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 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, 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;
a second adapter 16; and
a release operation tool 32,
wherein the first adapter is attached to a robot arm 18 or a transfer device, and
an end effector is attached to the second adapter, and 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,
the release operation tool is configured to come into contact with the side surface of the cam portion (Figs. 11 and 16), and
the second adapter includes a separation operation hole 30 into which the release operation tool 32 is inserted.
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 5-13 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 9, filed June 10, 2026, with respect to the objections to the claims and the 35 USC 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the claims and the 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that Churchill does not teach a “separation operation hole into which the release operation tool is inserted” the examiner respectfully disagrees. Churchill does teach the second adapter 16 includes a separation operation hole 30 into which the release operation tool 32 is inserted. There is nothing in the present claims that would prevent the ball bearings 32 of Churchill from being the release operation tool. Therefore, claims 1-4, 14 and 15 stand rejected as further explained above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
27 July 2026
Prosecution Insights