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 § 112
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.
Claim 6 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. Claims is an apparatus claims which recite no additional
structure to further limit the structure as recited in the respective claims from which they
depend. Recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be
employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus. 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sehrt(US 5688013 A), and further in view of Me
PNG
media_image1.png
396
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
lville(US 20090314112 A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
290
429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
312
539
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
393
551
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Sehrt teaches an end effector comprising: one or more hole plates each including a plurality of holes; a plurality of pins including a plurality of inner pins and a plurality of outer pins disposed outside the plurality of inner pins; and a force application portion that applies an inward force to the plurality of outer pins, wherein the plurality of inner pins pass through the plurality of holes and are movable within a first distance in a pass-through direction of the plurality of holes with respect to the one or more hole plates. Sehrt fails to teach a cushion material to be used together with the one or more hole plates. However, Melville teaches a robotic gripping apparatus includes one or more constraining plates each having a plurality of holes formed therethrough and a plurality of elongate members with a foam chamber in between the plates. . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Sehrt and Melville to have an end effector with a plurality of pins and hole plates capable of gripping objects of irregular shapes. (Refer to annotated Sehrt and Melville figs above)
Regarding Claim 2, Sehrt as modified by Melville teaches the end effector according to Claim 1, Melville further teaches wherein the plurality of outer pins are fixed so as not to move in the pass-through direction of the plurality of holes with respect to the one or more hole plates.
(Refer to annotated Melville Fig.1 above)
Regarding Claim 3, Sehrt as modified by Melville teaches the end effector according to Claim 2, with a plurality of outer pins except for having a length less than or equal to a value obtained by subtracting the first distance from a length of the plurality of inner pins. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size of the outer pins such that it has a length less than or equal to a value obtained by subtracting the first distance from a length of the plurality of inner pins to better support the workpiece, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
(See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A))
PNG
media_image5.png
304
471
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Sehrt as modified by Melville teaches the end effector according to Claim 1, Sehrt further teaches wherein end portions, of the plurality of inner pins, on the side where contact is made with the target object supported by the end effector each have a tapered shape. (Refer to annotated Sehrt Fig.9 above)
Regarding Claim 7 Sehrt as modified by Melville teaches the end effector according to Claim 1, Sehrt further teaches wherein end portions, of the plurality of outer pins, on a side closer to the target object supported by the end effector each have a rounded shape.
(Refer to annotated Sehrt Fig.9 above)
Regarding Claim 9, Sehrt as modified by Melville teaches the end effector according to Claim 1, Melville further teaches wherein the one or more hole plates are two hole plates, and the cushion material is disposed while being sandwiched between the two hole plates.
(Refer to annotated Melville Fig.8B above)
Claim(s) 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sehrt as modified by Melville applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Neeper(US 20110089709 A1).
PNG
media_image6.png
616
658
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Sehrt as modified by Melville teaches the end effector according to Claim 1, However Sehrt fails to teach wherein a sleeve is attached to a side of end portions, of the plurality of pins, opposite to end portions on a side where contact is made with a target object supported by the end effector. However, Neeper teaches a gripper apparatus for removing and replacing objects with a plurality of pins wherein a sleeve is attached to a side of end portions (Paragraph[0045]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Sehrt , Melville and Neeper to have an end effector with a plurality of pins wherein a sleeve is attached to a side of end portions, of the plurality of pins, opposite to end portions on a side where contact is made with a target object supported by the end effector so that the sleeve can assist with grabbing the workpiece.
(Refer to Neeper Paragraph [0045])
Regarding Claim 6, Sehrt as modified by Melville teaches the end effector according to Claim 1, Sehrt fails to teach wherein anti-slip processing is performed on a region, of each of the plurality of inner pins, where contact is made with the target object supported by the end effector. However, Neeper teaches an apparatus for supporting and extracting a build part with a plurality of pins wherein anti-slip processing is performed on a region, of each of the plurality of inner pins, where contact is made with the target object supported by the end effector. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Sehrt , Melville and Neeper to have an end effector with a plurality of pins wherein anti-slip processing is performed in the region where the target object is supported so more friction is produces and the workpiece is supported more firmly.
(Refer to Neeper Paragraph [0045] and annotated Fig.1B above)
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sehrt as modified by Melville as applied to claim 1 above , and further in view of Sakakibara(US 20200078959 A1).
PNG
media_image7.png
642
610
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Sehrt as modified by Melville teaches the end effector according to Claim 1, Sehrt fails to teach wherein the force application portion includes an inclined portion movable along the pass-through direction of the plurality of holes, and the inclined portion has a rounded shape. However, Sakakibara teaches a robotic gripping device with a force application portion in the form of an inclined portion. While Sakakibara doesn’t teach that the inclined portion has a rounded shape it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the incline portion to be rounded so that pins are able to better slide in the pass-through direction , since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Sehrt, Melville and Sakakibara have an end effector with plurality of pins and through holes where the lateral force application is an incline portion rather than a mechanism since that would lower the number of necessary parts therefore simplifying the manufacturing process of the invention.
(Refer to annotated Sakakibara Fig. 3) (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B))
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sehrt as modified by Melville as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Son(US 20210039266 A1).
PNG
media_image8.png
448
824
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Sehrt as modified by Melville the end effector according to Claim 1 , Sehrt fails to teach and end effector set comprising: the end effector according to Claim 1; and another end effector supportable by the end effector. However, Son teaches a tool change system comprised of an end effector capable of gripping and supporting a tool. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Sehrt, Melville and Son to have an end effector set comprised of an end effector capable of gripping and supporting a tool where the tool is another end effector so that the end effector set is capable of gripping a large array of workpieces by utilizing different end effectors to do so.
(Refer to annotated Son Fig. 5 and 6)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN BRAHJA whose telephone number is (571)272-9777. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am -5pm.
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 Hodge can be reached at 5712722097. 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.
/BRIAN BRAHJA/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights