of the frangible compliant coupling, nor the specific yield force of the industry safety standards to which the coupling has been designed to stop all movement of the robot.
It is well-known and readily-apparent within the art for a frangible compliant coupling within the robotics industry to have a yield force that complies with at least one of ANSI R 15.06 standards, ISO 10218-1 standards, or ISO/TS-15066 standards in order to meet current industry safety standards. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frangible compliant coupling disclosed by Knasel et al. to have a yield force that complies with at least one of ANSI R 15.06 standards, ISO 10218-1 standards, or ISO/TS-15066 standards, as it is well-known and readily-apparent within the art for a frangible compliant coupling within the robotics industry to have a yield force that complies with at least one of ANSI R 15.06 standards, ISO 10218-1 standards, or ISO/TS-15066 standards in order to meet current industry safety standards.
Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that the optimization of proportions in a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Reese, 290 F.2d 839, 129 USPQ 402 (CCPA 1961). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, to modify the frangible compliant coupling disclosed by Knasel et al. to have a yield force that complies with at least one of ANSI R 15.06 standards, ISO 10218-1 standards, or ISO/TS-15066 standards, as Knasel et al. do not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the yield force of the frangible compliant coupling, nor the specific yield force of the industry safety standards to which the coupling has been designed to stop all movement of the robot, and as such optimization is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results; as it would expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment to arrive at the optimum or workable material characteristics for a given application.
As to claim 2, Knasel et al. disclose a robotic transport system wherein the at least one of the workpiece engagement members 26 is frangible compliant so that the at least one of the workpiece engagement members breaks away from the end effector C during unintended contact between the at least one of the workpiece engagement members and an obstruction in the arm motion in the at least one axis of motion of the articulated arm 18 (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 3, Knasel et al. disclose a robotic transport system wherein the at least one of the workpiece engagement members 26 breaks away from the end effector C during unintended contact with an obstruction in each axis of the arm motion in at least one axis of motion of the articulated arm 18 (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 4, Knasel et al. disclose a robotic transport system wherein the at least one of the workpiece engagement members 26 is frangible compliant so that the at least one of the workpiece engagement members breaks away from the end effector C at the frangible compliant coupling 25 during unintended contact with an obstruction in arm motion in each axis of the at least one axis of motion of the articulated arm 18 (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 5, Knasel et al. disclose a robotic transport system wherein the frangible compliant coupling 25 has as a frangible interface 72,87 between a coupling portion of the base portion 21 of the end effector C and a mating coupling portion of the at least one of the workpiece engagement members 26 (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 6, Knasel et al. disclose a robotic transport system wherein the frangible compliant coupling 25 is configured so that the at least one of the workpiece engagement members 26 is substantially rigid relative to the base portion 21 of the end effector C with respect to each axis of the arm motion in at least one axis of motion of the articulated arm 18 (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 7, Knasel et al. disclose a robotic transport system wherein the frangible compliant coupling 25 has a workpiece engagement member interface with deterministic features 42,58 repeatably positioning the at least one of the workpiece engagement members 26 with respect to predetermined reference datum of the articulated arm 18 (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 8, Knasel et al. disclose a robotic transfer system wherein the predetermined reference datum of the articulated arm 18 is aligned with a workpiece transport plane defined in part by the arm motion in at least one axis of motion (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 9, Knasel et al. disclose a robotic transfer system wherein the frangible compliant coupling deterministic features 42,58 define a snap on engagement interface mating with complementing features of the at least one of the workpiece engagement members 26 (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 11 as best understood, Knasel et al. disclose a method comprising:
providing a drive section B connected to a frame A of a robotic transport system;
providing an articulated arm 18 having an end effector C with a workpiece grip having workpiece engagement members 26, the articulated arm operably coupled to the drive section providing the articulated arm with robot motion in at least one axis moving at least a portion of the articulated arm in a collaborative space, corresponding to the frame, from a first location to another different location of at least the portion of the articulated arm in the collaborative space (a “collaborative space” is defined by the workspace surrounding the robotic transport system which encompasses the path of the transfer device; Figure 1; C2 L59-63), where the collaborative space includes an operator interface capable of allowing the operator and articulated arm to have coincident or coexisting access thereto such to be capable of allowing pick or place operations of a workpiece in a collaborative action of the operator and the articulated arm (the workspace surrounding the robotic transport system which encompasses the path of the transfer device includes a workspace defining an “operator interface” which is capable of allowing the operator and articulated arm 18 to have coexisting access thereto such to be capable of allowing pick or place operations of a workpiece in a collaborative action; Figure 1; C2 L59-63);
engaging and holding a workpiece with the workpiece engagement members during workpiece transfer, by the arm motion in the at least one axis of motion;
wherein at least one of the workpiece engagement members is frangible compliant, having a frangible compliant coupling 25 between a distal portion of the at least one of the workpiece engagement members and a base portion 21 of the end effector from which the at least one of the workpiece engagement members depends (upon impact with an object in the tool path, break-away slip coupling 25, upon relative movement and separation between balls 58 and contact plates 61, stops all movement of the robot; the separation between the balls and contact plates and the resultant drive slip thus defining a “frangible compliant” coupling; Figures 1-6; C4 L23-34).
Knasel et al. inherently disclose that the frangible compliant coupling 25 has a yield force that complies with industry safety standards effecting operability of the portion of the articulated arm 18 at the operator interface within the collaborative space (upon impact with an object in the tool path, break-away slip coupling 25 stops all movement of the robot; Figures 1-6; C4 L23-34).
Knasel et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the frangible compliant coupling has a yield force that complies with at least one of ANSI R 15.06 standards, ISO 10218-1 standards, or ISO/TS-15066 standards. Knasel et al. do not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the yield force of the frangible compliant coupling, nor the specific yield force of the industry safety standards to which the coupling has been designed to stop all movement of the robot.
It is well-known and readily-apparent within the art for a frangible compliant coupling within the robotics industry to have a yield force that complies with at least one of ANSI R 15.06 standards, ISO 10218-1 standards, or ISO/TS-15066 standards in order to meet current industry safety standards. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frangible compliant coupling disclosed by Knasel et al. to have a yield force that complies with at least one of ANSI R 15.06 standards, ISO 10218-1 standards, or ISO/TS-15066 standards, as it is well-known and readily-apparent within the art for a frangible compliant coupling within the robotics industry to have a yield force that complies with at least one of ANSI R 15.06 standards, ISO 10218-1 standards, or ISO/TS-15066 standards in order to meet current industry safety standards.
Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that the optimization of proportions in a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Reese, 290 F.2d 839, 129 USPQ 402 (CCPA 1961). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, to modify the frangible compliant coupling disclosed by Knasel et al. to have a yield force that complies with at least one of ANSI R 15.06 standards, ISO 10218-1 standards, or ISO/TS-15066 standards, as Knasel et al. do not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the yield force of the frangible compliant coupling, nor the specific yield force of the industry safety standards to which the coupling has been designed to stop all movement of the robot, and as such optimization is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results; as it would expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment to arrive at the optimum or workable material characteristics for a given application.
As to claim 12, Knasel et al. disclose a method comprising breaking the at least one of the workpiece engagement members 26 away from the end effector C during unintended contact between the at least one of the workpiece engagement members and an obstruction in the arm motion in the at least one axis motion of the articulated arm 18 (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 13, Knasel et al. disclose a method comprising breaking the at least one of the workpiece engagement members 26 away from the end effector C during unintended contact with an obstruction in each axis of the arm motion in at least one axis of motion of the articulated arm 18 (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 14, Knasel et al. disclose a method comprising breaking the at least one of the workpiece engagement members 26 away from the end effector C at the frangible compliant coupling 25 during unintended contact with an obstruction in each axis or the arm motion in at least one axis of motion of the articulated arm 18 (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 15, Knasel et al. disclose a method wherein the frangible compliant coupling 25 has as a frangible interface 72,87 between a coupling portion of the base portion 21 of the end effector C and a mating coupling portion of the at least one of the workpiece engagement members 26 (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 16, Knasel et al. disclose a method wherein the frangible compliant coupling 25 is configured so that the at least one of the workpiece engagement members 26 is substantially rigid relative to the base portion 21 of the end effector C with respect to each axis of the arm motion in at least one axis of motion of the articulated arm 18 (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 17, Knasel et al. disclose a method comprising repeatably positioning the at least one of the workpiece engagement members 26 with respect to predetermined reference datum of the articulated arm with deterministic features 42,58 of a workpiece engagement member interface of the frangible compliant coupling 25 (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 18, Knasel et al. disclose a method wherein the predetermined reference datum of the articulated arm 18 is aligned with a workpiece transport plane defined in part by the arm motion in at least one axis of motion (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 19, Knasel et al. disclose a method wherein the frangible compliant coupling deterministic features 42,58 define a snap on engagement interface mating with complementing features of the at least one of the workpiece engagement members 26 (Figures 1-6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 04, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to claims 1 and 11, Attorney argues that:
Knasel et al. fail to disclose a robotic transport system where the collaborative space includes an operator interface configured so that the operator and articulated arm have coincident or coexisting access to the operator interface for pick or place operations of a workpiece in a collaborative action of the operator and the articulated arm.
Examiner disagrees. As to claims 1 and 11 as best understood, Knasel et al. disclose a robotic transport system where the collaborative space includes an operator interface capable of allowing the operator and articulated arm 18 to have coincident or coexisting access thereto such to be capable of allowing pick or place operations of a workpiece in a collaborative action of the operator and the articulated arm (the workspace surrounding the robotic transport system which encompasses the path of the transfer device includes a workspace defining an “operator interface” which is capable of allowing the operator and articulated arm 18 to have coexisting access thereto such to be capable of allowing pick or place operations of a workpiece in a collaborative action; Figure 1; C2 L59-63).
Examiner notes that claims 1 and 11 each fail to recite any limitations which enable one to properly determine what structural features define an “operator interface” such that it is “configured so that the operator and articulated arm have coincident or coexisting access to the operator interface for pick or place operations of a workpiece in a collaborative action of the operator and the articulated arm”. It is unclear as to whether such “operator interface” is merely defined by the workspace defined by the collaborative space, which is merely capable of allowing the operator and articulated arm to have coexisting access thereto such to be capable of allowing pick or place operations of a workpiece in a collaborative action; or whether such “operator interface” is defined by specific structural elements, such as the workpiece holding station or the mobile carts from which and to which such workpiece is transported, respectively. Accordingly, one is unable to properly determine the metes and bounds of such claims.
As to claims 1 and 11, Attorney further argues that:
It would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frangible compliant coupling disclosed by Knasel et al. to have a yield force that complies with at least one of ANSI R 15.06 standards, ISO 10218-1 standards, or ISO/TS-15066 standards, as it is not well-known and readily-apparent within the art for a frangible compliant coupling within the robotics industry to have a yield force that complies with at least one of ANSI R 15.06 standards, ISO 10218-1 standards, or ISO/TS-15066 standards, and as it would not be expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment to arrive at such standards.
Examiner disagrees. As to claims 1 and 11, Knasel et al. inherently disclose that the frangible compliant coupling 25 has a yield force that complies with industry safety standards effecting operability of the portion of the articulated arm 18 within the collaborative space (upon impact with an object in the tool path, break-away slip coupling 25 stops all movement of the robot; Figures 1-6; C4 L23-34).
Knasel et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the frangible compliant coupling has a yield force that complies with at least one of ANSI R 15.06 standards, ISO 10218-1 standards, or ISO/TS-15066 standards. Knasel et al. do not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the yield force of the frangible compliant coupling, nor the specific yield force of the industry safety standards to which the coupling has been designed to stop all movement of the robot.
It is well-known and readily-apparent within the art for a frangible compliant coupling within the robotics industry to have a yield force that complies with at least one of ANSI R 15.06 standards, ISO 10218-1 standards, or ISO/TS-15066 standards in order to meet current industry safety standards. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frangible compliant coupling disclosed by Knasel et al. to have a yield force that complies with at least one of ANSI R 15.06 standards, ISO 10218-1 standards, or ISO/TS-15066 standards, as it is well-known and readily-apparent within the art for a frangible compliant coupling within the robotics industry to have a yield force that complies with at least one of ANSI R 15.06 standards, ISO 10218-1 standards, or ISO/TS-15066 standards in order to meet current industry safety standards.
Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that the optimization of proportions in a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Reese, 290 F.2d 839, 129 USPQ 402 (CCPA 1961). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, to modify the frangible compliant coupling disclosed by Knasel et al. to have a yield force that complies with at least one of ANSI R 15.06 standards, ISO 10218-1 standards, or ISO/TS-15066 standards, as Knasel et al. do not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the yield force of the frangible compliant coupling, nor the specific yield force of the industry safety standards to which the coupling has been designed to stop all movement of the robot, and as such optimization is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results; as it would expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment to arrive at the optimum or workable material characteristics for a given application.
As to Attorney’s arguments that it is not well-known and readily-apparent within the art for a frangible compliant coupling within the robotics industry to have a yield force that complies with at least one of ANSI R 15.06 standards, ISO 10218-1 standards, or ISO/TS-15066 standards, and that it would not be expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment to arrive at such standards, Examiner notes that such allegations are clearly contradictory to the presence and purpose of such standards within the industry; and are mere conjecture. Inherently, manufacturing products to such standards is well-known and readily-apparent to all manufacturers within the robotics industry, as failure to comply with such standards would not enable a manufacturer’s product not be readily distributed and utilized.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7081. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (10:00 am-7:00 pm EST).
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571)270-5788. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
06/05/26
/MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights