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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in at least FIG. 1, “110” points to two different components. The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 198a.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 should likely be amended to recite –or (ii) [[or ]]integrated--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, 14-20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 7,508,622 B2) (“Martin”).
Referring to claim 1: Martin teaches a system comprising:
an apparatus 12 (i) configured for connection to a robot or (ii) integrated into the robot (Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising:
at least one structure 110 configured for connection to one or more corresponding accessories 22, each accessory comprising a device configured to interact with an environment of the robot or a support on which to mount a device configured to interact with the environment, the at least one structure comprising (i) a protrusion that extends outwardly relative to a surface of the robot or (ii) an indentation 110 that extends inwardly relative to the surface of the robot, that does not include the at least one structure.
Martin teaches the at least one accessory comprising a structure comprising (i) a protrusion 144 that extends outwardly relative to a surface of the robot or (ii) an indentation that extends inwardly relative to the surface of the robot, the at least one accessory structure 144 comprising one or more faces 155 that are tapered such that each of the one or more faces decreases in width farther away from the surface of the robot that does not include the at least one structure (Figs. 5 and 7). Martin does not specifically teach the apparatus comprising at least one structure comprising one or more faces that are tapered such that each of the one or more faces decreases in width farther away from the surface of the robot that does not include the at least one structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure on the apparatus taught by Martin to comprise one or more faces that are tapered with a reasonable expectation of success in order to create a better, form-fitting connection between the accessory and the apparatus.
Referring to claim 19: Martin teaches a robotic system comprising:
a robot 18, 26; and
an apparatus 26 (i) configured for connection to the robot or (ii) integrated into the robot (Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising one or more structures 110 configured for connection to one or more corresponding accessories 22, each accessory comprising a device configured to interact with an environment of the robot or a support on which to mount a device configured to interact with the environment, each of the one or more structures comprising (i) a protrusion that extends outwardly relative to a surface of the robot or (ii) an indentation 110 that extends inwardly relative to the surface of the robot, and wherein the surface of the robot does not include the one or more structures.
Martin teaches the accessory 22 comprising a structure comprising (i) a protrusion 144 that extends outwardly relative to a surface of the robot or (ii) an indentation that extends inwardly relative to the surface of the robot, and each of the one or more accessory structures 144 comprising one or more faces 155 that are tapered such that each of the one or more faces decreases in width farther away from the surface of the robot that does not include the one or more structures (Figs. 5 and 7).
Martin does not specifically teach the apparatus comprising at least one structure comprising one or more faces that are tapered such that each of the one or more faces decreases in width farther away from the surface of the robot that does not include the at least one structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure on the apparatus taught by Martin to comprise one or more faces that are tapered with a reasonable expectation of success in order to create a better, form-fitting connection between the accessory and the apparatus.
Referring to claim 2: Martin does not specifically teach the robot comprises an end effector interface configured to connect to an end effector and where the at least one structure is adjacent to the end effector interface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Martin to include an end effector interface and an end effector with a reasonable expectation of success since it is well known in the art to use connections in a wide variety of components, as well as end effectors being very well known in the art, too.
Referring to claim 3: Martin does not specifically teach the at least one structure comprises a protrusion that is configured to mate to a feature on an accessory among the accessories. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure taught by Martin to comprise a protrusion with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts (namely here, swapping the protrusion and indentation taught by Martin) of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Referring to claim 4: Martin teaches the at least one structure comprises an indentation that is configured to mate to a feature 144 on an accessory 22 among the accessories.
Referring to claims 7, 8, 10 and 11: Martin teaches it is known for a structure to comprise a protrusion with a pyramidal shape, wherein the pyramidal shape comprises three or more faces (Figs. 5 and 7). Martin does not specifically teach the at least one structure comprising the protrusion or indentation has a pyramidal or an inverse pyramidal shape (respectively), wherein the pyramidal or inverse pyramidal shape comprises three or more faces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the structure taught by Martin to comprise a pyramidal or an inverse pyramidal shape (respectively), with three or more faces, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to create a better, form-fitting connection between the accessory and the apparatus.
Referring to claim 9: Martin teaches the apparatus is integrated into the robot such that the at least one structure is part of a link or joint included in the robot (Fig. 1).
Referring to claim 12: Martin does not specifically teach the robot comprises a first end effector interface configured to connect to an end effector; wherein the apparatus comprises a connection interface configured to connect to the end effector interface; and wherein the apparatus comprises a second end effector interface having a same configuration as the first end effector interface, the second end effector interface being on a different surface of the apparatus than the connection interface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Martin to include an end effector interface and an end effector with a reasonable expectation of success since it is well known in the art to use connections in a wide variety of components, as well as end effectors being very well known in the art, too. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus taught by Martin to include a second end effector interface having a same configuration as the first end effector interface, the second end effector interface being on a different surface of the apparatus than the connection interface with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Referring to claim 14: Once modified as with claim 1, Martin teaches the structure comprises (i) a protrusion that extends outwardly from the surface of the robot or (ii) an indentation 110 that extends inwardly relative to the surface of the robot, and wherein the structure comprises faces that are tapered such that each of the faces decreases in width farther away from the surface of the robot that does not include the structure. Martin does not specifically teach the at least one structure comprises multiple structures. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure taught by Martin to comprise multiple structures since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Referring to claims 15 and 16: Martin teaches the apparatus is a first apparatus, the at least one structure comprises first structures, the accessories are first accessories, the surface of the robot is a first surface, and the one or more faces are first faces, wherein the apparatus is (i) configured for connection to (ii) or integrated into one or more respective robot links or joints (Fig. 1). Martin does not specifically teach the system comprises one or more additional apparatus (i) configured for connection to the robot or (ii) integrated into the robot, the one or more additional apparatus each comprising:
second structures configured for connection to one or more corresponding second accessories, each accessory comprising a device configured to interact with an environment of the robot or a support on which to mount a device configured to interact with the environment, each of the second structures comprising (i) a protrusion that extends outwardly relative to a second surface of the robot or (ii) an indentation that extends inwardly relative to the second surface of the robot, and each of the second structures comprising one or more second faces that are tapered such that each of the one or more second faces decreases in width farther away from the second surface of the robot,
wherein the one or more additional apparatus are (i) configured for connection to (ii) or integrated into one or more respective robot links or joints, the one or more respective robot links or joints being different from a robot link or joint adjacent to an end effector interface.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Martin to comprise one or more additional apparatuses comprising second structures and second corresponding accessories since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Referring to claim 17: Martin does not specifically teach the apparatus is rotatable based on rotation of a robot joint. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus taught by Martin to be rotatable with a reasonable expectation of success since it is well known in the art that robot arms (see “26”) are rotatable to aide in alignment of components.
Referring to claim 18: Martin does not specifically teach the apparatus is three-dimensionally (3D) printed, die-cast, or machined. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of manufacture taught by Martin to be three-dimensionally (3D) printed, die-cast, or machined with a reasonable expectation of success since one would be choosing from simple substitutions of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Referring to claims 20 and 24: Martin teaches the one or more corresponding accessories comprises one or more of: a mechanical gripper 124, a vacuum gripper, a magnetic gripper, a screwing machine, a reverse screwing machine, welding equipment, gluing equipment, a liquid or solid dispensing system, painting equipment, a visual system, a camera, a scanner, a wire holder, a tubing holder, a belt feeder, or polishing equipment.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin and in view of Szydel (US 5,777,267).
Referring to claims 21 and 23: Martin teaches the robot comprises a robotic arm 26, wherein the arm comprises at least one of the apparatus (Fig. 1). Martin does not specifically teach the robotic arm comprising: a base; an end effector; an accessory included among the accessories, the accessory being connected to one or more of the structures; and links or joints between the base and the end effector, an instance of the apparatus being connected to, or integrated into, at least one of the links or joints. Szydel teaches a robotic system comprising a robot, wherein the robot comprises a robotic arm 6, the robotic arm comprising:
a base 3;
an end effector 8;
an accessory included among accessories, the accessory being connected to one or more structures (column 1, lines 41-55); and
links or joints between the base and the end effector, an instance of the apparatus being connected to, or integrated into, at least one of the links or joints (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic arm taught by Martin to include a base, end effector and links or joints between the base and the end effector as taught by Szydel with a reasonable expectation of success in order to be able to manipulate, grasp or interact more freely with accessories in the system’s environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 13 and 22 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11 of 15, filed 02 July 2026, with respect to the objections to the drawings and specification, as well as the 35 USC 112 rejections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the drawings and specification, as well as the 35 USC 112 rejections, have been withdrawn. However, there are some drawings and claim objections further detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14, filed 02 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 9, 14, 17, 19 and 23 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oestergaard et al. (US 2019/0086907 A1) 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 Martin. Regarding applicant’s arguments that Oestergaard does not teach “the surface of the robot that does not include the at least one structure” as now claimed in amended claims 1 and 19, the examiner agrees. However, claims are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, as further explained above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Riedel et al. (US 2021/0323176 A1) teaches a robotic system comprising tapered teeth protruding from one component designed to align with corresponding indentations in another component [0083].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A LOIKITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/Catherine Loikith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
26 August 2026
Prosecution Insights