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 .
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1-7 drawn to a gripper classified in B25J 15/0441.
Claim 8-14 drawn to a method for moving a package, classified in B25J 15/0616.
Claim 15 drawn to a computer storage medium.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions (1 and 2) and 3 are directed to related inventions. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed are completely different. A computer program and storage medium is not similar to a gripping mechanism. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions 1 and 2 are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the process of using the device can be used in a materially different process.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The different inventions would require different search terms, classes, and modifiers, which presents a significant search burden on the Examiner.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Mark Saralino on 11/18/2025, a provisional election was mad without traverse to prosecute the invention of claims 1-7, invention I Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salimkah, WO 2006061677.
Regarding claim 1, Salimkah discloses: A gripper snorkel arrangement (Figs. 1-2, terminal portion 10) configured for use on a gripper unit of a robotic arm (Figs. 1-2, main unit 5) the gripper snorkel arrangement comprising an interface plate (Figs. 1-2, secondary unit 6, upper face 6s) and a snorkel (Figs. 1-2, passage between pick up suction cups 3i and secondary unit 6), wherein the interface plate is provided with at least one hole (Figs. 1-2, hole 9) in fluid communication with an inner lumen (Figs. 1-2, suction passages 7i) of the snorkel.
Regarding claim 2, Salimkah further discloses: an open end of the snorkel is terminated by a flexible sealing gasket (Figs. 1-2, suction cups 3i) providing an extension to the inner lumen of the snorkel.
Regarding claim 3, Salimkah further discloses: the snorkel extends in a plane substantially parallel to a plane of the interface plate (as seen in Figs. 1-2, both the snorkel and the plate extend in an up down direction).
Regarding claim 5, Salimkah further discloses: the interface plate is configured to engage with a plurality of suction cups (Figs. 1-2, suction cup 1 and vacuum transfer cup 2) of a gripper unit arranged on the robotic arm, such that at least one of said holes is in fluid communication with at least one of the plurality of suction cups (Figs. 1-2, vacuum transfer cup 2) and at least one other of the suction cups (Figs. 1-2, suction cup 1) is used to attach the interface plate, and thereby the gripper snorkel arrangement, to the gripper unit by means of a suction force (Figs. 1-2, “F”).
Regarding claims 6-7, the claims contain the same subject matter as claims 1-3 and 5. Therefore, the citations of the previous rejection are incorporated by reference.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salimkah in view of Girtman, US 9982691.
Regarding claim 4, Salimkah discloses the device of claim 1.
Salimkah does not explicitly disclose: the snorkel is further equipped with a movable section providing an movable extension to the inner lumen of the snorkel.
Girtman teaches: the snorkel is further equipped with a movable section providing an movable extension to the inner lumen of the snorkel (Col. 6, lines 12- 51, specifically “dual acting cylinder 300b”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the extending cylinder as taught by Girtman in combination of the device of Salimkah, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this combination is that it allows the gripper device to alter its geometry as need for the task at hand.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
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 Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights