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 .
Response to Amendment
The objection to claim 21 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
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.
Claim 21, 23-26, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 21 lines 9-10 recites the limitation "the end effector". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 23-26 and 28 dependent on claim 21 are also rejected.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21, 23-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beni et al (WO8501496A1 published 04/11/1985; hereinafter Beni) in view of Xing (CN203482920U published 03/19/2014)
Regarding claim 21, Beni teach a glove (robot cover 20 – Fig. 3) for receiving a collaborative robot, the glove comprising:
a proximate end (a part 23 of the robot cover 20 coupled to the part 22 – Fig. 3) configured to couple to a port of a glovebox (the part 23 is capable of being coupled to a glovebox – Fig. 3) (“configured to couple to a port of a glovebox” does not positively recite a port of a glovebox; thus, per MPEP2115 the limitation is deemed to read on a glove or equivalent structure capable of being coupled to a glovebox), the proximate end extending a first length having a first diameter (the part 23 having a first length and a first diameter – Fig. 3),
a central portion (a part 22 of the robot cover 20 – Fig. 3) coupled to the proximate end (the part 22 is coupled to the part 23 – Fig. 3), the central portion having a second diameter (the part 22 having a second diameter – Fig. 3); and
a distal end (a part 21 of the robot cover 20 – Figs. 3-4) coupled to the central portion with a tapered shoulder (the part 21 with a taper at a wrist 30 and coupled to the part 22 – Figs. 3-4), the tapered shoulder narrowing the internal diameter of a neck portion (the taper narrows the internal diameter of the central portion at the wrist 30 – Figs. 3-4) at or proximate to the distal end of the glove (the wrist 30 at the central portion forming a neck portion proximate to the part 21 – Figs. 3-4);
wherein the neck portion is configured to be positioned at or adjacent to the end effector (the neck portion is adjacent to a metal hand 18 – Figs. 3-4).
However, Beni does not teach wherein the second diameter is larger than the first diameter.
Xing teaches a glove for a sterile, closed environment wherein the second diameter (a rigid support ring 5 in a central portion with a second diameter – Figs. 1-2) is larger than the first diameter (an arm sleeve 3 in a proximal portion with a first diameter – Figs. 1-2) (rigid support ring 5 having a larger diameter than the arm sleeve 3 – Figs. 1-2). Xing teaches to use a rigid support ring 5 to connect a thinner glove 1 to the thicker arm sleeves 3 to improve operational flexibility and increase productivity (paragraph 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the part 22, as taught by Beni, with the rigid support ring 5 attached to a thinner glove, taught by Xing, to improve operational flexibility and increase productivity. One of ordinary skill would have expected that this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success because Beni and Xing teach gloves.
Regarding claim 23, Beni, modified by Xing, teaches the glove of claim 22, wherein the central portion is coupled to the proximate end with a first tapered shoulder (the part 22 is coupled to the part 23 with a first tapered shoulder at the shoulder 31 – Fig. 3), wherein the tapered shoulder is a second tapered shoulder (the taper at the wrist 30 is a second tapered shoulder – Fig. 3), and wherein the distal end is coupled to the central portion with the second tapered shoulder (the part 21 is connected to the part 22 at the taper at the wrist 30 – Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 24, Beni, modified by Xing, teaches the glove of claim 21, comprising fasteners (finger cots 46 – Fig. 3) positioned on or adjacent to the distal end of the glove for coupling the glove to the collaborative robot (finger cots 46 are place on the part 21 over the tips – Fig. 3 and page 5 lines 15-16).
Regarding claim 25, Beni, modified by Xing, teaches the glove of claim 21.
However, Beni, modified by Xing, does not teach comprising an O-ring integral to the proximate end of the glove, the O-ring configured to sealably couple to the port of the glove box.
Xing teaches a glove for a sterile, closed environment comprising an O-ring integral to the proximate end of the glove (an elastic tightening ring 4 – Figs. 1-2), the O-ring configured to sealably couple to the port of the glove box (“sealably couple to the port of the glove box” is an intended use limitation of the O-ring and is deemed to read on an O-ring or equivalent structure capable of being sealed to a glovebox) (the elastic tightening ring 4 is capable of sealing the glove and a port of a glove box – Figs. 1-2). Xing teaches that the elastic tightening ring 4 allows a detachable connection between the medical latex glove and the arm sleeve so that only the medical latex gloves need to be replaced to reduce cost (paragraph 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the part 22, as taught by Beni, with the elastic tightening ring 4, taught by Xing, so that only the medical latex gloves 1 need to be replaced to reduce cost. One of ordinary skill would have expected that this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success because Beni and Xing teach gloves.
Regarding claim 26, Beni, modified by Xing, teaches the glove of claim 21, comprising a protective sleeve (a part 24 of the robot cover 20 – Fig. 3) defining at least a portion of at least one of the proximate end (the part 24 defining a bottom portion of the part 23 – Fig. 3), central portion, or distal end of the glove.
Regarding claim 28, Beni, modified by Xing, teaches the glove of claim 26, wherein the protective sleeve comprises fasteners (wraps of Teflon tape around electric cables 106, air inlet tube 108 and air outlet tube 110, a top surface 101, and a ring 104 of pliant material – Figs. 7-8 ) at opposing ends of the protective sleeve (the part 24 comprising a rigid enclosure 100 with wraps of Teflon tape around electric cables 106, air inlet tube 108 and air outlet tube 110 at the bottom (page 8 line 3) and a ring 104 of pliant material at the top of the rigid enclosure 100 between the top of the rigid enclosure 100 and the bottom of the plate 86 of the part 23 – Figs. 7-8 and page 7 line 6 and lines 23-25), the fasteners configured to couple the protective sleeve to at least one of the proximate end (the ring 104 of pliant material bonded to the top surface 101 and attaches the rigid enclosure 100 to the bottom of the plate 86 of the part 23 – page 6 line 35 and page 7 line 31-34 and 37), the central portion, or distal end of the glove.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Point 1: The applicant’s argument that “"configured to couple to a port of a glovebox;" again, the cover means 20 simply encapsulates the entire robot. To be clear, "configured to" cannot be interpreted as merely "capable oof' or "suitable for"” is not persuasive.
The examiner points out that per MPEP2114.II apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” because the cover means 20 teaches all the structural limitations of “a proximate end configured to couple to a port of a glovebox”.
Furthermore, per MPEP2115 a claim is only limited by positively recited elements, and inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. The limitation “a port of a glovebox” is not positively recited and deemed to be an article worked upon by the cover means 20. The cover means 20 teaches all the structural limitations of the limitation because the cover means 20 is capable of being coupled to “a port of a glovebox”.
Applicant’s addition arguments with respect to the 102 rejections of the claims have been considered, and the prior art rejection has been modified in order to address the amended claim language.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 TINGCHEN SHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/T.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798