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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second integrated filter assembly must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are further objected to because at least Figures 10A, 10B and 14B are described as showing cross-sectional views, yet none of the figures show proper cross hatching for cross-sectional views. Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty, 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
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.
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is too short. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “and” should be deleted from line 2, and line 4 should be amended to end with the word --and--. 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 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the suction assembly" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Consequently, claims 15-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite since they depend from rejected claim 14.
Claim 15 is further rejected as being indefinite since it recites [essentially] the frame with a connection and the robotic arm with the corresponding connection, “to secure the end effector to the robotic arm.” (emphasis added) It is unclear how a connection pieces on the frame and the robotic arm would connect the end effector to the robotic arm. The claim should likely be amended, and it was best understood by the examiner that the claim should in fact recite --to secure the frame to the robotic arm-- and has been treated as such below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Douglas et al. (US 2023/0141674 A1) (“Douglas”).
Referring to claim 1: Douglas teaches an end effector connector arranged to connect:
a robotic arm 32a,b,c; and
an end effector 34 comprising a suction device 35a,b,c,d to releasably engage an item [0024], in use, with vacuum pressure generated by a vacuum source 25;
the end effector connector comprising an integrated filter assembly 50 for the vacuum source [0010], [0038].
Referring to claim 4: Douglas teaches the integrated filter assembly is arranged to filter an inlet of the vacuum source [0005].
Referring to claim 5: Douglas teaches the end effector connector comprises a passage to fluidically connect the vacuum source and the suction device when the end effector is connected to the end effector connector in use [0024], [0027], [0030].
Referring to claim 6: Douglas teaches the filter assembly is fluidically connected to the passage by an exhaust duct 36a, 24a.
Referring to claim 7: Douglas teaches the filter assembly is arranged such that, when the end effector is connected to the end effector connector in use, the filter assembly is located between the suction device and the passage (FIG. 1).
Referring to claim 14: Douglas teaches a frame onto which the suction assembly is mounted (FIG. 1).
Referring to claim 19: Douglas teaches an end effector assembly comprising:
the end effector connector according to claim 1 (see above); and
an end effector 34 comprising a suction device 35a,b,c,d fluidically connected to the end effector connector [0024], [0027], [0030].
Referring to claim 20: Douglas teaches a robotic manipulator 30 comprising the end effector assembly according to claim 19 (see above).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 8, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas, alone.
Referring to claim 2: While Douglas teaches the integrated filter assembly may be arranged in various locations [0038], Douglas does not specifically teach the integrated filter assembly is arranged to filter an exhaust of the vacuum source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the integrated filter assembly taught by Douglas to be arranged to filter an exhaust of the vacuum source with a reasonable expectation of success since such an arrangement would decrease the amount of debris potentially blown into the surrounding area.
Referring to claim 3: Douglas teaches the integrated filter assembly is a first integrated filter assembly, the end effector comprising a second integrated filter assembly arranged to filter an inlet of the vacuum source [0005], [0038].
Referring to claim 8: Douglas does not specifically teach the end effector connector comprises the vacuum source as an integrated component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vacuum source taught by Douglas to be an integrated component of the end effector connector with a reasonable expectation of success since Douglas teaches it is known that the vacuum source 25 may be positioned elsewhere in the system 10 [0030].
Referring to claim 15: While Douglas teaches male connections members elsewhere in the system [0036-0037], and that the frame [as a note, see the 35 USC 112 section above] is secured to the robotic arm [0027], Douglas does not specifically teach the frame comprises one of a male or female end of a twist-lock connection system connected to the frame, wherein the one of the male or female end is configured to form a connection with the other of the male or female end of the twist-lock connection system, connected to the robotic arm, to secure the frame to the robotic arm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection taught by Douglas to include a male/female twist-lock connection system with a reasonable expectation of success since such a modification would only require a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Referring to claim 16: Douglas does not specifically teach the twist-lock connection system comprises locking means to rotationally lock the male and female ends. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the twist-lock connection system taught by Douglas to comprise locking means to rotationally lock the male and female ends with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure the connection is not unintentionally disconnected.
Claims 9-13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas and in view of Martin et al. (US 10,793,377 B2) (“Martin”).
Referring to claims 9 and 11: Douglas teaches the vacuum source comprises a vacuum manifold 22 to fluidically connect the vacuum source to the suction device. Douglas does not specifically teach the vacuum source comprises a venturi vacuum generator. Martin teaches a robotic system 10 comprising a suction device 100 to releasably engage an item, in use, with vacuum pressure generated by a vacuum source 342, and a filter assembly 110, wherein the vacuum source comprises a venturi vacuum generator (column 4, lines 28-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vacuum source taught by Douglas to comprise a venturi vacuum generator as taught by Martin with a reasonable expectation of success since such a modification would only require a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Referring to claim 10: Martin does not specifically teach the integrated filter assembly is positioned downstream of the venturi vacuum generator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the integrated filter assembly taught by Douglas and Martin to be positioned downstream of the venturi vacuum generator with a reasonable expectation of success since such an arrangement would decrease the amount of debris potentially blown into the surrounding area.
Referring to claim 12: Once modified as with claim 9, Douglas teaches the vacuum manifold 22 comprises a chamber and the venturi vacuum generator is housed within the chamber (FIG. 5).
Referring to claim 13: Douglas and Martin do not specifically teach the integrated filter assembly is fluidically connected to the chamber to filter an exhaust of the venturi vacuum generator. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the integrated filter assembly taught by Douglas and Martin to be fluidically connected to the chamber to filter an exhaust of the venturi vacuum generator with a reasonable expectation of success since such an arrangement would decrease the amount of debris potentially blown into the surrounding area.
Referring to claim 17: While Douglas teaches mounting the suction assembly to the frame, as well as moving the end effector [0029] and the frame [0039], Douglas does not specifically teach a bearing assembly. Martin teaches a bearing assembly 209 configured to movably mount the suction assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mount taught by Douglas to comprise a bearing assembly as taught by Martin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have more control over the exact location of the suction assembly.
Referring to claim 18: Douglas does not specifically teach biasing means. Martin teaches biasing means 205 for biasing the suction assembly into a lowermost position with respect to the frame (column 3, line 67 - column 4, line 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Douglas to include biasing means as taught by Martin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure the suction device is prepared to pick up the next item.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas and in view of Lindbo et al. (US 10,759,597 B2) (“Lindbo”).
Referring to claims 21 and 22: Douglas does not specifically teach a robotic picking station or a grid-based system. Lindbo teaches a robotic system comprising suction devices activated by vacuum means (column 8, lines 41-49), a robotic manipulator 50, a robotic picking station comprising the robotic manipulator and a grid-based storage and retrieval system comprising the picking station (Figs. 6a and 6b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Douglas to comprise a robotic picking station and a grid-based system as taught by Lindbo with a reasonable expectation of success since such a configuration would aide in organizing the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Atamer et al. (US 11,845,181 B1) also teaches a robotic arm 100 with an end effector 104, suction device 106 coupled to a vacuum and a filter 228.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A LOIKITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/Catherine Loikith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
24 June 2026
Prosecution Insights