CTFR 18/374,886 CTFR 89034 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being Anticipated by Yoshizuka et al. (US 20130164108 A1) . Regarding Claim 1, Yoshizuka discloses: A method, comprising: obtaining an object (1) with a tool (5) that is coupled with a kinematic mount (8), the kinematic mount comprising a first sub-component and a second sub-component, wherein obtaining the object comprises: applying a force to a bottom surface of a first plate (81) of the first sub- component, the force being greater than a preloading force that couples a second plate (82) of the second sub-component with a floating structure (40a & 40b & 40c & 40d & 41) of the first sub-component, wherein the applied force decouples the floating structure and the second plate and causes the tool to be positioned within a threshold distance of a first location of the object [0008 & 0033 & 0035 & 0042]; and engaging the object with the tool while the tool is positioned within the threshold distance (Fig. 3 & Fig. 8 & Fig. 13) [0008 & 0033 & 0035 & 0042]; and moving the object from the first location to a second location after obtaining the object [0029]. Regarding Claim 2, Yoshizuka discloses: removing the force from the bottom surface of the first plate after obtaining the object, wherein removing the force causes the floating structure to couple with the second plate [0040 & 0042]. Regarding Claim 3, Yoshizuka discloses: the floating structure and the second plate are relatively further away when decoupled and are relatively closer when coupled [0008 & 0033 & 0035 & 0042]. Regarding Claim 4, Yoshizuka discloses: applying a second force to the bottom surface of the first plate to cause the floating structure to decouple from the second plate and to position the tool within a threshold distance of the second location, the second force being greater than the preloading force [0008 & 0033 & 0035 & 0042]; and releasing the object from the tool based at least in part on the tool being positioned within the threshold distance of the second location [0040 & 0042]. Regarding Claim 11, Yoshizuka discloses: a kinematic mount (8), comprising: a first sub-component that comprises a first plate (81) and a floating structure (40a & 40b & 40c & 40d & 41); a second sub-component that at least partially surrounds the floating structure (Fig. 3 & Fig. 8) and that comprises a second plate (82), the second plate being concentric with the first plate (Fig. 3 & Fig. 8); and one or more coupling components (4a & 4b) configured to move the floating structure and the second plate from a first position to a second position [0033 & 0034 & 0035 & 0038 & 0040 & 0042], the floating structure and the second plate being relatively closer in the first position and being relatively further in the second position (Fig. 3 & Fig. 8 & Fig. 13), the floating structure and the second plate being configured to move independently of each other in the second position but not in the first position [0042], and the one or more coupling components providing a preloading force on the floating structure and the second plate in the first position [0033 & 0034 & 0035 & 0038 & 0040 & 0042], wherein the floating structure and the second plate are configured to decouple when a force greater than the preloading force is applied to the first plate [0033 & 0034 & 0035 & 0038 & 0040 & 0042]. Regarding Claim 12, Yoshizuka discloses: the first sub-component is configured to move independent of the second sub-component with a plurality of degrees of freedom when the floating structure and the second plate are in the second position [0033 & 0034 & 0035 & 0038 & 0040 & 0042]. Regarding Claim 13, Yoshizuka discloses: the first sub-component is configured to rotate with respect to the second sub-component when the floating structure and the second plate are in the second position [0033 & 0034 & 0035 & 0038 & 0040 & 0042]. Regarding Claim 14, Yoshizuka discloses: a surface of the floating structure comprises one or more spherical structures (40a & 40b & 40c & 40d) that are each aligned with respective channels of a top surface of the second plate when the floating structure and the second plate are in the second position, the one or more spherical structures being configured to disengage from the respective channels when the force greater than the preloading force is applied to the first plate (Fig. 3 & Fig. 8 & Fig. 13) [0033 & 0034 & 0035 & 0038 & 0040 & 0042]. Regarding Claim 15, Yoshizuka discloses: the one or more coupling components comprise one or more springs, one or more magnets [0033 & 0034 & 0035 & 0038 & 0040 & 0042], or any combination thereof. Regarding Claim 16, Yoshizuka discloses: the preloading force is greater than or equal to a weight of the first sub-component (Fig. 3 & Fig. 8 & Fig. 13) [0033 & 0034 & 0035 & 0038 & 0040 & 0042]. Regarding Claim 17, Yoshizuka discloses: a central hole (41a) disposed within the first plate and the floating structure (Fig. 6 & Fig. 9) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 6, 9, 10, 18, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizuka et al. (US 20130164108 A1) . Regarding Claim 5, Yoshizuka does not teach: the threshold distance of the second location is less than or equal to one micrometer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a threshold distance of the second location that is less than or equal to one micrometer in order to increase the accuracy in the system in order to prevent error due to misalignment, since it has been held that changing the size or proportions of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). Regarding Claim 6, Yoshizuka does not teach: the threshold distance of the first location is less than or equal to one micrometer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a threshold distance of the second location that is less than or equal to one micrometer in order to increase the accuracy in the system in order to prevent error due to misalignment, since it has been held that changing the size or proportions of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). Regarding Claim 9, Yoshizuka teaches: the bottom surface of the first plate comprises one or more kinematic coupling elements (4a & 4b & 40a & 40b & 40c & 40d) and the tool is coupled with the bottom surface of the first plate (Fig. 3). Yoshizuka does not teach: the tool is coupled with the bottom surface of the first plate via a mechanical mounting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a mechanical mounting for mounting the tool to the bottom surface of the first plate in order to provide a means of removably connecting the tool to the kinematic mount in order to increase the utility of the robotic manipulator by allowing different tools to be temporarily connected thereto since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that mechanical mounting means for attaching tools to manipulators were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding Claim 10, Yoshizuka teaches: the one or more kinematic coupling elements comprise a set of spherical coupling elements (4a & 4b & 4c), a set of grooved coupling elements, a set of toothed coupling elements, or any combination thereof (Fig. 3). Regarding Claim 18, Yoshizuka teaches: A system, comprising: a robotic manipulator (3); a kinematic mount (8) comprising a first sub-component and a second sub-component that is coupled with the robotic manipulator (Fig. 3 & Fig. 8 & Fig. 13), the first sub-component configured to move relative to the second sub-component when a force is applied to a surface of a first plate of the first sub-component (Fig. 3 & Fig. 8 & Fig. 13) [0033 & 0034 & 0035 & 0038 & 0040 & 0042], the force being greater than a preloading force that couples a surface of a second plate of the second sub-component with a surface of a floating structure of the first sub-component (Fig. 3 & Fig. 8 & Fig. 13) [0033 & 0034 & 0035 & 0038 & 0040 & 0042]; and a tool (5) coupled with the kinematic mount, wherein the tool is configured to: be positioned, by the robotic manipulator, within a threshold distance from an object based at least in part on the first sub-component moving relative to the second sub-component (Fig. 2a & Fig. 2b & Fig. 2c & Fig. 3 & Fig. 8 & Fig. 13) [0028 & 0029 & 0030 & 0033], and obtain the object based at least in part on the position of the tool (Fig. 2a & Fig. 2b & Fig. 2c & Fig. 3) [0028 & 0029 & 0030 & 0033]. Yoshizuka does not teach: a tool coupled with the kinematic mount via a mechanical mounting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a mechanical mounting for mounting the tool to the kinematic mount in order to provide a means of removably connecting the tool to the kinematic mount in order to increase the utility of the robotic manipulator by allowing different tools to be temporarily connected thereto since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that mechanical mounting means for attaching tools to manipulators were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding Claim 19, Yoshizuka teaches: the robotic manipulator is configured to move the object from a first location to a second location after the object is obtained by the tool, wherein the tool is positioned by the robotic manipulator within a threshold distance of the second location based at least in part on the first sub-component moving relative to the second sub-component when a second force that is greater than the preloading force is applied to the surface of the first plate (Fig. 2a & Fig. 2b & Fig. 2c & Fig. 3 & Fig. 8 & Fig. 13) [0028 & 0029 & 0030 & 0033 & 0034 & 0035 & 0038 & 0040 & 0042]. Regarding Claim 20, Yoshizuka teaches: the second plate of the second sub-component corresponds to a fixed frame of reference for the robotic manipulator when the preloading force couples the surface of the floating structure of the first sub-component with the surface of the second plate of the second sub-component (Fig. 2a & Fig. 2b & Fig. 2c & Fig. 3 & Fig. 8 & Fig. 13) [0028 & 0029 & 0030 & 0033 & 0034 & 0035 & 0038 & 0040 & 0042] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizuka et al. (US 20130164108 A1) in view of Hsieh et al. (US 20110176900 A1) . Regarding Claim 7, Yoshizuka teaches: the object is positioned on a plate (2a), the plate comprising an extension (7). Yoshizuka does not teach: the method further comprising providing a mating attachment between the extension and a recess on the first plate to apply the force to the bottom surface of the first plate. Hsieh teaches: A method, comprising: obtaining an object (140 & 240) with a tool (136 & 236) that is coupled with a kinematic mount (132b & 134b & 150), the kinematic mount comprising a first sub-component and a second sub-component, wherein obtaining the object comprises: applying a force to a bottom surface of a first plate (134b) of the first sub- component, the force being greater than a preloading force that couples a second plate (132b) of the second sub-component with a floating structure (150) of the first sub-component, wherein the applied force decouples the floating structure and the second plate and causes the tool to be positioned within a threshold distance of a first location of the object (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3D) [0038 & 0039 & 0044]; and engaging the object with the tool while the tool is positioned within the threshold distance [0038 & 0039 & 0044]; and moving the object from the first location to a second location after obtaining the object [abstract & 0026 & 0032 & 0033 & 0034]; the object is positioned on a plate (110 & 210), the plate comprising an extension (282), the method further comprising providing a mating attachment (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3D) [0038 & 0039 & 0044] between the extension and a recess (272) (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3D) [0038 & 0039 & 0044] on the first plate to apply the force to the bottom surface of the first plate (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3D) [0038 & 0039 & 0044]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transfer apparatus having a kinematic mount for allowing minor adjustment a transfer tool carried by the transfer apparatus due to external forces on the transfer tool taught by Yoshizuka with the transfer apparatus having a kinematic mount for allowing minor adjustment a transfer tool carried by the transfer apparatus due to external forces on the transfer tool utilizing an extension on an article support inserted into a recess on the first plate to apply a force to the first plate effecting alignment between the tool and the article to be engaged taught by Hsieh in order to provide a means of physically aligning the tool with the article prior to engagement in order to ensure appropriate alignment thereby preventing error in the system due to misalignment. Regarding Claim 8, Yoshizuka does not teach: providing the mating attachment comprises the extension being disposed within the recess such that the extension and recess and are directly connected. Hsieh teaches: providing the mating attachment comprises the extension being disposed within the recess such that the extension and recess and are directly connected (Fig. 2) [0038 & 0039 & 0044]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transfer apparatus having a kinematic mount for allowing minor adjustment a transfer tool carried by the transfer apparatus due to external forces on the transfer tool taught by Yoshizuka with the transfer apparatus having a kinematic mount for allowing minor adjustment a transfer tool carried by the transfer apparatus due to external forces on the transfer tool utilizing an extension on an article support inserted into a recess on the first plate to apply a force to the first plate effecting alignment between the tool and the article to be engaged, where providing the mating attachment comprises the extension being disposed within the recess such that the extension and recess and are directly connected taught by Hsieh in order to provide a means of physically aligning the tool with the article prior to engagement in order to ensure appropriate alignment thereby preventing error in the system due to misalignment . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 2026/03/03 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1, especially as it relates to the limitation of “applying a force to a bottom surface of a first plate of the first sub-component, the force being greater than a preloading force that couples a second plate of the second sub-component with a floating structure of the first sub-component”: Applicants assertion that Yashuzika fails to teach a preloading force is not persuasive as Yashuzika has a magnetic force holding the components together and maintaining alignment of the components [0033 & 0035 & 0042]. Applicant’s assertion that Yashuzika fails to teach applying a force to a bottom surface of a first plate such that the force is greater than a preloading force is not persuasive as Yashuzika discloses that an external force applied to the first plate results in the movement of the first plate relative to the second plate so that the plates are misaligned, as can be best seen in Fig. 13 made reference to in Paragraph 0042, thereby decoupling the floating structure and the second plate and that once the force is removed from the first plate the components will return to their initial relative positions due to the preloading force imparted by the magnets [0042]. Applicant’s assertion that Yashuzika fails to teach that the force applied to the first plate decouples the floating structure from the second plate is not persuasive as Yashuzika discloses that an external force applied to the first plate results in the movement of the first plate relative to the second plate so that the plates are misaligned, as can be best seen in Fig. 13 made reference to in Paragraph 0042, thereby decoupling the floating structure and the second plate and that once the force is removed from the first plate the components will return to their initial relative positions due to the preloading force imparted by the magnets [0042]. Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 11, especially as it relates to the limitation of “the one or more coupling components providing a preloading force on the floating structure and the second plate in the first position, wherein the floating structure and the second plate are configured to decouple when a force greater than the preloading force is applied to the first plate”: Applicants assertion that Yashuzika fails to teach a preloading force is not persuasive as Yashuzika has a magnetic force holding the components together and maintaining alignment of the components [0033 & 0035 & 0042]. Applicant’s assertion that Yashuzika fails to teach applying a force to a bottom surface of a first plate such that the force is greater than a preloading force is not persuasive as Yashuzika discloses that an external force applied to the first plate results in the movement of the first plate relative to the second plate so that the plates are misaligned, as can be best seen in Fig. 13 made reference to in Paragraph 0042, thereby decoupling the floating structure and the second plate and that once the force is removed from the first plate the components will return to their initial relative positions due to the preloading force imparted by the magnets [0042]. Applicant’s assertion that Yashuzika fails to teach that the force applied to the first plate decouples the floating structure from the second plate is not persuasive as Yashuzika discloses that an external force applied to the first plate results in the movement of the first plate relative to the second plate so that the plates are misaligned, as can be best seen in Fig. 13 made reference to in Paragraph 0042, thereby decoupling the floating structure and the second plate and that once the force is removed from the first plate the components will return to their initial relative positions due to the preloading force imparted by the magnets [0042]. Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 18, especially as it relates to the limitation of “the first sub-component configured to move relative to the second sub-component when a force is applied to a surface of a first plate of the first sub-component, the force being greater than a preloading force that couples a surface of a second plate of the second sub-component with a surface of a floating structure of the first sub-component”: Applicants assertion that Yashuzika fails to teach a preloading force is not persuasive as Yashuzika has a magnetic force holding the components together and maintaining alignment of the components [0033 & 0035 & 0042]. Applicant’s assertion that Yashuzika fails to teach applying a force to a bottom surface of a first plate such that the force is greater than a preloading force is not persuasive as Yashuzika discloses that an external force applied to the first plate results in the movement of the first plate relative to the second plate so that the plates are misaligned, as can be best seen in Fig. 13 made reference to in Paragraph 0042, thereby decoupling the floating structure and the second plate and that once the force is removed from the first plate the components will return to their initial relative positions due to the preloading force imparted by the magnets [0042]. Applicant’s assertion that Yashuzika fails to teach that the force applied to the first plate decouples the floating structure from the second plate is not persuasive as Yashuzika discloses that an external force applied to the first plate results in the movement of the first plate relative to the second plate so that the plates are misaligned, as can be best seen in Fig. 13 made reference to in Paragraph 0042, thereby decoupling the floating structure and the second plate and that once the force is removed from the first plate the components will return to their initial relative positions due to the preloading force imparted by the magnets [0042] . Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 BRENDAN P TIGHE whose telephone number is 571-272-4872. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30 EST If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAUL RODRIGUEZ can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /BRENDAN P TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3652 /SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/374,886 Page 2 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/374,886 Page 3 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/374,886 Page 4 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/374,886 Page 5 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/374,886 Page 6 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/374,886 Page 7 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/374,886 Page 8 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/374,886 Page 9 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/374,886 Page 10 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/374,886 Page 11 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/374,886 Page 12 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/374,886 Page 13 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/374,886 Page 14 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/374,886 Page 15 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/374,886 Page 16 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/374,886 Page 17 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/374,886 Page 18 Art Unit: 3652
Prosecution Insights