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. Claim Objections Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the end of every line listed below should be amended to end with a colon: Claim 1, lines 5 and 9; Claim 2, line 3; Claim 3, line 3; Claim 4, lines 2 and 3; and Line 2 of claims 5-15. 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. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the electrical contact of the first connector" in the second to last line. Claim 13 also recites the limitation "the electrical contact of the first connector" in the second to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. 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. Claim s 1-4, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churchill (US 2019/0255713 A1), alone. Referring to claim 1 : Churchill teaches an end-effector exchange device comprising: a first adapter 12 attached to a robot arm 18 or a transfer device; and a second adapter 16 to which an end effector is attached, wherein the first adapter is attached to the second adapter in a manner that the first adapter is configured to be coupled to and separated from the second adapter ¶ [0038], [0042] , the first adapter includes a piston 22 , a cam member 24, 25 integrally coupled to the piston, and an engagement ball 32 configured to be in contact with a side surface of a cam portion of the cam member (Figs. 11 and 16) , in a case where the cam member is in a first position (Figs. 12-16) , the engagement ball projects and prevents separation between the first adapter and the second adapter, in a case where the cam member is in a second position (Figs. 7-11) , the engagement ball is retracted and allows separation between the first adapter and the second adapter, and the second adapter includes a separation operation hole 30 into which a release operation tool 32 is inserted, the release operation tool being configured to come into contact with the side surface of the cam portion (Figs. 11 and 16) . Churchill does not specifically teach the first adapter includes a piston driven by supply and discharge of air. 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 driving source for the piston taught by Churchill to be a supply and discharge of air with a reasonable expectation of success since such a modification would only require a simple substitution of one known element for another (namely, known driving sources such as manual, hydraulic, pneumatic, etc.) to obtain predictable results. Referring to claim 2 : Churchill teaches the side surface of the cam member includes a first tapered surface with which the engagement ball comes into contact when the cam member is in the first position (Figs. 12-16) , a second tapered surface that provides a space into which the engagement ball is configured to be completely retracted when the cam member is in the second position (Figs. 7-11) , and a cylindrical surface (since the cam is a cylinder) that is located between the first tapered surface and the second tapered surface. Referring to claim 3 : Churchill teaches the first adapter includes a first adapter body, and a clamp base 26, 28 , and the engagement ball is disposed in a holding hole of a projecting portion of the clamp base (Figs. 10 and 15) . Referring to claim 4 : Churchill teaches the second adapter includes a second adapter body, and a clamp plate 16 , the second adapter body includes the separation operation hole, and the clamp plate includes an engagement surface with which the engagement ball comes into contact (Figs. 11 and 16) . Referring to claim 14 and 15 : Churchill does not specifically teach the separation operation hole is provided with an internal thread, and the release operation tool is a release bolt screwed into the separation operation hole , or the release operation tool is a release rod. However, since there is no criticality provided for only one type of release operation tool, 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 release operation tool to be a bolt or a rod with a reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-11 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. Claims 12 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zachary et al. (US 10,335,957 B2), Zachary et al. (US 10,661,449 B2), Kendrick et al. (US 2021/0387357 A1) and Kalb et al. (US 9,981,391 B2) also teach systems comprising robotic tools, exchange devices, adapters and ball bearing dependent connections and disconnections. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CATHERINE A LOIKITH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7822 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Doug Hutton can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 19 March 2026