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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Application EP21213654.3 dated 12/10/2021 and applicant has filed a certified copy of this application on 01/26/2023.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-21, drawn to a gripping module, classified in B25B27/023.
II. Claim 22, drawn to a method of gripping an object, classified in B25J15/0246.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II 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 process/method of using a gripping module as claimed can be practiced with a different gripping module without a drive system and a module carrier as necessitated by gripping module apparatus of claim 1. Also the gripping module as claimed can be used in a materially different process without step of moving the jaws by electric motor and then an electromagnet as necessitated by method claim 22.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:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
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 Mr. Bryan J. Lempia on 1/28/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of I, claims 1-21. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 22 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Par. 0063, “electric motor 60” should read --electric motor 50--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 16, 17 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 3, 8 (two instances), 9, (two instances) 16, 17 and 22 “the at least one of the two active elements” should read --at least one of the two active elements--.Appropriate correction is required.
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 12 recites the limitation “the spring device has a spring end” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “a spring device” is earlier introduced in claim 11 and not claim 10. For the purpose of this examination claim 12 is interpreted to be dependent to claim 11.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the spring device acts on the actuator element” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “a spring device” is earlier introduced in claim 11 and not claim 10. For the purpose of this examination claim 13 is interpreted to be dependent to claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 15-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Rose (US 3370213 A).
Regarding claim 1, Rose teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a gripping module (module shown in Fig. 2) for gripping and moving objects, the gripping module comprising: a module carrier (housing 26); two active elements (gripping jaws 28) that are displaceable relative to one another, wherein each of the two active elements has a gripping surface for gripping an object; and a drive system that is configured to displace at least one of the two active elements relative to the module carrier, wherein the drive system includes an electric motor (grip motor 34), an electromagnet (col. 3, lines 8-40: “a pair of diametrically opposed electromagnetic exciter coils 50”), and an actuator element (actuator element comprises at least 36, 38, 41, 40) displaceable by means of the electromagnet, wherein the electric motor and the actuator element are kinematically coupled to the at least one of the two active elements (see col. 3, lines 8-40).
PNG
media_image1.png
144
916
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Rose teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the drive system is configured to displace the two active elements toward and away from each other relative to the module carrier (see col. 3, lines 8-40).
PNG
media_image1.png
144
916
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Rose teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a drive spindle (grip actuating screw 44) that is rotatably movable relative to the module carrier and that is axially (Z) movable; and a translationally displaceable spindle nut (drive sleeve 42) that is guided on the drive spindle and is kinematically coupled (via head member 46, jaw support members 56 and links 64) to the at least one of the two active elements (see col. 3, lines 8-40).
PNG
media_image2.png
142
914
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Rose teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the drive spindle is rotationally coupled to the electric motor and axially displaceable by means of the actuator element (see col. 3, lines 8-57).
Regarding claim 5, Rose teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the electric motor (grip motor 34) is fixedly attached to the module carrier, and wherein an output shaft (32) of the electric motor and the drive spindle are connected to each other in a rotationally fixed and axially displaceable manner (col. 3, lines 8-40).
PNG
media_image3.png
62
906
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
144
916
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Rose teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the electric motor and the actuator element are provided opposite each other on both sides of the drive spindle (motor is on upper side and actuator element is on lower side of the drive spindle).
Regarding claim 15, Rose teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the electric motor (grip motor 34) is arranged between the two active elements (see the two active elements 28 on sides of L).
Regarding claim 16, Rose teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) at least one of the two active elements (gripping jaws 28) is guided by a linear guide so as to be movable relative to the module carrier.
Regarding claim 18, Rose teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the gripping module is a robot gripper (see Fig. 1), and wherein the module carrier comprises a coupling device (27, 22) that is configured to attach the gripper module to a robot arm of a robot.
Regarding claim 20, Rose teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a robot (remotely controlled manipulator arm) comprising a robot arm and the gripping module of claim 1, wherein the gripping module is attached to the robot arm (via 27, 22).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Popovic et al. (US 20160031091 A1) hereinafter Popovic.
Regarding claim 21, Popovic teaches a method of gripping an object (object 10), the method comprising: a. positioning two active elements of a gripping module in an initial position (open state Fig. 2A) in which the two active elements are positioned at a distance from surfaces of the object; b. displacing at least one of the two active elements by an electric motor until the active elements are in contact with the surfaces of the object; and C. activating or deactivating an electromagnet, whereby the at least one of the two active elements is force-loaded and exerts a gripping force on the object.
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose in view of Kelley et al. (US 4412293 A) hereinafter Kelley.
Regarding claim 21, Rose does not show connection of the remotely controlled manipulator arm to a carriage.
Kelley teaches a carriage and a gripping module, wherein the carriage is translationally movable (in X, Y and Z directions) and the gripping module is attached to the carriage.
PNG
media_image4.png
608
537
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to add carriage of Kelley to the gripping module of Rose for controlled X, Y and Z movement of the gripping module.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose in view of Daniel (US 20030209896 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Rose does not show connection of the output shaft to the drive spindle.
Daniel teaches at least one portion of the output shaft has a noncircular cross section (key coupling mechanism 38), and wherein the drive spindle has a non-circular centric recess configured to receive the at least one portion of the output shaft.
PNG
media_image5.png
906
708
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to add coupling mechanism of Daniel to the gripping module of Rose. Doing so would make it possible to remove and replace the electric motor if needed.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose in view of Harkleroad et al. (US 20190126491 A1) in view of Harkleroad.
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Harkleroad does not reveal details of the jaws having position and force sensors.
Harkleroad teaches a gripper assembly with position sensors “for sensing the position of the jaw members 2402a, 2402b (e.g., a distance of the jaw members 2402a, 2402b from one another)” (see par. 0050).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to add position sensors to jaws/active elements of the gripping module of Rose to measure distance of the jaws from one another.
Harkleroad teaches a gripper assembly with force sensors 2454a, 2454b “to utilize force feedback” (see par. 0050).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to add force sensors to jaws/active elements of the gripping module of Rose. Doing so would make it possible to change the applied force to the gripped objects.It would have also been obvious to have maximum force between the jaws/active elements of less than 50 Newton for special gripped workpieces.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose in view of Heimberg (DE 102019108767 A1).
Regarding claims 11-13 Rose does no teach the claimed spring device.
Heimberg teaches a gripping module with a spring device (spring element 27 to compress the gripping jaws in the relaxed state before activating electromagnetic gripping force) that is configured to be tensioned by activation of the electromagnet; the spring device has a spring end that rests on the actuator element; the spring device acts on the actuator element in such a way that the active element is force-loaded in a gripping direction.
PNG
media_image6.png
278
902
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to add spring device of Heimberg to the gripping module of Rose to create a preloaded gripping force of the active elements of the gripping module of Rose to hold the gripped workpiece even after the electromagnetic force is disconnected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 10 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723