DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the receiver adapter assembly” in line 2 should be corrected as --the receiver/adapter assembly--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the the adapter body” in line 6 should be corrected as --[[the]] the adapter body--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the receiver adapter assembly” in line 2 and “a press” in line 3 should be corrected as --the receiver/adapter assembly-- and --[[a]]the press-- respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “said adapter body … uses no fluid to control powered movement”. However, none of the originally filed specification/drawings show that the adapter body is prevented from using “fluid” to control “powered movement”. For examination, such limitation is interpreted and examined with the broadest reasonable interpretation by Examiner.
Claim 3 recites “said adapter body … uses no fluid to control powered movement”. However, none of the originally filed specification/drawings show that the adapter body is prevented from using “fluid” to control “powered movement”. For examination, such limitation is interpreted and examined with the broadest reasonable interpretation by Examiner.
Claim 5 recites “said adapter … uses no fluid to control powered movement”. However, none of the originally filed specification/drawings show that the adapter body is prevented from using “fluid” to control “powered movement”. For examination, such limitation is interpreted and examined with the broadest reasonable interpretation by Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the adapter body … to control powered movement”. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is not clear “powered movement” is a movement of which part of the invention. Also, if no fluid is used to control powered movement, it is not clear what is being used to control the powered movement. It is noted that claim 1 recites a use of an air fitting and an air power coupling (“air” is a fluid). Claim 1 does not clearly how the adapter body uses “no fluid” to control powered movement (of which structure?). For examination purposes, such limitation is interpreted and examined with the broadest reasonable interpretation by Examiner.
Claim 2 recites “the tooling” extending from the receiver/adapter assembly. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, it is not clear whether the tooling is a part of the tooling receiver/adapter assembly (the invention). As the preamble recites, the invention is “a universal automation tooling receiver/adapter assembly” which receives a tooling. Therefore, for examination purposes, the tooling is not interpreted as a part of the instant invention.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the adapter body … to control powered movement”. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is not clear “powered movement” is a movement of which part of the invention. Also, if no fluid is used to control powered movement, it is not clear what is being used to control the powered movement. It is noted that claim 3 recites a use of an air control (which receives “air” which is a fluid). Claim 3 does not clearly how the adapter body uses “no fluid” to control powered movement (of which structure?). For examination purposes, such limitation is interpreted and examined with the broadest reasonable interpretation by Examiner.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the adapter" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 5 recites “an adapter body” in line 5. For examination purposes, “the adapter” in line 8 is interpreted as --the adapter body--.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the adapter body (as interpreted above)… to control powered movement”. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is not clear “powered movement” is a movement of which part of the invention. Also, if no fluid is used to control powered movement, it is not clear what is being used to control the powered movement. It is noted that claim 5 recites a use of an air power coupling (which receives “air” which is a fluid). Claim 5 does not clearly how the adapter body uses “no fluid” to control powered movement (of which structure?). For examination purposes, such limitation is interpreted and examined with the broadest reasonable interpretation by Examiner
Claims 6-7 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites the intended use of a tooling (which is interpreted as a functional limitation as aforementioned) and claim 7 recites the intended use of the receiver/adapter assembly. Both claims 2 and 7 do not recite any further limitations of the instant invention. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that in both Risle and Zajack Jr. gripped is accomplished through the use of fluid pressure; in contrast, the present invention is used as a locking tool rather than a gripper. Applicant states how the invention is being used (i.e. the receiver is permanently attached to a crossbar, tooling is then attached to the adapter, etc.). Applicant also states that the novel feature of the invention is that the receiver can be permanently attached to crossbars, and reused. Furthermore, Applicant notes that claims 1, 3, and 5 are amended to recite that the receiver/adapter assembly uses no fluid to control powered movement and can be used in applications where a material is being picked up and moved by a press from a first location to a second location and locked to hold grip by the press. However, the Office respectfully disagrees. First, how the invention is being used (i.e. the receiver is permanently attached to a crossbar, tooling is then attached to the adapter, etc.) does not further define structural limitations of the instant invention - some of the uses of the invention noted in the Remarks are not recited in the claims. Second, as aforementioned, the phrase, “the adapter body … uses no fluid to control powered movement” renders the scope of the claims indefinite and is not being supported by the originally filed specification/drawings. As aforementioned, the scope of the claims are indefinite and it is not clear how the instant invention is defined/claimed. At least for these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723