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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 43 contains several typographical errors. In line 2, “extending” should read “extend.” In line 3, “engage and grasp and object” should read “engage and grasp an object. In line 4, “position” should read “positioned.”
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.
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 1-18 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 the limitation "the suction gripper" in lines 5 & 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the suction gripper" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the suction gripper" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the suction gripper" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, each recitation of “the suction gripper” has been interpreted as “the pull force gripper” to align with the element at claim 1, line 3.
Claims 3-7 and 10-18 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
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.
Claim 4 is 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. The subject matter of claim 3 is the robotic end effector. The only limitation of claim 4 is directed to the attached lid on a container being grasped by the robotic end effector, and not the subject matter of the claim. 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Polido et al. (US 11207786 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Polido et al. teaches a robotic end effector (fig. member 10), comprising: an end effector body having a top side and an operative side opposite the top side (fig. 2); a pull force gripper (fig. 2, members 20, 30) disposed on the operative side of the end effector body; and an integrated mechanical stop (fig. 4B, member 71) positioned on the operative side of the end effector body adjacent to the pull force gripper, the mechanical stop extending from the operative side to an extent that allows the pull force gripper to be operatively engaged with an object to be grasped.
Regarding claim 2, Polido et al. teaches the end effector as recited in claim 1, wherein the mechanical stop is positioned to engage mechanically with at least a portion of the object when a vacuum (Col. 2, line 36) is applied to the pull force gripper to grasp the object.
Regarding claim 3, Polido et al. teaches the end effector as recited in claim 2, wherein the object comprises a container with an attached lid and the mechanical stop prevents the attached lid from opening when the container is grasped from the top (fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 4, Polido et al. teaches the end effector as recited in claim 3, wherein the attached lid comprises a center opening lid comprising two doors hinged at opposite sides of the container (Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 5, Polido et al. teaches the end effector as recited in claim 4, wherein the mechanical stop is positioned along a centerline of the operative side of the end effector body (fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 8, Polido et al. teaches the end effector as recited in claim 1, wherein the pull force gripper comprises two sets of suction cups (fig. 2, members 20 & 30), each comprising one or more suction cups (fig. 2, member 34).
Regarding claim 9, Polido et al. teaches the end effector as recited in claim 1, further comprising a vacuum generator (Col. 2, line 36) configured to apply a vacuum to the pull force gripper.
Regarding claims 15-18, Polido et al. teaches the end effector as recited in claim 1, wherein a stop length over which the integrated mechanical stop extends from the operative side of the end effector body is shorter than a gripper length over which a pull force gripper extends from the operative side of the end effector body. Because the mechanical stop of Polido et al is attached to adjustable arm assemblies (fig. member 50), the stop may be adjusted to cover all ranges claimed in claims 15-18.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (CN 109202946 A).
Zhou et al. teaches a robotic end effector (fig. 1), comprising: an end effector body having a top side and an operative side opposite the top side; a pull force gripper (fig. 2, member 9) disposed on the operative side of the end effector body; and an integrated mechanical stop (fig. 2, member 8) positioned on the operative side of the end effector body adjacent to the pull force gripper, the mechanical stop extending from the operative side to an extent that allows the pull force gripper to be operatively engaged with an object to be grasped, wherein the mechanical stop comprises a spring (fig. 2, member 8).
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wellman et al. (US 11247347 B2).
Wellman et al. teaches a robotic end effector (fig. 1B, member 105), comprising: an end effector body having a top side and an operative side opposite the top side; a pull force gripper (fig. 1B, member 110) disposed on the operative side of the end effector body; and an integrated mechanical stop (fig. 1B, member 125) positioned on the operative side of the end effector body adjacent to the pull force gripper, the mechanical stop extending from the operative side to an extent that allows the pull force gripper to be operatively engaged with an object to be grasped, wherein the mechanical stop comprises a layer of shape-conforming foam (Col. 2, lines 48-50).
Claim(s) 1 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kllibarda et al. (US 20210122062).
Kllibarda et al. teaches a robotic end effector (fig. 4, member 230), comprising: an end effector body having a top side and an operative side opposite the top side; a pull force gripper (fig. 4, member 280) disposed on the operative side of the end effector body; and an integrated mechanical stop (fig. 4A, member 232) positioned on the operative side of the end effector body adjacent to the pull force gripper, the mechanical stop extending from the operative side to an extent that allows the pull force gripper to be operatively engaged with an object to be grasped, wherein the mechanical stop comprises a rigid shroud (fig. 4A, member 232) that at least partly surrounds a deformable suction cup (fig. 4, member 280).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polido et al. in view of Zhou et al. Polido et al. teaches all limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Polido et al. does not teach a mechanical stop positioned between the pull force grippers. Zhou et al teaches a mechanical stop between the pull force grippers (fig. 2, members 8 & 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references by placing the mechanical stop between the pull force grippers in order to prevent excessively rigid contact between the pull force grippers and the object being lifted, thereby decreasing the risk of dropping the object.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polido et al. in view of Azuma et al. (US 12023808 B2). Polido et all teaches all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Polido et al does not teach a pull force gripper comprising a foam-type suction gripper (Col. 8, lines 11-13). Azuma et al teaches a foam-type suction gripper. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references by substituting the foam-type suction gripper of Azuma et al. for the pull force gripper of Polido et al. in order to allow the apparatus to grip irregularly-shaped objects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose a mechanical stop comprising a static bar, as in claim 10, nor does it teach a mechanical stop comprising a plurality of static bars, as in claim 11.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Harter et al. (US 20150352726 A1) teaches a pull force gripper with attached flexible lining, which is formed by a foam pad.
Ramler et al. (US 5344202 A) teaches a pull force gripper with an integrated mechanical stop positioned between the suction cups.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR J LINDENBUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1483. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00a-7:30p T-F.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/TAYLOR J LINDENBUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights