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 .
The amendment filed 18 March 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 18 March 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: locking mechanism is locking means in the orig. spec. The claims and orig. spec. should have consistent nomenclature for the same structure.
Claim Interpretation
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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) is/are: suction device, biasing member (Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 13-16), and locking mechanism (Claim 10). The terms device, member, and mechanism are construed to be generic placeholders.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-7 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (GB2594758A) in view of Kalouche (US 10940999). Newman discloses:
Claim 1: a robotic arm (movement arm implicitly moved via 10/12 for moving at least food);
an end effector having a suction device (24);
the end effector connector comprising the suction assembly having an integrated vacuum source (16) configured to generate vacuum pressure for releasably engaging an item with the suction device when connected to the end effector connector in use;
Claim 2: wherein the vacuum source comprises a venturi vacuum generator connectable to a pressure source for providing a pressurized air supply thereto (“Each vacuum cartridge is formed with a venturi shaped conduit to cause air passing through the cartridge to accelerate.”);
Claim 3: wherein the vacuum source comprises a plurality of venturi vacuum generators and a vacuum manifold for fluidically connecting the plurality of venturi vacuum generators to the suction device (“Each vacuum cartridge is formed with a venturi shaped conduit to cause air passing through the cartridge to accelerate.”);
Claim 4: wherein the vacuum manifold comprises a chamber and the plurality of venturi vacuum generators is housed within the chamber (“Each vacuum cartridge is formed with a venturi shaped conduit to cause air passing through the cartridge to accelerate.”);
Claim 5: wherein the suction assembly further comprises an integrated filter assembly fluidically connected to the vacuum manifold (26);
Claim 6: wherein the suction assembly further comprises an integrated filter assembly fluidically connected to the vacuum source (26);
Claim 7: wherein the suction assembly comprises a connection element to fluidically connect the suction assembly and the suction device (“Each vacuum cartridge is formed with a venturi shaped conduit to cause air passing through the cartridge to accelerate.”; Fig. 1);
Claim 13: an end effector comprising a suction device fluidically connected to the vacuum source of the end effector connector (“Each vacuum cartridge is formed with a venturi shaped conduit to cause air passing through the cartridge to accelerate.”; Fig. 1);
Claim 14: A robotic manipulator comprising the end effector assembly (“Each vacuum cartridge is formed with a venturi shaped conduit to cause air passing through the cartridge to accelerate.”; Fig. 1);
Claim 15: A robotic picking station comprising the robotic manipulator (“Each vacuum cartridge is formed with a venturi shaped conduit to cause air passing through the cartridge to accelerate.”; Fig. 1);
Claim 16: A grid-based storage and retrieval system comprising the robotic picking station (“Each vacuum cartridge is formed with a venturi shaped conduit to cause air passing through the cartridge to accelerate.”; Fig. 1).
Newman does not directly show:
Claim 1: a structural frame configured to be secured to the robotic arm;
a suction assembly mounted to the structural frame;
a linear bearing assembly disposed between the suction assembly and the structural frame and configured to permit axial movement of the suction assembly along a longitudinal axis of the end effector connector relative to the structural frame;
a biasing member configured to urge the suction assembly towards a lowermost position relative to the structural frame along the longitudinal axis.
Kalouche shows a similar device having:
Claim 1: a structural frame configured to be secured to the robotic arm (FIG. 12A/12B, 230/etc.);
a suction assembly mounted to the structural frame (248);
a linear bearing assembly disposed between the suction assembly and the structural frame and configured to permit axial movement of the suction assembly along a longitudinal axis of the end effector connector relative to the structural frame (233; at least col. 16, lines 39-43);
a biasing member configured to urge the suction assembly towards a lowermost position relative to the structural frame along the longitudinal axis (257; at least col. 17, lines 45-60);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of preventing damage to the product (col. 17, lines 45-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Newman as taught by Kalouche and include Kalouche’s similar device having:
Claim 1: a structural frame configured to be secured to the robotic arm;
a suction assembly mounted to the structural frame;
a linear bearing assembly disposed between the suction assembly and the structural frame and configured to permit axial movement of the suction assembly along a longitudinal axis of the end effector connector relative to the structural frame;
a biasing member configured to urge the suction assembly towards a lowermost position relative to the structural frame along the longitudinal axis;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of preventing damage to the product.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman in view of Kalouche and Ravindran et al. (US 2012/0000050) (“Ravindran”). Newman discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Newman does not directly show:
Claim 9: wherein 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 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;
Claim 10: wherein the twist-lock connection system comprises a locking mechanism to rotationally lock the male and female ends.
Ravindran shows a similar device having:
Claim 9: wherein 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 form a connection with the other of a male or female end of the twist-lock connection system (42/74/etc.) connected to the robotic arm to secure the end effector to the robotic arm (at least 26 is arm equiv.);
Claim 10: wherein the twist-lock connection system comprises a locking mechanism to rotationally lock the male and female ends (42/74/etc.);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing high stiffness, zero free play mated interface (para. [0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Newman and Kalouche as taught by Ravindran and include Ravindran’s similar device having:
Claim 9: wherein 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 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;
Claim 10: wherein the twist-lock connection system comprises a locking mechanism to rotationally lock the male and female ends;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing high stiffness, low power, and compact end-effector design.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 9-13, filed 18 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 under Newman et al. 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 Newman, Kalouche, et al.
The rejections above have been modified per the claim amendments.
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 Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights