Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
5. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
6. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
7. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that uses the word “means, and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “means to rotationally lock the male and female ends” in claim 7 and “means for biasing the suction assembly into a lowermost position with respect to the frame” in claim 9.
8. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
9. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
10. Claim 7 recites “means” “to rotationally lock the male and female ends”. The limitation “twist-lock connection system comprises locking means to rotationally lock the male and female ends ” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C (112). Prong 1: means (uses means), prong 2: to rotationally lock… (functional language), prong 3: The structure as disclosed in the specification is pin (180) (sufficient structure). The structure for performing the function is not recited as disclosed in Claim 7. Paragraph 62 lines 1-2 “With reference to Figures 15A and 15B, in order to secure the end effector connector 110 to the robotic arm (108), one simply has to bring the female end 144 of the twist-lock connection system into contact with the male end 146 in such a way that the pin (180) of the male end 146 is received within one end of the arcuate slot 152 of the interface surface 150”.
11. Claim 9 recites “means” “for biasing the suction assembly into a lowermost position with respect to the frame”. The limitation “biasing the suction assembly into a lowermost position with respect to the frame.” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C (112). Prong 1: means (uses means), prong 2: for biasing the suction assembly… (functional language), prong 3: The structure as disclosed in the specification is spring (162) (sufficient structure). The structure for performing the function is not recited as disclosed in Claim 9. Paragraph 62 lines 6-7 “In order to remove the end effector connector (110), one simply pulls the radial pin 158 out of the cutout (178,) against the biasing force of the spring (162), and rotates the connector (110) in a clockwise direction until the protrusions (176) are clear of the overhangs (156), at which point the connector (110) can be pulled clear of the robotic arm 108.”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
12. 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.
13. Claim 13 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. Claim 13 improperly references another claim while not being in proper dependent form, “A fluid power circuit connectable to the end effector connector according to any one of claim 1” 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
14. 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 –
15. (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.
16. (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.
17. Claim(s) 1, 3-10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being (a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kieffer et al (WO2019114895).
18. Regarding Claim 1, Kieffer et al discloses an end effector connector for a robotic arm (Exhibit A), see Fig 6a and 6b the end effector comprising a suction assembly configured to generate vacuum pressure for releasably engaging an item, page 28 line 21 ”The first extremity (10) is provided with a plurality of suction members(12) gripping a first object(58) by providing a negative pressure in the suction members(12)”, wherein the suction assembly comprises a manifold, page 26 line 7 “the second portion(76) comprises a detachably attached plate(108) allowing for mounting of an adaptor(86)”, page 22 line 29 “Hereby the attachment plate(122) can be attached to the second portion(76) of the connector(70), page 26 line 15 “a second portion(76) configured to be attached to a gripping device(2), comprising: a chamber(10), see Fig 6a, a vacuum generator housed within the chamber, page 28 line 32-33 “is configured to control the pressure provided at different sections of the suction members(12), page 29 line 5 “having a first valve to control the pressure” page 29 line 9, “The valves may be controlled by a control signal delivered by the robot(20)”, the vacuum generator comprising a venturi restriction in fluid communication with chamber(10), page 28 line 21 “providing a negative pressure in the suction member(12)”, a first channel connectable to a pressure source, the first channel being configured to direct a pressurized fluid through the venturi restriction in order to generate the vacuum pressure within the chamber(10); page 28 line 21, “The first extremity(10) is provided with a plurality of suction members(12) gripping a first object(58) by providing a negative pressure in the suction member(12)”. A venturi restriction can produce negative pressure in the suction member by allowing fluid through a narrow region within the chamber(10), and, a second channel opening into the chamber(10), page 28 line 25 “The second extremity 10' is provided with a plurality of suction members (12) gripping a second object 60 by providing a negative pressure in the suction members (12)”, wherein the second channel is alternately connectable to i) a vacuum measuring unit for measuring the vacuum pressure within the chamber when a pressurized fluid is directed through the venturi restriction; page 28 line32 “the gripping device(2) is configured to control the pressure provided at different sections of the suction members (12) of the gripping device(2) independently of each other” page 29 line 2 “the suction members(12) of a second section of the extremities(10)” page 29 line 9 “The valves may be controlled by a control signal delivered by the robot(20)”, page 28 line 25 “The second extremity(10) is provided with a plurality of suction members(12) gripping a second object(60) by providing a negative pressure in the suction members(12)”, or, ii) the pressure source for delivering a pressurized fluid through the chamber in order to generate a positive pressure therein when the first channel is disconnected from the pressure source, page 28 line32 “the gripping device(2) is configured to control the pressure. provided at different sections of the suction members (12) of the gripping device(2) independently of each other”, page 28 line 21 “The first extremity(10) is provided with a plurality of suction members(12)”, page 28 line 35 “the suction members(12) of a first section of the extremities(10) are controlled differently than another portion of the gripping device(2)”.
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image1.png
484
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
19. As to Claim 3, Kieffer et al discloses an end effector connector for a robotic arm according to claim 1,
10. Kieffer et al further discloses the manifold, page 26 line 7 “the second portion(76) comprises a detachably attached plate(108) allowing for mounting of an adaptor(86)”, further comprises a bracket for guiding tubing connected to the first and second channels. See Fig 1b and Fig 1c, page 16 line 3 “a first air tube(100) is attached to the first part(88) of an adaptor(86) attached to the connector(70). A second air tube(101) is attached to the second part(90) of the adaptor(86)”, page 28 line 21 “The first extremity(10) is provided with a plurality of suction members(12)”, page 28 line 25 “The second extremity(10) is provided with a plurality of suction members(12)”.
20. As to Claim 4, Kieffer et al discloses an end effector connector according to claim 1,
21. Kieffer et al further discloses a frame onto which the suction assembly is mounted. See Exhibit B, see, Fig 3a, page 22 line 14 “a second portion(76) configured to be attached to a device(2), page 22 line 7 “a second portion(76) provided with a slidably arranged engagement structure”.
22. As to Claim 5, Kieffer et al discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
23. Kieffer et al further discloses the frame comprises a unibody frame. See Fig 3a. page 22 line 14 “a second portion(76) configured to be attached to a device(2) configured to be connected to the robot”.
Exhibit B
PNG
media_image2.png
988
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
24. As to Claim 6, Kieffer et al discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
25. Kieffer et al further discloses the frame comprises one of a male or female end of a twist-lock connection system connected to the frame, wherein the one of a male or female end is configured to form a connection with the other of a male or female end of the twist-lock connection system connected to the robotic arm to secure the end effector to the robotic arm. See Exhibit C, see Fig 1b, Fig 1c Fig 2b and Fig. 2c, page 18 line 7 “an engagement structure(118) of a first portion(74) rotatably attached to a shaft (pin)(116) of a second portion of a connector according to the invention”. It can be seen that the engagement structure(118) enables rotation of the first portion(74) relative to the pivot(116) and thus the second portion of a connector. By initially bringing the engagement structure(118) of a first portion(74) into engagement with the shaft pin(116), it is possible to rotate the first portion relative to the second portion hereby bringing the connector from an open configuration into closed configuration”, page 24 line 8 ”wherein the protruding structure(102) and the receiving recess(106) constitute a mechanical locking structure”.
Exhibit C
PNG
media_image3.png
256
599
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Exhibit D
PNG
media_image4.png
664
366
media_image4.png
Greyscale
26. As to Claim 7, Kieffer et al discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
27. Kieffer et al further discloses the twist-lock connection system comprises locking means to rotationally lock the male and female ends. See Fig 1b, Fig 1c, Fig. 2b and Fig. 2c, page 18 line 7 “an engagement structure(118) of a first portion(74) rotatably attached to a shaft (pin)(116) of a second portion of a connector according to the invention”. It can be seen that the engagement structure(118) enables rotation of the first portion(74) relative to the pivot(116) and thus the second portion of a connector. By initially bringing the engagement structure(118) of a first portion(74) into engagement with the shaft pin(116), it is possible to rotate the first portion relative to the second portion hereby bringing the connector from an open configuration into closed configuration”.
28. As to Claim 8, Kieffer et al discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
29. Kieffer et al further discloses a bearing assembly configured to movably mount the suction assembly to the frame, page 26 line 24 “The adaptor may comprise connection structures enabling that adjacent pipe ends, or adjacent cable ends can be connected. Hereby it is possible to apply the adaptor to establish connection between single wire, cables with multiple wires or pipes from robot and the gripping device”, page 26 line 15 “and a second portion(76) configured to be attached to a gripping device(2)”, page 28 line 27 “The gripping device(2) comprises a centrally arranged support portion(14) provided with several suction members”.
30. As to Claim 9, Kieffer et al discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
31. Kieffer et al further discloses means for biasing the suction assembly into a lowermost position with respect to the frame. See Fig 6a and 6b.
32. As to Claim 10, Kieffer et al discloses an end effector connector according to claim 1.
334. Kieffer et al further discloses a robotic manipulator, see Fig 1a-c, Fig 2a, Fig 6a and 6b, page 28 line 7 “Illustrates a gripping device(2) according to the invention being mounted on a collaborative robot(20). The robot comprises a base(24) and a first arm(26)”, page 28 line 15, “The first portion(74) and the second portion(76) may constitute a connector according to the invention”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
34. 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 of this title, 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.
35 . Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kieffer et al (WO2019114895), in view of Polido et al (US10611037).
36. As to Claim 2, Kieffer et al (WO2019114895) discloses Claim 1.
37. Kieffer et al (WO2019114895) does not explicitly disclose a filter assembly positioned downstream of the venturi restriction.
38. However, Polido et al (US10611037) teaches an end effector connector comprises a manifold which comprises a filter assembly positioned downstream of the venturi restriction., page 5 line 11 “A filter unit(26) is positioned within the entrance to each vacuum cup assembly”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a filter assembly of Polido et al (US10611037) as modification to Kieffer et al (WO2019/114895) to improve reliability and operational performance, hence increasing efficiency and lifespan of the end effector connector.
39 . Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kieffer et al (WO2019114895), in view of Kalouche (US10940999).
40. As to Claim 11, Kieffer et al (WO2019114895) discloses all limitations in Claim 10.
41. Kieffer et al (WO2019114895) does not explicitly disclose a picking station.
42. However, Kalouche (US10940999) teaches a robotic picking station comprises a robotic manipulator which comprises an end effector connector. See claim 1, see Fig 9a and 9b, col 2 line 30 “a picking arm connected to the body”, page 2 line 38 “over a first set of parallel rails of the storage structure and to a picking location”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize Kieffer’s (WO2019/114895) robotic manipulator with an end effector, in a picking station as taught by Kalouche.
(US1094099) to enable faster and timely packaging and sorting.
PNG
media_image5.png
755
977
media_image5.png
Greyscale
43. As to Claim 12, and as discussed earlier with respect to Claim 11 , the combination of Kieffer et al (WO2019/114895) and Kalouche (US1094099) teaches all limitations in claim 11.
44. Kalouche (US1094099) further discloses a grid-based storage and retrieval system, see Exhibit E, see Fig 6a and Fig 6b, col 2 lines 30-34 “a mobile manipulator robot for retrieving inventory from storage structure is provided”, col 7 line 18 “A robot, such as manipulator robot(200) may be housed in a storage system”, col 7 line 21 “and tasked with picking inventory items contained within storage structure(114), col 10 line 22 “each storage structure(114) would be spaced apart from an adjacent storage structure with enough space between the adjacent structure to allow a robot to transvers about a respective vertically oriented grid”.
45. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize Kieffer’s (WO2019/114895) robotic manipulator with an end effector, in a grid-based and retrieval system as taught by Kalouche.
(US1094099) to enable faster and timely packaging and sorting.
46. Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kieffer et al (WO2019114895), in view of Polido et al (US10611037) .
47. As to Claim 13, Kieffer et al (WO2019114895) discloses all the limitations in Claim 1.
48. Kieffer et al (WO2019114895) discloses the fluid power circuit comprising: a reconfigurable valve assembly, page 29 line 9 “The valves may be controlled by a control signal delivered by the robot(20)”.
49. Kieffer et al (WO2019114895) discloses a pressure source; and, a vacuum measuring unit, wherein the valve assembly is reconfigurable so as to i) connect the first channel of the end effector connector to the pressure source and the second channel of the end effector connector to the vacuum measuring unit; or, ii) connect the first channel of the end effector connector to the filter of the valve assembly and the second channel of the end effector connector to the pressure source. Page 28 line 32-33 “gripping device(2) is configured to control the pressure provided at different sections of the suction members(12), page 29 line 5 “having a first valve to control the pressure” page 29 line 9, “The valves may be controlled by a control signal delivered by the robot(20)”, see Fig 1b and Fig 1c, page 16 line 3 “a first air tube(100) is attached to the first part(88) of an adaptor(86) attached to the connector(70). A second air tube(101) is attached to the second part(90) of the adaptor(86)”.
50. Kieffer et al (WO2019114895) does not explicitly disclose a reconfigurable valve assembly comprising a filter.
51. Polido et al (US10611037) teaches an end effector which comprises a filter, page 5 line 11 “A filter unit(26) is positioned within the entrance to each vacuum cup assembly”.
52. Therefore, it would have been obvious and seem to be more reasonable to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize Kieffer’s (WO2019/114895) fluid power circuit connectable to the end effector comprising: a reconfigurable valve assembly comprising a pressure source; and, a vacuum measuring unit, in combination with a filter(26) as taught by Polido et al (US10611037) to improve reliability and operational performance, hence increasing efficiency and lifespan of the end effector connector.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T KIO whose telephone number is (571)270-0743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8a.m -5 p.m. 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, Robert W Hodge can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
/MTK./
Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights