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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 11/17/25 is acknowledged.
Claims10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Norton (USP 8,500,132).
Regarding claim 1, Norton discloses a manual robotic tool changer, comprising:
a master assembly (12) configured to be connected to a robot; a tool assembly (14) configured to be connected to a robotic tool (figures 1 and 2); a manually actuated coupling mechanism configured to selectively couple the master and tool assemblies together 9abstract); a lever (60) configured to actuate the coupling mechanism; and
a safety latch (102) configured to automatically lock the lever in a closed position in which the master and tool assemblies are coupled, and to allow the lever to move to an
open position to decouple the master and tool assemblies only when the safety
latch is actuated (figures 3A/B and 4A/B); wherein an actuating force required to actuate the safety latch is in a substantially opposite direction to an opening force required to move the lever towards the open position (Col. 3, line 61 through Col. 4, line 26 and Col 11, lines 30+).
Regarding claim 2, Norton discloses wherein the lever (16) is pivotally connected to the master assembly (12), and partially overlies the tool assembly when the master and tool assemblies are coupled together (figures 1 and 2B).
Regarding claim 5, Norton discloses wherein an end of the lever pivotally connected to the master assembly (12) comprises an eccentric pivotal portion and wherein a lever pivot pin (62) connecting the lever to the master assembly is not located in the center of the eccentric pivotal portion (Norton recites “The position of the second pivot pin 66 relative to the first pivot pin 62 provides an "over center" mechanical advantage, multiplying the rotational force applied to the rotating cam surface ring 44 as the handle 60 is closed. It also moves the rotating cam surface ring 44 through a greater degree of rotation than the drive ring 72” (Figures 3A/B and col. 7, lines 29-48).
Regarding claim 9, Norton discloses wherein lever (60) and safety latch (102) are positioned such that both actuating the safety latch and moving the lever towards the open position can be accomplished with one hand (figures 3A/B and 4A/B).
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 3aand 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton (USP 8,500,132).
Regarding claim 3, Norton discloses wherein the safety latch comprises:
a latch body (104) pivotally disposed within the lever about a latch pivot (104 is hooked shaped and pivots to engage and disengage 106); and a latch locking recess (recess in-between hooks 106); whereby a tool interference surface in the latch locking recess contacts a latch interference surface at the end of the portion of the latch body disposed in the latch locking recess, preventing the latch body from exiting the latch locking recess as the lever attempts to move to an open position to decouple the master and tool assemblies (figures 3A/B show in detached position and figures 4A/B show in engaged position). Even though Norton does not disclose a a latch spring, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the robotic tool changing art to add a torsion/compression sprig to pivot 104 towards engagement with 106. The spring may ne provided at the pivot of 104 to bias it towards engagement thereby forming a spring-biased safety latch. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a torsion/compression spring to bias the latch body in Norton for the purpose of having a well-known technique for preventing unintentional disengagement and providing safety locking.
Regarding claim 4, Norton discloses wherein when the actuating force is applied to an actuation surface of the latch body opposite the latch pivot from the end of the latch body disposed in the latch locking recess, the latch body is moved out of the latch locking recess and away from the tool interference surface, allowing the lever to move to the open position (Figures 3A/B & 4A/B and col. 7, lines 29-48).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton (USP 8,500,132) and as evidenced by Kalb et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0236357).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Norton discloses wherein the coupling mechanism comprises: a plurality of ball members (42) disposed radially that are displaced radially outwardly into plurality of recess (46) (figures 6-8 and col. 6, line 64 through col. 7, line 10). Although, the figures show other means besides a piston activating the balls between advanced and retracted positions, Norton discloses it is known in the art to utilize a piston moveable along a longitudinal axis between retracted and advanced positions and a spring biasing the piston towards a retracted position (col. 2, lines 5-29). This is also evidenced by Kalb et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0236357) which discloses piston 150 and spring 152 biasing balls (160) in and out radially (figures 4-6 and paragraph 44). Furthermore, regarding claim 8, Kalb discloses other suitable biasing elements such as Belleville washer stack (i.e. spring washers) (‘357, paragraphs 31 and 33).
Regarding claim 7, Norton discloses wherein the tool assembly comprises a
corresponding plurality of cavities (46), each sized and shaped to receive a ball member (42) as the ball members are moved radially outwardly from the piston axis (figures 5-8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA ADDISU at (571) 272-6082. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (Mondays and Wednesday-Friday).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K. Singh can be reached on (571) 272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARA ADDISU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 3/7/26