CTNF 18/303,040 CTNF 94403 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16 th , 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1 and 4 objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “…a interchangeable tool comprising of a horizontal…” It appears that the passage should instead recite, “ an a interchangeable tool comprising of a horizontal…” to conform with proper grammar. Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “…during the attachment and detach process” It appears that the claim should instead recite, “…during the attachment and detach ment process” for uniformity of the claim . Appropriate correction is required. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows: (a) Drawings . There are two acceptable categories for presenting drawings in utility and design patent applications. (1) Black ink . Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings; or (b) Photographs .— (1) Black and white . Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto- radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. 06-22 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specifically, as per MPEP 608.02.VII.B, any figures which utilize Grayscale drawings “must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs [Grayscale drawings] are reproducible in the printed patent.” It is deemed that figures 1-13 do not meet the above requirement for sufficient detail. It is recommended that the above drawings be reproduced to conform to the above requirement. Examiner’s Note: for clarity of the record, reference will be made to the Pre-Granted Publication of the specification (US 2024/0351221 A1) for any of the following sections which need citation from the specification. Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(a) 07-30-01 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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. Claim 3 is 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. Specifically, claim 3 requires that the gripper of the interchange tool is mounted with a torsion spring . A review of the specification reveals that while a torsion spring (32) is disclosed, it is explicitly described as acting upon the “levers (35 of the End effector (15)” (see paragraphs [0009] and [0033]). Conversely, the gripper (30) of the interchange tool is described as being operated by a generic “Spring (40)” that “compresses in direction 43” (see paragraphs [0029] through [0031] and figure 4), which structurally describes a compression/coil spring, not a torsion spring. The specification does not disclose or support the gripper of the interchange tool being mounted with a torsion spring. Therefore, claim 3 does not comply with the written description requirement. Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b) 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 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For clarity of the record, the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) will be broken down into three separate sections. A. Relative Terminology and Terms of Degree Regarding claim 1 , the term “A simple interchange mechanism” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “simple” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the term “simple” is subjective. While the specification repeatedly uses the word “simple” (e.g., paragraphs [0001], [0005], [0012]), it provides no metric for what threshold of mechanical complexity falls outside the scope of “simple.” Further regarding claim 1 , the terms “ suitable mechanical stability,” “ accurately aligned,” “ stable gripping force,” and “ precise engagement” are also relative terms which render the claim indefinite. Similar to above, the highlighted terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the specification fails to provide an objective baseline or measurable tolerance to determine what constitutes “suitable,” “accurately,” “stable,” or “precise.” Regarding claim 6 , the term ”strong and reliable engagement” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “strong” and “reliable” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what objective measure of magnetic or mechanical force, or duration of time, constitutes “strong and reliable.” Regarding claim 8 , the terms “accurately and consistently” and “in the shortest possible time” are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “accurately,” “consistently,” and “shortest possible time” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim lacks a statistical benchmark for measuring “consistency” or a baseline operational time against which “the shortest possible time” is compared. Regarding claim 9 , the term “fast changeovers” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fast” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what speed or duration qualifies a changeover as “fast.” B. Lack of Antecedent Basis Regarding claim 1 , the claim recites the limitation "the master robot arm" in the preamble of line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the claim then introduces “a master robot arm” in the body of the claim. It is unclear if these are the same arm or two separate arms. Regarding claim 5 , the claim recites “with the levers of the end effector.” While claim 1 introduces “at least two spring-loaded levers,” Claim 1 does not explicitly state that these levers are structurally integrated into or part of the end effector. Therefore, the limitation of “with the levers of the end effector” is deemed to lack sufficient antecedent basis. Regarding claim 9 , the claim recites “mounted around the robot.” However, there is no prior recitation of “a robot” as a distinct, complete structural entity or mounting base in the preceding claims. C. Mixing of Statutory Classes of Invention Regarding claims 2, 4, and 8, these claims are indefinite because they improperly mix two different statutory classes of invention – an apparatus and a method of using that apparatus – within a single claim. A single claim that recites both an apparatus and method steps of using that apparatus is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) because it is unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art when infringement occurs – whether it occurs when on e makes, vends, or uses the apparatus, or whether it occurs when the user actually performs the recited method steps. See IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005); and MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). Base claim 1 is drawn to a structural apparatus, specifically reciting “A simple interchange mechanism… comprising” various hardware components (e.g., a master robot arm, an electromagnet, protruding hooks, an interchangeable tool). Claim 2 depends from the apparatus claim 1, but recites an active method step of user operation in the recitation, “wherein the master robot arm moves up and down during the process of attachment or detachment.” Claim 4 depends from apparatus claim 1, but recites the active method steps, “wherein the interchange tool’s top cover functions to open and close the spring-loaded levers… during the attachment and detach process.” Claim 8 depends from apparatus claim 1, but recites the active method steps, “executes the attachment and detachment of the end effector to the master arm.” To overcome this rejection, Applicant should amend the claims to clearly fall within a single statutory class. For example, if Applicant intends to claim an apparatus, the active method steps in claims 2, 4, and 8 should be amended to recite the structural capabilities or configuration of the apparatus (e.g., amended claim 2 to read, “wherein the master robot arm is configured to move up and down…” or amending claim 8 to read “wherein the master arm’s protruding hooks… are configured to execute the attachment…”). Alternatively, Applicant may cancel the claims and present them as a separate method claim. Regarding claims 3 and 7 , these claims are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependence upon a rejected claim above. Allowable Subject Matter If the above rejections are overcome, claims 1-9 would be deemed as allowable, there being no specific prior art rejections to be made under 35 USC 102/103. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at ( 571) 270-1926 . 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. /JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/303,040 Page 2 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/303,040 Page 3 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/303,040 Page 4 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/303,040 Page 6 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/303,040 Page 7 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/303,040 Page 8 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/303,040 Page 9 Art Unit: 3731