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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 31, 2023 and March 5, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-13 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 other" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3, 6, and 11 are dependent of claim 1, which has a 112-2nd paragraph issue. Therefore, claims 2-3,6, and 11 have the same 112 2nd paragraph defect.
Claims 4-5 are dependent of claim 3, which is then dependent from claim 1, which has a 112-2nd paragraph issue. Therefore, claims 4-5 have the same 112 2nd paragraph defect.
Claims 7 and 9 are dependent of claim 6, which is then dependent from claim 1, which has a 112-2nd paragraph issue. Therefore, claims 7 and 9 have the same 112 2nd paragraph defect.
Claims 8 and 10 are dependent of claim 7, which is then dependent from claim 6, which is dependent from claim1, and which has a 112-2nd paragraph issue. Therefore, claims 8 and 10 have the same 112 2nd paragraph defect.
Claim 12 is dependent of claim 11, which is then dependent from claim 1, which has a 112-2nd paragraph issue. Therefore, claim 12 has the same 112 2nd paragraph defect.
Claim 13 is dependent of claim 12, which is then dependent from claim 11, which is dependent from claim 1, and which has a 112-2nd paragraph issue. Therefore, claim 13 has the same 112 2nd paragraph defect.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/114895 A1 in view of RAVINDRAN et al (US 2012/000050 A1).
As to claim 1, WO 2019/114895 A1 discloses an end effector connector (2) for a robotic arm (26,26’,26”), as illustrated in Figures 1-6B, the end effector connector comprising a structural frame (70); and a suction assembly (see annotated Figure 3C below) mounted to the structural frame, the suction assembly being configured to generate vacuum pressure for releasably engaging an item (58,60) (see page 29, lines 19-35), wherein the structural frame has a male end and female end for a snap lock connection (see Figures 1A-1C) to the robotic arm to secure the end effector connector to the robotic arm. However, WO 2019/114895 A1 doesn’t show the structural frame to be a twist-lock connection.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RAVINDRAN et al teaches a scalable common interface plate system, as illustrated in Figures 1-7, as the interface between multi-degree-of-freedom (DOF) manipulator and its base (see Abstract). The system having a male end (70) via wedges (74) and female end (26) and is a twist lock connector (see paragraph [0061]).
The substitution of one known element (scalable common interface plate system as shown in RAVINDRAN et al) for another (structural frame as shown in WO 2019/114895 A1) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the scalable common interface plate system shown in RAVINDRAN et al would have yielded predictable results, namely, a locking rotatable connector in WO 2019/114895 A1 to allow the suction assembly to be rotatably adjusted.
With claim 2, as modified by RAVINDRAN et al, the twist lock connection comprises a locking mechanism to rotationally lock the male and female ends (said active base interface plate including a locking mechanism mounted in said housing structure on an internal side of said base plate – see paragraph [0008]).
With claim 3, the suction assembly is movably mounted to the structural frame.
With claim 11, as modified by RAVINDRAN et al, a robotic manipulator (20) comprises the end effector connector according to claim 1.
With claim 12, a robotic picking station (shared workspace – see page 2, line 11) comprising the robotic manipulator according to claim 11.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/114895 A1 in view of RAVINDRAN et al (US 2012/000050 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11-12 above, and further in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art of WO2015/185628A (Figures 1-6).
WO 2019/114895 A1 discloses the claimed invention except for the robotic manipulator to be part of a grid-based storage and retrieval system.
Applicant’s admitted prior art of WO2015/185628A (Figures 1-6) teaches that it is well known for a robotic manipulator (52) to be part of a grid-based storage and retrieval system.
To provide the robotic manipulator of WO 2019/114895 A1 in a grid-based storage and retrieval system would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of Applicant’s admitted prior art of WO2015/185628A (Figures 1-6), since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., one skilled in the art would have recognized that the grid-based storage and retrieval system used in Applicant’s admitted prior art of WO2015/185628A (Figures 1-6) would allow the robot manipulator of WO 2019/114895 A1 to operate as a network load-handling devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin’277, Lin’394, Lin’418, Lin’231, and Van Zile are cited as being relevant art, because each prior art discloses an end effector connector for a robotic arm comprising a structural frame and a suction assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 am - 3:30 pm 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, 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.
STEPHEN VU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/STEPHEN A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights