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 .
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martin et al. (US 20200048015 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Martin et al. teaches an end effector (Fig. 2B, number 100) for a robotic arm, the end effector comprising a suction cup (Fig. 2B, number 120) and an inline filter assembly (Fig. 2B, number 110) in fluid communication with the suction cup.
Regarding claim 2, Martin et al. teaches the end effector according to claim 1, wherein the inline filter assembly (Fig. 2B, number 110) is axially aligned with the suction cup (Fig. 2B, number 120).
Regarding claim 3, Martin et al. teaches the end effector according to claim 1, wherein the inline filter assembly (Fig. 2B, number 110) is connected to the suction cup (Fig 2B, number 120).
Regarding claim 4, Martin et al. teaches the end effector according to claim 3, wherein the inline filter assembly (Fig. 2B, number 110) is removably connected (Paragraph 15, lines 2-3) to the suction cup (Fig. 2B, number 120).
Regarding claim 6, Martin et al. teaches the end effector according to claim 1, wherein the end effector comprises an elongate stem (Fig. 2B, number 344) in fluid communication with the inline filter assembly (Fig. 2B, number 110) and the suction cup (Fig. 2B, number 120).
Regarding claim 8, Martin et al. teaches the end effector according to claim 6, wherein the inline filter assembly is connected at a first end to the elongate stem and at a second end to the suction cup. (See annotated Figure 2B below.)
PNG
media_image1.png
642
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robinson et al. (US 20190061174 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Robinson et al. teaches an end effector for a robotic arm, the end effector comprising a suction cup (Fig. 1, number 100) and an inline filter assembly (Fig. 1, number 16) in fluid communication with the suction cup.
Regarding claim 6, Robinson et al. teaches the end effector of claim 1, as discussed above. Robinson et al. further teaches the end effector comprising an elongate stem (Fig. 1, number 18) in fluid communication with the inline filter assembly and the suction cup.
Regarding claim 7, Robinson et al. teaches the end effector of claim 6, as discussed above. Robinson et al. further teaches the inline filter assembly being connected to a first end of the elongate stem and the suction cup being connected to a second end of the elongate stem (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
520
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9-10 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fofonoff et al. (US 20220266458 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Fofonoff et al. teaches a suction cup assembly for a robot end effector, the suction cup assembly comprising:
a suction cup (Fig. 4, number 402); and
a removable inline filter assembly (Fig. 4, number 400; see paragraph 80, lines 1-4) comprising a connection element (Fig. 4, number 406) to connect to the robot end effector.
Regarding claim 10, Fofonoff et al. teaches the suction cup assembly according to claim 9, wherein the filter assembly comprises a separable filter housing (Fig. 4, number 400) to house a filter element (Paragraph 80, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 14, Fofonoff et al. teaches the suction cup assembly according to claim 9, wherein the connection element is to connect the removable inline filter assembly to a stem of the robot end effector (Fig. 12A, number 1200).
Regarding claim 15, Fofonoff et al. teaches the suction cup assembly according to claim 9, wherein the connection element (Fig. 4, number 406) is to connect the removable inline filter assembly (Fig. 4, number 400) to an intermediate connector (Fig. 9, number 904) for connection to a robotic arm (Paragraph 91, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 16, Fofonoff et al. teaches a robot end effector (Fig. 11, number 1100) comprising the suction cup assembly according to claim 9. Regarding claim 17, Fofonoff et al. teaches a robotic manipulator (Fig. 12, number 1200) comprising the robot end effector according to claim 16.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fofonoff et al.
Martin et al. teaches the end effector of claim 1. Martin et al. does not teach an inline filter assembly comprising a connection element to connect to at least one of: an elongate stem; the robotic arm; or an intermediate connector for connection to the robotic arm. Fofonoff et al. teaches in inline filter assembly (Fig. 4, number 400) comprising a connection element (Fig. 4, number 406) to connect to an intermediate connector (Fig. 9, number 904). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the inline filter assembly of Fofonoff et al. for the inline filter assembly of Martin et al. to allow the filter assembly to connect to an intermediate connector equipped with a mounting screw for connection to a robotic device.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fofonoff et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 20240389807 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Fofonoff et al. teaches the assembly of claim 10, as discussed above. Fofonoff et al. does not teach a separable filter housing comprising a body and a removable cap which, when connected together, enclose a space for the filter element. Zhang teaches a separable filter housing (Fig. 5) comprising a body (Fig. 5, number 21) and a removable cap (Fig. 5, number 23) which, when connected together, enclose a space for the filter element (Fig. 5, number 222). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the filter housing of Zhang for the filter housing of Fofonoff in order to make it convenient for the user to clean the filter components (Zhang, Paragraph 35, lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 12, Fofonoff et al. and Zhang teach the assembly of claim 11, as discussed above. Zhang further teaches a filter housing wherein the body and the removable cap comprise corresponding connection elements to connect together.
PNG
media_image3.png
455
326
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Fofonoff et al. and Zhang teach the assembly of claim 12, as discussed above. Fofonoff et al. and Zhang do not teach a filter housing wherein the connection elements of the body and cap comprise corresponding screw threads. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the connection elements of Zhang with corresponding screw threads because applicant has not disclosed that the corresponding screw threads solve any stated problem or serve any particular purpose, and it appears the invention would perform equally well with the connection elements of Zhang.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fofonoff et al. as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Stadie et al. (WO 2015185628 A2).
Regarding claim 18, Fofonoff teaches the robotic manipulator of claim 17, as shown above. Fofonoff et al. does not teach a robotic picking station comprising a robotic manipulator. Stadie et al. teaches a robotic picking station comprising a robotic manipulator (Page 9, lines 29-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the robotic manipulator of Stadie et al. for the workers or robots of Fofonoff et al. to conduct tasks, such as picking items for fulfilment of orders.
Regarding claim 19, Fofonoff et al. teaches the robotic manipulator of claim 17, as shown above. Fofonoff et al. does not teach a grid-based storage and retrieval system or a robotic picking station according to claim 18. Stadie et al. teaches a robotic picking station according to claim 18, as shown above. Stadie also teaches a grid-based storage and retrieval system comprising a robotic picking station (Page 10, lines 11-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the robotic picking station of Fofonoff et al. and Stadie et al. with the grid-based storage and retrieval system of Stadie et al. to deliver ordered containers of items to designated workstations for picking and delivery.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/882335 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the species claimed in claim 12 of the reference application anticipates the genera claimed in claims 1, 3, 6, and 8 of the instant application and, therefore, a patent to the genera would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genera issue as a patent after the species.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/882335 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the species claimed in claim 13 of the reference application anticipates the genera claimed in claims 1, 3-6, and 8 of the instant application and, therefore, a patent to the genera would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genera issue as a patent after the species.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Young et al. (WO 2019180255 A1) teaches a robot end effector comprising a suction gripper with an inline filter within the conduit.
Wang (CN 215749237 U) teaches a suction gripper with three filters placed at various points within a vacuum suction tube.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR J LINDENBUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1483. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00a-7:30p T-F.
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.
/TAYLOR J LINDENBUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights