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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, & 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szymczyk (US Patent 5,255,949) in view of Peterson (WIPO Publication WO 2021/048105 A1).
Regarding claim 1-2, Szymczyk teaches an end effector system, comprising: an end effector (74), wherein: the end effector is configured to grasp an object (74; Col. 6 ln 39-43); a first actuator (piston 90, chamber 84, Fig 7) coupled to the shaft (118, Fig 7) and configured to move the shaft (Col. 6 ln 57-67); and a self-alignment assembly, comprising: a first surface (160, Fig 12) coupled to the end effector; and a second surface (162, Fig 12) coupled to the first actuator and configured to interface with the first surface (Col. 8 ln 42-65), wherein the first actuator is configured to move the shaft such that the first surface engages the second surface to position the end effector at a first position (Col. 8 ln 42-65). Szymczyk does not teach a gimbal assembly located at the end of the shaft. However, the end effector of Peterson discloses a gimbal assembly (14) comprising a gimbal ball disposed inside a gimbal housing (Pg 16 ln 17-21) connected to a linear actuator shaft (10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector system of Szymczyk with the addition of the gimbal assembly of Peterson to allow each end effector to rotate unhindered to any orientation to manipulate a sheet of flexible material without introducing additional tensile and/or shear stress at the sheet due to the interacting holding tools (Pg 14 ln 34 to Pg 15 ln 6).
Regarding claims 4-5, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described
above, the end effector system of Szymczyk discloses the first surface (160, Fig 12) is a concave surface and the second surface (162, Fig 12) is a convex surface (Col. 8 ln 51-65).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described
above, the end effector system of Szymczyk discloses a plurality of support legs (83, 88, Fig 7) coupled to the end effector and the first surface (Col. 6 ln 49-56).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 & 8 as described above, the end effector system of Szymczyk discloses a plurality of position limiters (78, 82) configured to engage the plurality of support legs (88, 83) to limit movement of the end effector (Col. 6 ln 49-53). Szymczyk does not teach a gimbal assembly comprising a gimbal housing. However, the end effector of Peterson discloses a gimbal assembly (14) comprising a gimbal housing (Pg 16 ln 13-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector system of modified Szymczyk with the addition of a gimbal housing to protect the gimbal interior and create a surface for attachments to the end of the gimbal.
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described, the end effector system of Szymczyk does not disclose a vacuum end effector. However, the end effector of Peterson discloses the end effector forms a plurality of channels having a plurality of openings on a grasping surface of the end effector (Pg 52 ln 5-14); and the plurality of channels are configured to be fluidly coupled to a vacuum source (Pg 52 ln 5-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector system of modified Szymczyk with the addition of a Bernoulli-vacuum gripper for the weight and space savings, and easily controllable solution for lifting a flexible material (Pg 25 ln 17-19).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described
above, the end effector system of Szymczyk discloses the first actuator is configured to retract the shaft to position the gimbal assembly at the first position (Col. 8 ln 47-51) and extend the shaft to grasp the object at a second position (Col. 6 ln 59-67).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szymczyk (US Patent 5,255,949) over Peterson (WIPO Publication WO 2021/048105 A1) in view of Goellner (US Patent 5,590,870).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination teaches the limitations of claims 1-2 as described
above, the modified end effector of Szymczyk does not teach a gimbal lock assembly. However, the end effector system of Goellner discloses a gimbal lock assembly configured to engage the gimbal ball to prevent the gimbal ball from rotating about at least one axis of the gimbal assembly (Col. 3 ln 15-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector system of modified Szymczyk with the addition of a gimbal lock assembly to lock the end effector head in place to avoid deformations of grabbed materials during moving by the end effector.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szymczyk (US Patent 5,255,949) over Peterson (WIPO Publication WO 2021/048105 A1) in view of Tanahashi (PGPub US 2019/0240846 A1).
Regarding claims 6-7, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described
above, the modified end effector of Szymczyk does not teach a second actuator coupled to a carriage to move along a track. However, the end effector of Tanahashi discloses a second actuator coupled to a carriage (2), wherein the second actuator is configured to move the end effector system along a track (1; [0049] ln 1-6). The carriage (2) comprises a brake assembly configured to engage the track to prevent the end effector system from moving along the track ([0050] ln 7-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector system of modified Szymczyk with the addition of a second actuator and braking system to move along a track for the end effector to controllably convey material from one location to another faster and in less space ([0008]).
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanahashi (PGPub US 2019/0240846 A1) in view of Peterson (WIPO Publication WO 2021/048105 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Tanahashi discloses a material placement system, comprising: a plurality of end effectors supported along a support structure, wherein the support structure comprises: a plurality of longitudinal stiffeners (1), wherein each respective longitudinal stiffener (1) of the plurality of longitudinal stiffeners comprises a lower circumferential guide track and a rack gear ([0037]); a radial actuation system coupled to the respective end effector, wherein: the radial actuation system comprises a radial actuator (5); and the radial actuator (5) is configured to move the respective end effector in a direction orthogonal to a respective longitudinal stiffener ([0048]); a circumferential actuation system coupled to the respective end effector, wherein: the circumferential actuation system comprises a circumferential actuator coupled to a pinion gear (2b; [0049]); and the pinion gear is configured to engage the rack gear of the respective longitudinal stiffener to move the respective end effector along the respective longitudinal stiffener ([0049]); and a lower carriage assembly (2) configured to movably attach the radial actuation system and the circumferential actuation system to the lower circumferential guide track of the respective longitudinal stiffener (Fig 2). Tanahashi does not disclose a gimbal assembly coupled to each respective end effector. However, the end effector of Peterson discloses a gimbal assembly (14) coupled to each respective end effector (11b) of the plurality of end effectors, wherein the gimbal assembly is configured to allow the respective end effector to rotate about at least one axis (Pg 16 ln 9-11).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 12 as described
above, Modified Tanahashi does not disclose the respective longitudinal stiffener further comprises an upper circumferential guide track; an upper carriage assembly couples the radial actuation system to the upper circumferential guide track; and the upper carriage assembly is configured to move the radial actuation system along the upper circumferential guide track. However, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378). Therefore, it would have been obvious to improve the end effector of Tanahashi with an additional longitudinal stiffener and carriage assembly to increase strength and alignment of the end effector.
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches the limitations of claims 12-13 as described above, the end effector system of Tanahashi discloses a carriage assembly comprising a plurality of rollers (2b) configured to travel along the circumferential guide track (1, Fig 2).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 12 as described above, the end effector system of Tanahashi discloses a support structure mount plate (3a) configured to mount the support structure to a motion system ([0045]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 12 as described above, the end effector system of modified Tanahashi discloses the radial actuator (5) is coupled to the gimbal assembly and configured to move the gimbal assembly in a direction perpendicular to the respective longitudinal stiffener ([0048]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanahashi (PGPub US 2019/0240846 A1) over Peterson (WIPO Publication WO 2021/048105 A1) in view of Szymczyk (US Patent 5,255,949).
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 12 as described above, the modified end effector system of Tanahashi does not disclose a self-alignment assembly. However, the end effector system of Szymczyk discloses a self-alignment assembly, wherein: the self-alignment assembly comprises a first surface (160, Fig 12) coupled to the respective end effector; the self-alignment assembly comprises a second surface (162, Fig 12) coupled to the radial actuator; and the first surface configured to engage the second surface to align the respective end effector to a first position (Col. 8 ln 42-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector system of Tanahashi with the self-alignment assembly of Szymczyk to return the jaws to their desired location after being displaced during grabbing operation (Col. 8 ln 39-47).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szymczyk (US Patent 5,255,949) in view of Tanahashi (PGPub US 2019/0240846 A1) in view of Peterson (WIPO Publication WO 2021/048105 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Szymczyk discloses a method of grasping an object using an end effector, comprising: the end effector system wherein: the end effector is configured to grasp an object (Col 2 ln 36-54); a second actuator coupled to the shaft, wherein the second actuator (90) is configured to move the shaft (Col. 6 ln 57-67); and a self-alignment assembly, comprising: a first surface (160, Fig 12) coupled to the end effector; and a second surface (162, Fig 12) coupled to the second actuator and configured to interface with the first surface (Col. 8 ln 9-31); moving the end effector in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal stiffener (Col. 6 ln 57-67); and grasping the object with the end effector (Col 2 ln 36-54).
Szymczyk does not disclose moving end effector along a circumferential guide track using a first actuator nor a gimbal assembly. However, the end effector system of Tanahashi discloses moving an end effector system along a circumferential guide track (1) of a longitudinal stiffener using a first actuator ([0049] ln 1-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the method of grasping an object of Szymczyk with the addition of moving the end effector system along a guide track to controllably convey material from one location to another faster and in less space ([0008]).
Szymczyk and Tanahashi do not disclose a gimbal assembly. However, Peterson discloses the end effector coupled to a gimbal assembly (14); and the gimbal assembly (14) is attached to a shaft (11b); the end effector contacts the object and rotates about an axis of the gimbal assembly (Pg 7 ln 32 to Pg 8 ln 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the method of grasping an object of Szymczyk and Tanahashi with the addition of a gimbal assembly to allow each end effector to rotate unhindered to any orientation to manipulate a sheet of flexible material without introducing additional tensile and/or shear stress at the sheet due to the interacting holding tools (Pg 14 ln 34 to Pg 15 ln 6).
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 18 as described above, Szymczyk discloses a method of grasping an object using an end effector and further positioning the end effector using the second actuator to press the first surface against the second surface (Col. 8 ln 42-65).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szymczyk (US Patent 5,255,949) over Tanahashi (PGPub US 2019/0240846 A1) over Peterson (WIPO Publication WO 2021/048105 A1) in view of Goellner (US Patent 5,590,870).
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 18 as described above, Peterson discloses a method of grasping an object wherein a gimbal ball is disposed inside a gimbal housing of the gimbal assembly (Pg 16 ln 17-21). Szymczyk, Tanahashi and Peterson do not disclose a gimbal lock mechanism to fix the position of the end effector. However, the method of grasping an object by Goellner discloses fixing a position of the end effector by pressing a gimbal lock mechanism against a gimbal ball of the gimbal assembly (Col. 4 ln 2-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the method of grasping an object of Szymczyk, Tanahashi and Peterson with the addition of a gimbal lock mechanism to lock the end effector head in place to avoid deformations of grabbed materials during moving by the end effector.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wiercienski (US Patent 5,255,948) discloses a device for mounting components to PCB boards. The gripping elements are dependent upon a flexible shaft that when pulled, retracts the gripping element into an alignment assembly.
Herring (US Patent 5,271,686) discloses a robot hand with an isolating self-alignment assembly. The self-alignment assembly utilizes spring force to mate concave and convex surfaces to align the working end into a starting position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RALPH D WILKINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6183. The examiner can normally be reached 730 - 5.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/RALPH D WILKINSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654