DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 December 2025 has been entered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “… is described,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the terms “separating member” and “connector” are not found in the orig. spec.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1-2, “connectors” should be - - each of the connectors - - or equivalent. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first/second object engaging device (all claims), hoist member (all claims except Claims 23 and 33), separating member/means (all claims except Claims 23 and 33).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 16-20, 22-30, and 32-39 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.
Claim limitation “first/second object engaging devices” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The correspondence between the first/second object engaging devices and structures thereto are not clear in the written description. The structures of the first/second object engaging devices are required to be explicitly described; the description of how the first/second object engaging devices interact with other structures (suspended/forces/deform) does not denote structure of the first/second object engaging devices. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "separating means" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 24 and 32 depend on cancelled claims.
In Claim 36, it is unclear what is the support for “wherein the first and second object engaging devices comprise vacuum suction grippers configured to engage a topside of the first and second objects.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 16-20, 22-23, 25-30, 32-33, and 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by de Koning et al. (US 5943842) (“Koning”).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1318
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 16: manipulator (4/20) for lifting objects and an upwards open container (24) within which the objects (10) are at least partly arranged, the manipulator comprising:
a first object engaging device (12) for engaging a first object;
a second object engaging device (12) for engaging a second object;
a flexible separating member (8) for carrying at least one of the first and second object engaging devices and forcing the first and second objects apart when engaged by at least one of the first and second object engaging devices being carried, such that the first and second objects exert an internal force on the container whereby the container is lifted by the first and second objects by frictional forces between the first and second objects and the container;
a rigid hoist member (6/16X) configured to carry the flexible separating member; and
connectors (14X) connecting the rigid hoist member and the flexible separating member,
wherein the flexible separating member is configured to deform by the weight of the first object or the second object being engaged by at least one of the first and second object engaging devices being carried, respectively, to force the first and second objects, apart at least partly in a horizontal direction (FIG. 5);
Claim 17: wherein the flexible separating member is configured to force a bottom of first and second objects apart (FIG. 5);
Claim 18: wherein the separating means is configured to rotate first and second objects around a respective horizontal axis (Za, Zb) (FIG. 5);
Claim 19: wherein the manipulator is configured such that the horizontal axes are located above the first and second objects (FIG. 5);
Claim 20: wherein the flexible separating member comprises a flexible plate (at least on top and bottom), and wherein the manipulator is configured such that the flexible separating member deforms by the weights of said first and second object when lifted by the manipulator (all structures have modulus of elasticity for deformation);
Claim 22: wherein the connectors allow the flexible separating member to deform by weights of the first and second objects when lifted by the manipulator (FIG. 5);
Claim 23: wherein the flexible separating member and/or the rigid hoist member is/are plate-shaped element(s), bar-shaped element(s), rod-shaped elements(s) or formed from a grid of bars or rods (FIG. 5);
Claim 25: wherein a footprint of the manipulator is smaller than a footprint of a container for which the manipulator is configured to lift (FIG. 5);
Claim 26: in combination with first and second objects to be lifted, wherein the manipulator comprises:
at least two first object engaging devices; and
at least two second object engaging devices, wherein the first object is engaged by at least two first object engaging devices and the second object is engaged by at least two second object engaging devices (FIG. 5);
Claim 27: a robot structure to which the manipulator is connected (at least 20 implies a type of robot structure; alternatively, “automated packaging device” implies a type of robot structure);
Claim 28: lifting objects (10) and an upwards open container (24) within which the objects are at least partly arranged, the objects being lifted by a manipulator having a first object engaging device (12), a second object engaging device (12) for engaging a second object, a flexible separating member (8) for carrying at least one of the first and second object engaging devices and forcing the first and second objects apart, a rigid hoist member (6/16X) configured to carry the flexible separating member, connectors connecting the rigid hoist member and the flexible separating member,
the method comprising:
engaging a first object by the first object engaging device;
engaging a second object by the second object engaging device;
securing the container to the first and second objects by forcing apart, at least partly in a horizontal direction, the first and second objects when engaged the first and second object engaging devices, respectively being carried by the flexible separating member (FIG. 5);
lifting the objects and the container, whereby the container is lifted by the first and second objects by frictional forces between the first and second objects and the container by a deformation in the flexible separating member due to the weight of the first and second objects being engaged by the first and second object engaging devices, respectively, the deformation forcing the first and second objects apart at least partly in a horizontal direction (FIG. 5);
Claim 29: wherein the flexible separating member is configured to rotate first and second objects around a respective horizontal axis (Za, Zb) (FIG. 5);
Claim 30: wherein the flexible separating member includes a flexible plate (at least on top and bottom), and wherein the manipulator is configured such that the flexible separating member deforms by the weights of said first and second objects when lifted by the manipulator (all structures have modulus of elasticity for deformation);
Claim 32: wherein the connectors allows the flexible separating member to deform by weights of the first and second object when lifted by the manipulator (FIG. 5);
Claim 33: wherein the flexible separating member and/or the rigid hoist member is/are plate-shaped element(s), bar-shaped element(s), rod-shaped elements(s) or formed from a grid of bars or rods (FIG. 5);
Claim 36: wherein the first and second object engaging devices comprise vacuum suction grippers configured to engage a topside of the first and second objects (12; “suction cups 12”);
Claim 37: wherein the flexible separating member is configured to deform into a bowl shape when lifting the objects, such that a lower surface of the flexible separating member is convex as viewed from below (FIG. 5);
Claim 38: wherein the flexible separating member is suspended below the hoist member by the connectors in a vertically movable manner between a first distance and a second distance, the second distance being greater than the first distance (FIG. 5; at least via 20);
Claim 39: wherein the flexible separating member is rotationally and firmly attached to the first and second object engaging devices such that rotation of a portion of the flexible separating member transfers torque to the first and second object engaging devices (FIG. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 24 and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koning in view of Borowicz (US 10814459; Filed: Feb. 9, 2018). Borowicz is analogous art since it also deals with holding an object. Koning discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above; and
Claim 35: a robot structure to which the manipulator is connected (at least 20 implies a type of robot structure; alternatively, “automated packaging device” implies a type of robot structure).
Koning does not directly show:
Claim 24: a contact sensor for determining contact between the manipulator and the first or second object, wherein the contact sensor is configured to sense a distance between the flexible separating member and the rigid hoist member;
Claim 34: a contact sensor for determining contact between the manipulator and an object, wherein the contact sensor is configured to sense a distance between the flexible separating member and the rigid hoist member.
Borowicz shows a similar device having:
Claim 24: a contact sensor for determining contact between the manipulator and the first or second object, wherein the contact sensor is configured to sense a distance between the flexible separating member and the rigid hoist member (122; column 12, lines 7-17);
Claim 34: a contact sensor for determining contact between the manipulator and an object, wherein the contact sensor is configured to sense a distance between the flexible separating member and the rigid hoist member (122; column 12, lines 7-17);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of efficiently navigating the robot structure to a correct engagement contact position of the object to reduce the possibility of damaging the robot structure and/or the object (column 12, lines 7-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koning as taught by Borowicz and include Borowicz’s similar device having:
Claim 24: a contact sensor for determining contact between the manipulator and the first or second object, wherein the contact sensor is configured to sense a distance between the flexible separating member and the rigid hoist member;
Claim 34: a contact sensor for determining contact between the manipulator and an object, wherein the contact sensor is configured to sense a distance between the flexible separating member and the rigid hoist member;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of efficiently navigating the robot structure to a correct engagement contact position of the object to reduce the possibility of damaging the robot structure and/or the object.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 11-22, filed 15 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16-35 under Katou et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Koning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652