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 § 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 15-18 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. The term “robotic” in claim 15 and 16, on its own fails to point out what the applicant regards as the claimed invention . For purposes of applying prior art, as long as the prior art teaches the structure recited in claim 1 which these claims depend, it will read on as recited.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 15.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 5, 8 and 11 are apparatus claims which recite no additional structure to further limit the structure as recited in the respective claims from which they depend. 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. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
431
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
588
529
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertini(US 6494516 B1) and further in view of Haag (US 20070271753 A1) and Zhou (US 20200108491 A1).
PNG
media_image3.png
777
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
365
536
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
520
727
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
293
460
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
232
423
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Bertini teaches an O-ring gripping end effector, comprising: a housing; a movable stripping bar mechanically associated with the housing; a module head extending at least partially through the movable stripper bar distally from the housing; wherein a movement of the stripper bar distally from the housing strips the o- ring for placement. Bertini fails to teach at least one retention groove for retaining the 0-ring and at least four fingers that each provide a portion of the at least on retention groove; at least two interleaved angular jaws , and wherein an increase in angle between the at least two jaws effect an expansion of an area bounded by each of the at least four fingers . However, Haag teaches a gripper device for mounting rubber elastic rings and finger for a gripper device of this type comprising at least one retention groove for retaining the 0-ring and at least four fingers that each provide a portion of the at least on retention groove; at least two interleaved angular jaws , and wherein an increase in angle between the at least two jaws effect an expansion of an area bounded by each of the at least four fingers. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Bertini and Haag to have an O-ring end effector module capable of gripping and mounting the O-rings using jaws , fingers and stripping bars to automate and reduce costs in the practical application of mounting rubber elastic rings.
(Refer to annotated Figs above)
While Bertini as modified by Haag teaches at least four finger it fails to teach wherein each of the at least two jaws provide at least two of the at least four fingers . However, Zhou teaches an elastic sealing ring expanding apparatus with 4 four fingers and two jaw bases where the fingers are disposed. . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Bertini , Haag and Zhou to have an O-ring end effector module capable of gripping and mounting the O-rings using a plurality of jaws where at least two of the fingers are provided in each jaw rather than one in order to reduce the number of movable jaws needed for an expansion of the O-ring.
(Refer to annotated Fig 4. Zhou above)
While none of the references teach a plurality of modules , the combination of them teaches all parts of one module. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a plurality of modules for mounting a plurality of O-rings at the same time , since such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of parts. Duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.(See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B))
Regarding Claim 2, Bertini as modified by Haag and Zhou teaches the 0-ring gripping end effector of claim 1, Bertini further teaches wherein the stripping bar comprises a stripping plate having a plurality of windows therein, and wherein each of the windows is sized and shaped correspondently to the module head extending therethrough.
(Refer to annotated Fig.4 Bertini above)
Regarding Claim 9, Bertini as modified by Haag and Zhou teaches the O-ring gripping end effector of claim 1, Zhou further teaches wherein the expanding bounded area is rectangular.
(Refer to annotated Fig. 4 Zhou above)
PNG
media_image8.png
216
380
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Bertini as modified by Haag and Zhou teaches the O-ring gripping end effector of claim 1,Bertini further teaches wherein the expanding bounded area is hexagonal.
(Refer to annotated Fig. 16 Bertini above)
PNG
media_image9.png
808
808
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Bertini as modified by Haag and Zhou teaches the O-ring gripping end effector of claim 1, Bertini fails to explicitly teach that the module corresponds to different types of the O-ring. However, Haag teaches wherein ones of the plurality of modules correspond to different types of the O-ring (Fig 7.1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Bertini , Haag and Zhou to have an O-ring end effector capable of gripping and mounting different types of the O-ring so that the end effector finds use in a wider variety of O-ring end effector use cases. (Refer to annotated Fig. 7.1 Haag above)
Regarding Claim 12, Bertini as modified by Haag and Zhou teaches the O-ring gripping end effector of claim 1, Haag further teaches wherein tips of the jaw fingers distal from the housing form a mushroom cap adjacent the at least one retention groove.
(Refer to annotated Fig. 11.2 Haag above)
PNG
media_image10.png
320
451
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Bertini as modified by Haag and Zhou teaches the O-ring gripping end effector of claim 1, Bertini fails to explicitly teach that the O-ring is irregularly shaped. However, Haag teaches wherein O-ring is irregularly shaped. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Bertini, Haag and Zhou to have an O-ring end effector capable of gripping and mounting irregularly shaped O-rings so that the end effector finds use in a wider variety of O-ring end effector use cases. (Refer to annotated Fig. 5.4 Haag above)
Regarding Claim 14, Bertini as modified by Haag and Zhou teaches the O-ring gripping end effector of claim 1, , Bertini fails to explicitly teach that the O-ring is composed of one of rubber or polyurethane. However, Haag teaches wherein O-ring is composed of one of rubber. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Bertini, Haag and Zhou to have an O-ring end effector capable of gripping and mounting rubber O-rings so that the end effector finds use in a wider variety of O-ring end effector use cases. (Refer to Haag , Paragraph [0004])
Regarding Claim 15, Bertini as modified by Haag and Zhou teaches the O-ring gripping end effector of claim 1. (See 112(b) rejection above.)
Regarding Claim 16, Bertini as modified by Haag and Zhou teaches the O-ring gripping end effector of claim 1. (See 112(b) rejection above.)
Regarding Claim 17, Bertini as modified by Haag and Zhou teaches the O-ring gripping end effector of claim 1. (See 112(b) rejection above.)
Regarding Claim 18, Bertini as modified by Haag and Zhou teaches the O-ring gripping end effector of claim 1. (See 112(b) rejection above.)
Regarding Claim 19, Bertini as modified by Haag and Zhou teaches the O-ring gripping end effector of claim 1, except wherein the plurality of modules comprises six modules. . It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have six modules for mounting a plurality of O-rings at the same time , since such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of parts. Duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.(See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)) .
Regarding Claim 20, Bertini as modified by Haag and Zhou teaches the O-ring gripping end effector of claim 1, Zhou further teaches wherein the housing comprises a drive motor. A drive motor is a known means of electromechanical actuation in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the teachings of Bertini , Haag and Zhou to have an O-ring end effector where the movement of the jaws and the stripper bar is made by means of electromechanical actuation as further taught by Zhou in order for the gripper to be more energy efficient.
(Refer to Zhou , Paragraph[0016])
Claim(s) 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over , Bertini as modified by Haag and Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eliuk (US 20090067973 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Bertini as modified by Haag and Zhou teaches the 0-ring gripping end effector of claim 1, except wherein a face of each of the at least two interleaved angular jaws is at an angle of between 15 and 30 degrees offset from a face of the other of the at least two interleaved jaws. However, Eliuk teaches a gripping device with interleaved jaws where the contact surface of the jaws is tapered at an angle between 10 to 80 degrees depending on the most suitable angle for the workpiece to be gripped. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Bertini , Haag, Zhou and Eliuk to have an O-ring end effector with at least two interleaved jaws where the face on one jaw is at an angle of between 15 and 30 degrees offset from a face of the other depending on the most suitable relative jaw face angle for the workpiece to be gripped to reduce radial distortion. Refer to Eliuk paragraph [0009 and 0012]. Also, since it has been held that discovering the optimum workable range involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 4, Bertini as modified by Haag, Zhou and Eliuk teaches the O-ring gripping end effector of claim 3, While Eliuk doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the angle is about 22 degrees it does teach two interleaved jaws with an angular offset . It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the angle be 22 degrees, since such a modification would have involved a change in shape of components. A change in shape of components is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
(See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)) and Refer to Eliuk paragraph [0009 and 0012]
Regarding Claim 5 Bertini as modified by Haag, Zhou and Eliuk teaches the O-ring gripping end effector of claim 3, Eliuk teaches wherein the angle is corresponded to a needed expansion corresponded to positively grasp an item. (Eliuk , Paragraph [0049] ) Furthermore , Bertini as modified by Haag and Zhou teaches an end effector with movable angular interleaved jaws capable of gripping and mounting O-rings. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Bertini , Haag, Zhou and Eliuk to have an O-ring end effector with angular jaws where the angle is corresponded to a needed expansion corresponded to a particular one of the O-rings in order to achieve the necessary expansion of the ring needed to mount it to a workpiece.
PNG
media_image11.png
694
919
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Bertini as modified by Haag and Zhou teaches the O-ring gripping end effector of claim 1, Bertini fails to teach wherein each of the at least two interleaved angular jaws is offset vertically from the other by a range of 5mm to 15mm.However, Eliuk teaches a gripping device with interleaved jaws where the jaws are vertically offset from each other. While Eliuk doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the vertical offset is from 5mm to 15mm range . It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the vertical offset be from 5mm to 15mm range, since such a modification would have involved a change in size of components. A change in size of components is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)) .Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Bertini , Haag, Zhou and Eliuk to have an O-ring end effector with at least two interleaved jaws where they have a vertical offset so that they don’t interfere with each other while gripping the workpiece.
Regarding Claim 7, Bertini as modified by Haag, Zhou and Eliuk teaches the O-ring gripping end effector of claim 6, While Eliuk doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the vertical offset is about 10 mm . It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the vertical offset be about 10 mm, since such a modification would have involved a change in size of components. A change in size of components is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)) .
Regarding Claim 8, Bertini as modified by Haag, Zhou and Eliuk teaches the O-ring gripping end effector of claim 6, Eliuk teaches wherein the vertical offset is corresponded to positively grasp an item. (Eliuk, Paragraph[0049] and [0050]) Furthermore , Bertini as modified by Haag and Zhou teaches an end effector with movable angular interleaved jaws capable of gripping and mounting O-rings. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Bertini , Haag, Zhou and Eliuk to have an O-ring end effector with angular jaws where the vertical offset of the jaws is corresponded to a needed expansion corresponded to a particular one of the O-rings in order to achieve the necessary expansion of the ring needed to mount it to a workpiece.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN BRAHJA whose telephone number is (571)272-9777. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at 5712722097. 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.
/BRIAN BRAHJA/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights