DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5-12, 20, 45-48 and 51-52 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings, specification and claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/30/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 45 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 17 reads “states,,an axis”, --state, and axis-- is suggested.
Claim 45 line 5 reads “drives the each of the at least one”, --drives each of the at least one-- is suggested.
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 1, 3, 5-12, 20, 45-48 and 51-52 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.
Claim 1 lines 17-18 recites the limitation “an axis where the connection rod is located”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to an axis of the connection rod, or if this limitation is referring to another axis on which the connection rod is located.
Claim 1 lines 19 and 20 recite the limitation “the cam”. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Second, it is unclear if these limitation are referring to the cam mechanism, or if these limitations are introducing a cam.
Claim 7 lines 6-7 recite the limitation “when the taper pin body needs to be separated from the replacement side connector”. It is unclear what is required for the taper pin body to “need” to be separated from the replacement side connector.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 3, 5, 20 and 45-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton (US 20090322041 A1) in view of Pringle (US 20190191861 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Norton discloses a quick change interface for a joint of a robotic arm (see Fig. 1; 10), comprising a body side connector (12), a replacement side connector (14), and a driving locking device (see Fig. 9; 70), the driving locking device being movably arranged on the body side connector to drive the body side connector to lock or release from the replacement side connector (see Fig. 3-4); wherein the driving locking device includes a driving assembly (74) and a locking assembly (42); the driving assembly includes a cam mechanism (44), the cam mechanism being rotationally connected to the body side connector (see Fig. 2-4); the locking assembly is movably connected to the body side connector, and has a locked state (state of 42 shown in Fig. 4) and a released state (state of 42 shown in Fig. 3); and the cam mechanism abuts against the locking assembly, and a rotation of the cam mechanism drives the locking assembly to move, so that the locking assembly switches between the locked state and the released state (see Fig. 3-4); wherein the driving assembly further includes a link mechanism (74) which is rotationally and eccentrically connected to the cam mechanism (see Fig. 9), the link mechanism including a handle (60) and a connection rod (64); when the locking assembly is in the locked state, an axis where the connection rod is located passes through a rotation axis of the handle (see Fig. 4, wherein a longitudinal axis of 64 passes through the axis of 66); and a normal line of a contact surface of the cam that abuts against the locking assembly passes through a rotation center of the cam (see Fig. 4, wherein a normal line of a contact surface between 44 and 42 passes through the rotation center of 44). Norton fails to disclose the locking assembly includes a taper pin moving assembly. However, Pringle teaches the locking assembly (see Fig. 15) includes a taper pin moving assembly (256). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify the locking assembly of Norton to comprise a taper pin moving assembly, as taught by Pringle, to provide a spring loaded locking assembly, so that during a change between replacement side connectors, the locking assembly can be moved fully out of the way to prevent any damage, wear and/or noise between the engaging parts. Additionally, it is well known in the art of robotics to connect end effectors to robot arms using a plurality of engaging elements. As can be seen from the prior art, the engaging elements can be a variety of different shapes to achieve the same purpose. For example, Norton discloses actuated balls (Fig. 2; 42), and Pringle discloses actuated taper pin moving assemblies (Fig. 15; 236) and also locking pins (Fig. 25; 266 and 368). According to MPEP 2144.06(II), since the specific elements are well known in the art of robotics, this presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one engaging element for another engaging element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to substitute the balls of Norton with the taper pin moving assemblies of Pringle, since it is well known so substitute one for the other.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the taper pin moving assembly (Pringle, 256) being slidably connected to the body side connector (Norton, 12; Pringle, 150), the cam mechanism (Norton, 44; Pringle, 258) abuts against the taper pin moving assembly, the replacement side connector (Norton, 14; Pringle, 110) has a first taper surface (Norton, 38; Pringle, 240), and the taper pin moving assembly has a second taper surface (Pringle, surface of 236) for mating with the first taper surface; a rotation movement of the cam mechanism is converted into a linear movement of the taper pin moving assembly, so that the second taper surface is mated with or separated from the first taper surface; when the first taper surface mates the second taper surface, the locking assembly is in the locked state, and the body side connector is locked with the replacement side connector; when the second taper surface is separated from the first taper surface, the locking assembly is in the released state, and the body side connector is separated from the replacement side connector (Norton, paragraph [0139], wherein [w]ith cam 258 in first rotational orientation, latch spring 238 pushes keeper 236 into locking aperture 240, formed in sleeve 110. With cam 258 in second rotational orientation, cam 258 pushes keeper 236 out of locking aperture 240, formed in sleeve 110).
Regarding claim 5, Norton discloses the link mechanism (74) includes a mounting plate (see Fig. 3, plate wherein 62 pivots), the mounting plate being detachably connected to the body side connector (see Fig. 3), the handle being rotationally connected to the mounting plate (via 62), one end of the connection rod being rotationally connected to the handle (via 66), and another end of the connection rod being rotationally connected to the cam mechanism via 68).
Regarding claim 20, Norton discloses a robotic arm (see paragraph [0004], wherein a general-purpose robotic arm is disclosed) comprising a robotic arm body (body of general-purpose robotic arm), a replacement end (see paragraph [0004], wherein different tools or end effectors are disclosed), and the quick change interface for the joint of the robotic arm of claim 1 (10, see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the body side connector (12) is detachably connected to the robotic arm body (see paragraph [0028], wherein a master unit 12 adapted to be connected to a robotic arm), and the replacement side connector (14) is detachably connected to the replacement end (see paragraph [0028], wherein a tool unit 14, adapted to be connected to a robotic tool).
Regarding claim 45, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the driving assembly (Norton, 74) includes a manual drive assembly (Norton, 74; see paragraph [0034], wherein the handle 60 is manually moved), the at least one taper pin moving assembly (Pringle, 256) is slidably connected to the body side connector (Norton, 12; Pringle, 150), the manual drive assembly (Norton, 74) drives the each of the at least one taper pin moving assembly to perform a linear motion, the replacement side connector (Norton, 14; Pringle, 110) has a first taper surface (Norton, 38; Pringle, 240), and the taper pin moving assembly has a second taper surface (Pringle, surface of 236) for mating with the first taper surface; a rotation movement of the manual drive assembly is converted into a linear movement of the taper pin moving assembly, so that the second taper surface is mated with or separated from the first taper surface; when the first taper surface mates the second taper surface, the body side connector is locked with the replacement side connector; when the second taper surface is separated from the first taper surface, the body side connector is released from the replacement side connector (Norton, paragraph [0139], wherein [w]ith cam 258 in first rotational orientation, latch spring 238 pushes keeper 236 into locking aperture 240, formed in sleeve 110. With cam 258 in second rotational orientation, cam 258 pushes keeper 236 out of locking aperture 240, formed in sleeve 110). Additionally, it is well known in the art of robotics to connect end effectors to robot arms using a plurality of engaging elements. As can be seen from the prior art, the engaging elements can be a variety of different shapes to achieve the same purpose. For example, Norton discloses actuated balls (Fig. 2; 42), and Pringle discloses actuated taper pin moving assemblies (Fig. 15; 236) and also locking pins (Fig. 25; 266 and 368). According to MPEP 2144.06(II), since the specific elements are well known in the art of robotics, this presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one engaging element for another engaging element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to substitute the balls of Norton with the taper pin moving assemblies of Pringle, since it is well known so substitute one for the other.
Regarding claim 46, Norton discloses the handle (60) is an L-shaped handle (see Fig. 3) with a handle part (60) and a connection rod part (62), a rotation of the handle part drives the connection rod part to rotate, and the connection rod part is rotationally connected to the connection rod (see Fig. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 47, Norton discloses a length of the connection rod part length of 62) is shorter than a length of the handle part (length of 60).
Regarding claim 48, Norton discloses the link mechanism (74) further includes a first bearing assembly (62) and a second bearing assembly (68), the first bearing assembly is used to realize the connection between the handle and the mounting plate (see Fig. 3), and the second bearing assembly is used to realize the connection between the connection rod and the cam mechanism (see Fig. 3).
Claim 6, 8-11 and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton (US 20090322041 A1) in view of Pringle (US 20190191861 A1) and Wikipedia.
Regarding claim 6, Norton in view of Pringle fail to disclose a rolling bearing, the roller bearing being mounted on the taper pin body. However, Wikipedia teaches a rolling bearing (see figure, bearing), the roller bearing being mounted on the taper pin body (see figure, body of pin). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Norton in view of Pringle with a rolling bearing, as taught by Wikipedia, to reduce the friction between the follower and the cam surface which allows for easier locking and unlocking. As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: each of the at least one taper pin moving assembly (Pringle, 256) includes a taper pin body (Pringle, 236; Wikipedia, body of pin), the rolling bearing (Wikipedia, bearing) being mounted on the taper pin body, the cam mechanism (Norton, 44) abuts against the taper pin body through the rolling bearing, the second taper surface (Pringle, surface of 236) is formed on the taper pin body (Pringle, 236).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of claim 3 would necessarily result in the following limitations: the cam (Norton, 44) of the cam mechanism has a plurality of surface protrusion structures (Norton, Fig. 5, 56) evenly distributed along a circumferential direction of the cam (Norton, Fig. 4), a number of the at least one taper pin moving assembly (Pringle, 256) is the same as a number of the surface protrusion structures (Norton, Fig. 4, wherein the number of balls is equal to the number of cam protrusions), and there are a plurality of the taper pin moving assemblies uniformly set around an axis of the body side connector on an end surface of the body side connector (Norton, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Norton discloses the body side connector (12) includes a connector body (30) and a positioning rod (26), the positioning rod is fixedly connected to the connector body (see Fig. 1), the cam mechanism is sleeved on the positioning rod and is able to rotate around the positioning rod (see Fig. 2), the connector body is provided with a link mechanism placement cavity (see Fig. 1, cavity in 30 wherein 74 is provided), and a first bolt hole (bolt holes in 14), the connector body also has a first positioning boss (24), the first positioning boss and the first bolt hole are both used to connect with a robotic arm body (see paragraph [0028], wherein a master unit 12 adapted to be connected to a robotic arm (not shown). Note that Norton discloses the bolt holes and the positioning boss on the replacement side connector and not the body side connecter. However, it has been held that a duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this instance, providing the body side connector with a bolt hole and a positioning boss would produce the expected result of allowing a connection between the robotic tool changer and the robot arm. The combination of claim 3 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: a spring placement chamber (Norton, chamber where 238 is provided).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of claim 3 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the body side connector (Pringle, 12) further includes an assembly ring (Norton, inner wall of 30; Pringle, 252), the assembly ring being detachably connected to the connector body (Pringle, 250), and limiting the at least one taper pin moving assembly (Pringle, 236) between the assembly ring and the connector body (Pringle, Fig. 15); a reserved cavity (Pringle, 434) adapted to a shape of the at least one taper pin moving assembly is opened on the assembly ring, the reserved cavity being used to provide a moving space for the at least one taper pin moving assembly (Pringle, Fig. 15); a second positioning boss (Norton, 16) for mating with the replacement side connector (Norton, 14) is opened on the assembly ring (Norton, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Norton discloses a positioning hole (see paragraph [0028], wherein corresponding alignment holes (not shown) on the tool unit 14) and a second bolt hole (see Fig. 1, bolt holes in 14) are opened on the replacement side connector (14), and a third positioning boss (24) is formed on the replacement side connector, the third positioning boss and the second bolt hole being both used to mate with a replacement end (see paragraph [0028], wherein a tool unit 14, adapted to be connected to a robotic tool (not shown)); the positioning hole corresponds to the second positioning boss (16), and is used to position the replacement side connector and the assembly ring (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 51, Norton discloses a positioning hole (see paragraph [0028], wherein corresponding alignment holes (not shown) on the tool unit 14) and a second bolt hole (see Fig. 1, bolt holes in 14) are provided on the replacement side connector (14), and a third positioning boss (24) is also formed on the replacement side connector, the third positioning boss and the second bolt hole are connected with a replacement end (see paragraph [0028], wherein a tool unit 14, adapted to be connected to a robotic tool (not shown)); the positioning hole corresponds to the second positioning boss (16), and the positioning hole is used to implement a positioning of the replacement side connector and the assembly ring (see Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 52 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 closest prior art of record, Norton (US 20090322041 A1), does not anticipate that “a restoring force of the return spring separates the taper pin body from the replacement side connector” as recited in claim 7; or “the cam of the cam mechanism has a highest point, when the highest point abuts against the at least one taper pin moving assembly, the first taper surface is mated with the second taper surface” as recited by claim 52. The prior art of record does not provide any teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify toward the entirety of applicant's claimed invention. Further, there was no cogent reasoning elsewhere available to one of ordinary skill that was unequivocally independent of improper hindsight of applicant's invention and that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify the prior art to obtain the applicant' s invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks section V, filed 12/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Norton and Pringle.
Applicant's arguments, see remarks section VI-VII, filed 12/26/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Norton in view of Pringle fail to disclose all the limitations of claim 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, the combination of Norton and Pringle disclose each and every claimed element. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained. The Examiner notes that several of Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed toward unclaimed features, e.g., “dual self-locking”. However, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Norton in view of Pringle fail to disclose all the limitations of claim 3, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection of claim 3 above, the combination of Norton and Pringle disclose each and every claimed element. Therefore, the rejection of claim 3 is maintained. The Examiner notes that several of Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed toward unclaimed features, e.g., the different locking forces. However, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that general technical knowledge does not affect the inventiveness of the specific technical solution of the present application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wikipedia teaches using rollers between cam surfaces and cam followers. Therefore, it is obvious to use rollers between cam surfaces and cam followers.
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 JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618