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 .
Status of claims
The following claims have been rejected or allowed for the following reasons:
Claim(s) 1-23 is rejected under 35 USC § 103
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 63/162,875, filed on 03/18/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement/statements (IDS) were filed on 8/9/22, 2/2/23, 4/25/24, 9/19/24, 2/19/25, 3/20/25, 5/5/25, 11/6/25 The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-9, 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over as applied to Thome (WO 2011144876 A1), in further view of Behringer (US 20200338755 A1);
Regarding claim 1 Thome teaches A multi-mode robot end effector, comprising: a first set of structures configured to grasp objects in a first mode of operation; a retraction mechanism configured to retract the first set of structures to a stowed position associated with a second mode of operation in response to a retraction command; and a second set of structures configured to grasp objects in a second mode of operation. (Thome page 2 paragraph 13 reads “It proposes for this purpose an object gripping system comprising a base intended to be fixed on a robotized assembly, receiving a first gripping means comprising a gripper, and a second gripping means, these two means being able to be put in automatically gripping position to use one or the other of these means, characterized in that the second gripping means is mounted on a movable support which can retract back from the end of the clamp closer to the base, to leave the clamp in the working position, or to deploy in front of the end of the clamp to come himself in a working position.”);
wherein the retraction mechanism retracts the first set of structures (Thome page 3 paragraph 13 reads “It will be noted that the arrangement of the links 38, 40 makes it possible to obtain a bulk of the guiding and deployment means which never exceeds the right or left sides of the base 2, in all the deployment positions. This arrangement provides the gripping system 21 a small width, which allows to go into a narrow box and retract or deploy the suction cups 30, 32 inside the box.”);
Thome does not teach the second set of structures including a movable side panel disposed opposite a stationary side panel and a linear actuator configured to move the movable side panel towards the stationary side panel in response to a command to grasp a given object in the second mode of operation;
to a position located between the movable side panel and the stationary side panel in a location that does not interface with moving the movable side panel towards the stationary side panel to grasp the given object in the second mode of operation.
Behringer in analogous art, teaches the second set of structures including a movable side panel disposed opposite a stationary side panel and a linear actuator configured to move the movable side panel towards the stationary side panel in response to a command to grasp a given object in the second mode of operation; (Behringer [0020] reads “The two gripping jaws can be moved toward one another and, for the release of the folding box stack, also away from one another. Said movement can take place hydraulically, pneumatically or by means of an electric motor, for example a servomotor. It can be provided in one possible refinement of the invention that one gripping jaw is attached fixedly on a longitudinal carrier and the other gripping jaw is held on the longitudinal carrier such that it can be adjusted along a linear guide.”);
to a position located between the movable side panel and the stationary side panel in a location that does not interface with moving the movable side panel towards the stationary side panel to grasp the given object in the second mode of operation. (Behringer figure 5 depicts the use of two side panels that are being used to grasp an object while a second set of suction cups are being retracted out of the way.);
PNG
media_image1.png
543
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Behringer figure 5
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Thome with that of Behringer to include one sided linearly actuated side panels and a suction mechanism that would fit between them. This would allow for the device to effectively move its contents. (Behringer abstract reads “A folding box stack transferring apparatus in a packaging machine has a gripping apparatus which is arranged on an adjustable manipulator. The gripping apparatus has at least two gripping jaws which can be moved toward one another in a clamping direction and between which the folding box stack can be clamped. In addition, a suction apparatus is provided which can be adjusted by means of an adjusting apparatus in such a way that the suction apparatus can be brought selectively into or out of contact with the surface of the folding box stack. In the case of the transfer of a folding box stack, the suction apparatus is brought into contact with the surface of the folding box stack, and the suction apparatus is activated at least temporarily during the transfer of the folding box stack.”);
Regarding claim 4 Thome/Behringer teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 1, wherein the first mode of operation comprises a suction mode of operation and the first set of structures includes one or more suction elements configured to grasp objects using suction force. (Thome page 2 paragraph 23 reads “According to one embodiment, the second gripping means comprises at least one suction cup using an air vacuum to grasp the objects.”);
Regarding claim 6 Thome/Behringer teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 4, wherein the one or more suction elements includes a set of one or more suction cups. (Thome page 2 paragraph 23 reads “According to one embodiment, the second gripping means comprises at least one suction cup using an air vacuum to grasp the objects.”);
Regarding claim 7 Thome/Behringer teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 1, wherein the first mode of operation comprises a suction mode of operation and the second mode of operation comprises a clamping mode of operation. (Thome page 2 paragraph 4 reads “It is necessary for certain uses, to have at the end of the arm of the robot two types of gripper, for example a clamp and suction cups, to allow the taking of various parts that will be suitable for one or the other of these types of gripper.”);
Regarding claim 8 Thome/Behringer teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 7, wherein the second set of structures includes a set of two or more grippers (Thome page 2 paragraph 9 reads “The base comprises on two opposite sides parallel to the axis of the pivot, on one side a clamp having two parallel spouts, on the other side a vacuum gripper plate mounted at the end of an extension.”);
and in the second mode of operation a target object is grasped by clamping the target object between the two or more grippers. (Thome page 2 paragraph 10 reads “Thus obtaining a gripper comprising two gripping means according to the objects to be taken, the clamp which can tighten an object by tightening its two beaks towards each other, or the gripping plate which comes into contact with an object substantially at to x this object by creating a depression on its active front face.”);
Regarding claim 9 Thome/Behringer teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 8, wherein the two or more grippers include two flat panels. (Thome figure 1 shows a gripper with two flat panels);
PNG
media_image2.png
338
369
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thome figure 1
Regarding claim 13 Thome/Behringer teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 1, wherein the first mode of operation comprises a clamping mode of operation and the second mode of operation comprises a suction mode of operation. (Thome page 2 paragraph 4 reads “It is necessary for certain uses, to have at the end of the arm of the robot two types of gripper, for example a clamp and suction cups, to allow the taking of various parts that will be suitable for one or the other of these types of gripper.”);
Regarding claim 14 Thome/Behringer teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 13, wherein the first set of structures includes a clamping structure. (Thome page 2 paragraph 10 reads “Thus obtaining a gripper comprising two gripping means according to the objects to be taken, the clamp which can tighten an object by tightening its two beaks towards each other, or the gripping plate which comes into contact with an object substantially at to x this object by creating a depression on its active front face.”);
Regarding claim 15 Thome/Behringer teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 14, wherein the first set of structures includes a clamping structure. (Thome page 2 paragraph 10 reads “Thus obtaining a gripper comprising two gripping means according to the objects to be taken, the clamp which can tighten an object by tightening its two beaks towards each other, or the gripping plate which comes into contact with an object substantially at to x this object by creating a depression on its active front face.”);
Regarding claim 16 Thome/Behringer teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 15, wherein the clamping structure has a horizontally oriented clamping interface. (Thorne figure 1 depicts a mechanical gripper with a horizontally oriented clamping surface.);
PNG
media_image2.png
338
369
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thome figure 1
Regarding claim 17 Thome/Behringer teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 15, wherein the clamping structure is retracted by the retracting mechanism to a stowed position located between two or more suction elements comprising the second set of structures. (Thome figure 1 shows that the clamping mechanism can be retracted in between different sets of suction elements.);
Regarding claim 18 Thome/Behringer teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 1, wherein the retraction mechanism includes a linkage. (Thone figure 1 depicts linkage members that are used to retract the gripper elements.);
PNG
media_image2.png
338
369
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thome figure 1
Regarding claim 19 Thome/Behringer teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 1, wherein the retraction mechanism includes a linear actuator. (Thome figure 1 depicts a linear actuator that is used to extend or retract the linkage mechanisms.);
PNG
media_image2.png
338
369
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thome figure 1
Claim(s) 2, 3, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Thome/Behringer, in further view of Nakamoto (EP 3623324 A1).
Regarding claim 2 Thome/Behringer teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 1.
Thome/Behringer does not teach further comprising a mode of operation controller configured to actuate the retraction mechanism to retract the first set of structures to the stowed position in response to the retraction command.
Nakamoto in analogous art, teaches further comprising a mode of operation controller configured to actuate the retraction mechanism to retract the first set of structures to the stowed position in response to the retraction command. (Nakamoto [0008] reads “The processor is configured to move the arm and the grip based on the determination, and take out the one or more packages from the placement portion by moving the arm and the grip while at least one of the one or more packages is grasped by the grip. The frictional grasping is for frictionally grasping the one or more packages by the grip. The suction grasping is for grasping the one or more packages by suction with the grip. The back face grasping is for grasping a back face of the one or more packages by the grip.” It would be known by one with ordinary skill in the art that when deciding which method of grip to take the command would include a selection of that gripper.);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Thome/Behringer with that of Nakamoto to include a system that could retract one of the sets of grippers. This would allow the gripper system to work with a wider range of objects that it could grasp. (Nakamoto [0003 - 0004] reads “In a case where the suction mechanism is used for the conveyance apparatus that performs unloading, it takes time to operate a pump to suction to the package and to release the suctioned package at the desired position. Thus, it is considered difficult to further speed up the unloading work by only using the suction mechanism. The packages include not only rectangular parallelepiped boxes but also ones with various shapes, such as cylindrical ones, envelopes folded as appropriate, and paper carrier bags. Moreover, depending on the exterior treatment of the packages, there are packages that cannot be grasped by the suction mechanism.”);
Regarding claim 3 Thome/Behringer/Nakamoto teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 2, wherein the retraction command comprises a command received from a control computer to transition from the first mode of operation to the second mode of operation. (Nakamoto [0008] reads “The processor is configured to move the arm and the grip based on the determination, and take out the one or more packages from the placement portion by moving the arm and the grip while at least one of the one or more packages is grasped by the grip. The frictional grasping is for frictionally grasping the one or more packages by the grip. The suction grasping is for grasping the one or more packages by suction with the grip. The back face grasping is for grasping a back face of the one or more packages by the grip.” It would be known by one with ordinary skill in the art that when deciding which method of grip to take the command would include a selection of that gripper.);
Regarding claim 20 Thome/Behringer teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 1.
Thome/Behringer does not teach wherein the retraction mechanism rotates 25 the first set of elements to a stowed position substantially perpendicular to a deployed position in which the first set of elements is placed to operate the end effector in the first mode of operation.
Nakamoto in analogous art, teaches wherein the retraction mechanism rotates 25 the first set of elements to a stowed position substantially perpendicular to a deployed position in which the first set of elements is placed to operate the end effector in the first mode of operation. (Nakamoto figures 3a and 3b depict how different modes of operation can be configured such that when stored they are substantially perpendicular from each other.);
PNG
media_image3.png
250
289
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
247
286
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Nakamoto figures 3a and 3b
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Thome/Behringer with that of Nakamoto to include a system that could retract one of the sets of grippers. This would allow the gripper system to work with a wider range of objects that it could grasp. (Nakamoto [0003 - 0004] reads “In a case where the suction mechanism is used for the conveyance apparatus that performs unloading, it takes time to operate a pump to suction to the package and to release the suctioned package at the desired position. Thus, it is considered difficult to further speed up the unloading work by only using the suction mechanism. The packages include not only rectangular parallelepiped boxes but also ones with various shapes, such as cylindrical ones, envelopes folded as appropriate, and paper carrier bags. Moreover, depending on the exterior treatment of the packages, there are packages that cannot be grasped by the suction mechanism.”);
Claim(s) 5, 11-12, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Thome/Behringer, in further view of Payton (US 20220118629 A1).
Regarding claim 5 Thome/Behringer teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 4.
Thome/Behringer does not teach wherein the one or more suction elements includes a foam type suction pad.
Payton in analogous art, teaches wherein the one or more suction elements includes a foam type suction pad. (Payton [0074] reads “The suction device 508 may be of various sizes and configurations, which may depend on the application or the item(s) to be picked. These may include, but are not limited to, single suction cup configurations, suction cup arrays, foam suction pads, gasket pads, jamming grippers, or any other type of suction-based gripping device whether available now or invented hereafter.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Thome/Behringer with that of Payton to include a foam type suction pad. This would allow the gripping system the ability to grasp both small and large items effectively. (Payton [0007 – 0009] reads “Even with these customization abilities, some items may nonetheless be difficult to grasp due to their small size. For example, small items have small suction sites that limit the number and size of suction cups that can be used (if the robotic picking device relies on suction-based techniques for grasping the items). Larger or heavier items, on the other hand, tend to swing and possibly detach from suction device(s) if moved quickly. If suction-based grippers are used, these larger or heavier items may require large suction cups and/or multiple, widely-spaced suction sites. This limits the range of items that a particular suction-based picking device can handle. A need exists, therefore, for robotic devices and methods that overcome the disadvantages of existing techniques.”);
Regarding claim 11 Thome/Behringer teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 7.
Thome/Behringer does not teach wherein in the clamping mode of operation a target object is grasped by clamping the target object between a panel included in the second set of structure and a structure included in the first set of structures.
Payton in analogous art, teaches wherein in the clamping mode of operation a target object is grasped by clamping the target object between a panel included in the second set of structure and a structure included in the first set of structures. (Payton [0011] reads “operating the suction device to generate a suction force on the item to obtain an initial grasp on the item; and actuating the at least one finger portion to stabilize the item.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Thome/Behringer with that of Payton to include a foam type suction pad. This would allow the gripping system the ability to grasp both small and large items effectively. (Payton [0007 – 0009] reads “Even with these customization abilities, some items may nonetheless be difficult to grasp due to their small size. For example, small items have small suction sites that limit the number and size of suction cups that can be used (if the robotic picking device relies on suction-based techniques for grasping the items). Larger or heavier items, on the other hand, tend to swing and possibly detach from suction device(s) if moved quickly. If suction-based grippers are used, these larger or heavier items may require large suction cups and/or multiple, widely-spaced suction sites. This limits the range of items that a particular suction-based picking device can handle. A need exists, therefore, for robotic devices and methods that overcome the disadvantages of existing techniques.”);
Regarding claim 12 Thome/Behringer/Payton teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 11, wherein the structure included in the first set of structures comprises a foam type suction pad. (Payton [0074] reads “The suction device 508 may be of various sizes and configurations, which may depend on the application or the item(s) to be picked. These may include, but are not limited to, single suction cup configurations, suction cup arrays, foam suction pads, gasket pads, jamming grippers, or any other type of suction-based gripping device whether available now or invented hereafter.”);
Regarding claim 23 Thome/Behringer teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 1.
Thome does not teach the second set of elements includes two or more clamping elements angled inward toward a central vertical axis of the end effector.
Payton in analogous art, teaches the second set of elements includes two or more clamping elements angled inward toward a central vertical axis of the end effector. (Payton figure 11a depicts robotic grippers that close to angle inwards towards a central axis.);
PNG
media_image5.png
192
198
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Payton figure 11a
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Thome/Behringer with that of Payton to include a foam type suction pad. This would allow the gripping system the ability to grasp both small and large items effectively. (Payton [0007 – 0009] reads “Even with these customization abilities, some items may nonetheless be difficult to grasp due to their small size. For example, small items have small suction sites that limit the number and size of suction cups that can be used (if the robotic picking device relies on suction-based techniques for grasping the items). Larger or heavier items, on the other hand, tend to swing and possibly detach from suction device(s) if moved quickly. If suction-based grippers are used, these larger or heavier items may require large suction cups and/or multiple, widely-spaced suction sites. This limits the range of items that a particular suction-based picking device can handle. A need exists, therefore, for robotic devices and methods that overcome the disadvantages of existing techniques.”);
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Thome/Behringer, in further view of Shintake (Soft Robotic Grippers NPL).
Regarding claim 10 Thome teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 9.
Thome/Behringer does not teach wherein the panels are made of a flexible sheet metal material.
Shintake in analogous art, teaches wherein the panels are made of a flexible sheet metal material. (Shintake page 7 paragraph 2 reads “Compliant mechanisms provide an additional method to exploit passive structural deformation for grasping. They are composed of flexible beams with monolithic or articulated structures.[27–30] The essential difference with respect to the previous examples is that, in compliant mechanisms, the actuation consists of a simple movement of the base of the gripper and the grasping action results from bending and/or buckling of the structure (Figure 4c).” It would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art that these flexible grippers could be made out of any material of choice. Including sheet metal.);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Thome/Behringer with that of Shintake to include panels that could be made of a more flexible material. This would allow the gripping system to the grip a wider range of objects. (Shintake abstract reads “Compared to rigid grippers, end-effectors fabricated from flexible and soft components can often grasp or manipulate a larger variety of objects. Such grippers are an example of morphological computation, where control complexity is greatly reduced by material softness and mechanical compliance.”);
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Thome/Behringer/Nakamoto, in further view of Guoqing (CN 111015708 A).
Regarding claim 21 Thome/Behringer/Nakamoto teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 20.
Thome/Behringer/Nakamoto does not teach wherein first set of elements when in the stowed position is opposite and substantially parallel to a clamping element included in the second set of elements.
Guoqing in analogous art, teaches wherein first set of elements when in the stowed position is opposite and substantially parallel to a clamping element included in the second set of elements. (Guoqing page 5 paragraph 7 reads “When the manipulator claw suitable for grabbing various parts is used, the industrial robot can select the corresponding clamping mechanism to clamp the parts by rotating or freely moving the manipulator connecting part within a certain range according to the detected part types, wherein the vacuum chuck mechanism adopts a vacuum suction mode and is mainly suitable for sucking various sheet parts with different diameters, sizes or shapes;” It would be known by one with ordinary skill in the art that the robotic manipulator would use the manipulator best suited for the object at hand and that figure 1 below shows that the other manipulators would be suitably parallel away from the manipulator that is chosen.);
PNG
media_image6.png
316
355
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Guoqing figure 1
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Thome/Behringer with that of Guoqing to include a structure that would allow the different sets of grippers to be stored apart from each other. This would allow the gripping system to have the ability to grip a variety of items in their most optimal manor. (Guoqing page 2 paragraph 5 reads “Therefore, different mechanical grippers are still required to perform specific gripping or clamping tasks for different engineering applications. Various types of parts (such as circular sheet parts with different diameters, hexagon bolts and the like) are often involved in the same engineering project, so that various mechanical claws are required to complete the grabbing or clamping of the corresponding parts, the equipment cost is high, and the flexibility in use is low.”);
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Thome/Behringer, in further view of Lu (An Origami-Inspired Variable Friction Surface for Increasing the Dexterity of Robotic Grippers).
Regarding claim 22 Thome teaches The multi-mode robot end effector of claim 1.
Thome/Behringer does not teach wherein the second set of elements includes two or more clamping elements; each having disposed thereon a friction pad having an associated coefficient of friction. (Lu abstract reads “In this letter, we present a parametric, origami-inspired thin surface capable of transitioning between a high friction and a low friction state, suitable for implementation as an epidermis in robotic fingers.”);
Lu In analogous art, teaches wherein the second set of elements includes two or more clamping elements, each having disposed thereon a friction pad having an associated coefficient of friction. (Lu abstract reads “In this letter, we present a parametric, origami-inspired thin surface capable of transitioning between a high friction and a low friction state, suitable for implementation as an epidermis in robotic fingers.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Thome/Behringer with that of Lu to include an element that has a variable coefficient of friction. This would allow the gripping system to better emulate the gripping performance of the human hand. (Lu abstract reads “While the grasping capability of robotic grippers has shown significant development, the ability to manipulate objects within the hand is still limited. One explanation for this limitation is the lack of controlled contact variation between the grasped object and the gripper. For instance, human hands have the ability to firmly grip object surfaces, as well as slide over object faces, an aspect that aids the enhanced manipulation of objects within the hand without losing contact. In this letter, we present a parametric, origami-inspired thin surface capable of transitioning between a high friction and a low friction state, suitable for implementation as an epidermis in robotic fingers”);
Other references not Cited
Throughout examination other references were found that could read onto the prior art. Though these references were not used in this examination they could be used in future examination and could read on the contents of the current disclosure. These references are, Hager (US 20060012198 A1); Nagarajan (US 20190248003 A1); Sereact (Bin Picking Automotive Items with Gripper Change System).
Response to arguments
Applicant argues < That is the opposite of the approach recited in claim I and shown in the above-cited figures, in which the suction element remains position between the side panels comprising the second set of structures but are retracting to a position that is between the side panels but does not interfere with their operation, as recited in claim I as amend. As such, claim I is believed to be allowable over Thome.> [page 6 spanning paragraph]. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations directed toward the suction elements remaining in between the set of mechanical grippers were made in amendment. Therefore, it is conceded that Thome does not teach those limitations. However, Behringer in analogous art, does teach the new claim limitations, as presented in this office action. Therefore, the combination teaches the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6228. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270 - 5744. 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.
/JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658