DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 37 – 44 and 45 – 52 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions I (originally presented claims 1 – 17) and IV (newly submitted claims 37 – 44) are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design. The inventions are also mutually exclusive. This is because the product of Invention I comprises a pneumatic control module for adjusting a high flow vacuum within the conduit path responsive to the sensor information, which is not required by the product of Invention IV. Likewise, the product of Invention IV comprises a cup changing module configured with a computer processing system to use a programmable motion device to exchange a first vacuum cup on an end-effector with a second vacuum cup responsive to sensor information, the second vacuum cup being provide at a cup exchange station, and the second cup providing a different vacuum flow at the object than that provided by the first vacuum cup, which is not required by the product of Invention I. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions I (originally presented claims 1 – 17) and V (newly submitted claims 45 – 52) are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design. The inventions are also mutually exclusive. This is because the product of Invention I comprises a pneumatic control module for adjusting a high flow vacuum within the conduit path responsive to the sensor information, which is not required by the product of Invention V. Likewise, the product of Invention V comprises a cup changing module configured with a computer processing system to use a programmable motion device to exchange a first vacuum cup on an end-effector with a second vacuum cup responsive to sensor information and the object’s pick surface at which the object will be grasped, the second vacuum cup being provided at a cup exchange station, which is not required by the product of Invention I. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 37 – 52 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4 – 7, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkmann (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0255447). In view of Wagner (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0120455).
As to claim 1, Dunkmann teaches a system for providing high flow vacuum control (abstract), said system comprising: an end-effector of a programmable motion device (figure 2, element 22 being the ‘end effector’ and element 12 being the ‘programmable motion device’; paragraph 24); a high flow vacuum source that is configured to provide a high flow vacuum including a vacuum pressure of no more than 65,000 Pascals below atmospheric such that an object is graspable when vacuum flows around the object (figure 2, element 28 being the ‘vacuum source’; paragraphs 25 and 11); a conduit path configured to connect the end-effector to the high flow vacuum source (figure 2, element 30 being the ‘conduit path’; paragraph 25); a sensor for sensing and providing sensor information regarding a pressure of the end-effector (figure 2, element 46 being the ‘sensor’; paragraph 25); and a control module including a valve configured to control the high flow vacuum within the conduit path responsive to the sensor information (figure 2, element 44 being the ‘control module’ and ‘valve’; paragraphs 25 and 28). This can be found because when the valve of Dunkmann is open, vacuum within the conduit is released, causing the vacuum pressure to decrease. Likewise, when the valve of Dunkmann is closed, the vacuum within the conduit increases, causing the vacuum pressure to increase. Dunkmann further teaches that the valve is open and closed based on the sensor information (figure 2, element 44; paragraphs 25 and 28).
While Dunkmann teaches the system comprising a high flow vacuum source that is configured to provide a high flow vacuum (figure 2, element 28; paragraph 25), Dunkmann does not teach the maximum airflow rate provided by the high flow vacuum source. Wagner teaches a system for providing a high flow vacuum to an end-effector (abstract), said system comprising: a high flow vacuum source that is configured to provide a high flow vacuum (figure 2, elements 30, 32, 36, and 38 being 36 being the ‘high flow vacuum source’; paragraph 31), wherein the high flow vacuum source provides a maximum air flow rate of 100 cubic feet per minute (figure 2, element 36; paragraphs 32 and 40). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the system of Dunkmann with the high flow vacuum source of Wagner, which provides a maximum air flow rate of 100 cubic feet per minute, because Wagner teaches that such an air flow rate is sufficient to grip a given workpiece (paragraph 2), as desired by Dunkmann (paragraph 1).
As to claim 4, while Dunkmann teaches the system comprising a vacuum source for providing a vacuum, Dunkmann does not teach the vacuum source itself. Wagner teaches a system for providing high flow vacuum control to an end-effector (abstract), said system comprising: a vacuum source for providing a vacuum (figure 2, elements 30, 32, 36, and 38 being the ‘vacuum source’; paragraph 31), wherein the vacuum source comprises a blower that is configured to coast between grasping objects (figure 2, element 36 being the ‘blower’; paragraph 31). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the vacuum source of Dunkmann with the vacuum source of Wagner, which comprises a blower, because Wagner teaches that such a vacuum source provides the benefit of creating sufficient vacuum so as to allow the end-effector to grip a workpiece (paragraphs 31 – 32 and 40), as desired by Wagner.
As to claim 5, it is the position of the Examiner that the blower of Dunkmann in view of Wagner is configured to re-start when coasting prior to grasping a new object. This is because Dunkmann and Wagner each teach the vacuum source being controlled to turn on and off between grasping objects (Dunkmann, paragraphs 24 and 28; Wagner, paragraph 31).
As to claim 6, Wagner teaches that the blower is a side-channel blower (figure 2, element 36; paragraphs 31 and 4).
As to claim 7, Dunkmann teaches the valve being an adjustable valve in fluid communication with the conduit path (figure 2, element 44; paragraph 25), However, Dunkmann does not teach the type of adjustable valve. Wagner further teaches the system comprising a pneumatic control module for adjusting the vacuum that includes an adjustable valve (figure 2, element 34 being the ‘adjustable valve’; paragraph 31), wherein the adjustable valve is an analog adjustable valve (figure 2, element 34; paragraph 31). Examiner notes that this can be found because Wagner teaches the valve being a solenoid valve (figure 2, element 34; paragraph 31), which is known in the art to be a type of ‘analog adjustable valve.’ It would have been further obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the adjustable valve of Dunkmann as a solenoid valve, as taught by Wagner, because Wagner teaches that a solenoid valve provides the benefit of adjusting the amount of vacuum pressure in the system by venting or blowing off the vacuum in the system (paragraph 31).
As to claim 10, while Dunkmann teaches the control module including an adjustable valve in fluid communication with the conduit path (figure 2, element 44 being the ‘adjustable valve’; paragraph 25), Dunkmann does not teach the type of adjustable valve. Wagner further teaches the system comprising: the vacuum source comprising a compressor and a blower (figure 2, element 30 being the ‘compressor’ and element 36 being the ‘blower’; paragraph 31); and a control module including an adjustable valve for adjusting the vacuum (figure 2, element 34 being the ‘adjustable valve’; paragraph 31). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the vacuum source of Dunkmann with the vacuum source of Wagner, which comprises a compressor and a blower, because Wagner teaches that such a vacuum source provides the benefit of a high-flow rate/low vacuum pressure and low flow rate/high vacuum pressure modes (paragraphs 31 – 32), which allows for the system to grasp a wide variety of different workpieces (paragraphs 5 – 8).
Wagner further teaches that the compressor and blower of the vacuum source have variable speeds (figure 2, elements 30 and 36; paragraph 32). This can be found because Wagner expressly teaches the blower creating a vacuum pressure of up to 25,000 Pascals and an air flow rate of up to 5 cubic feet per minute and the compressor creates an air flow rate of up to 100 cubic feet per minute (figure 2, elements 30 and 36; paragraph 32). Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the art to provide a variable motor, such as a variable-speed compressor or variable blower, with a variable frequency power source, so as to provide the benefit of controlling the amount of power created by the variable motor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to couple the vacuum source of Dunkmann in view of Wagner to a variable frequency power source, so as to control the amount of vacuum pressure and air flow rate of the blower and compressor, as desired by Wagner.
Examiner notes that this finding of Official Notice has not been traversed or otherwise argued by Applicant. Therefore, Applicant has admitted to Examiner’s finding of Official Notice. MPEP 2144.03.
As to claim 11, Examiner takes further notice that it is known in the art to provide the variable frequency power source to comprise a variable frequency drive and a multi-phase power source, so as to provide the benefit of controlling the amount of power created by the variable motor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the variable frequency power source made obvious by Dunkmann in view of Wagner as variable frequency drive and multi-phase power source, so as to control the amount of vacuum pressure and air flow rate of the blower and compressor, as desired by Wagner.
Examiner notes that this finding of Official Notice has not been traversed or otherwise argued by Applicant. Therefore, Applicant has admitted to Examiner’s finding of Official Notice. MPEP 2144.03.
As to claim 13, Dunkmann teaches that the end-effector includes a first vacuum cup (figure 2, left element 22 being the ‘first vacuum cup’; paragraph 25) and wherein the system further includes a plurality of additional vacuum cups that are exchangeable with the first vacuum cup responsive to the sensor information (figure 2 right elements 22 being the ‘additional vacuum cups’; paragraph 25).
As to claim 14, Dunkmann teaches that the sensor information is associated with the first vacuum cup to determine whether to exchange any of the plurality of additional vacuum cups with the first vacuum cup due to stress limitations on packaging of an object if grasped by the first vacuum cup (paragraph 25).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkmann in view of Wagner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lilliston (U.S. Patent Number 11,091,355).
As to claim 7, Dunkmann teaches the valve being an adjustable valve (figure 2, element 44; paragraph 25). However, Dunkmann does not teach the type of adjustable valve. Lilliston teaches a system for providing high flow vacuum control to an end-effector (abstract), said system comprising: a vacuum source for providing a vacuum (column 2, lines 42 – 49); and a control module for adjusting the vacuum (column 2, lines 50 – 60), wherein the pneumatic control module includes an adjustable valve (figure 10, element 310 being the ‘adjustable valve’; column 2, lines 50 – 55). Lilliston further teaches the adjustable valve being a butterfly valve (figure 10, element 310; column 2, lines 50 – 50), which Applicant’s Specification teaches is a type of analog adjustable valve (paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the adjustable valve of Dunkmann as a butterfly valve, as taught by Lilliston, because Lilliston teaches that a butterfly valve provides the benefit of adjusting the amount of vacuum pressure in the system (column 2, lines 50 – 60), as desired by Dunkmann.
As to claim 9, the discussion of claim 7 is incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 10 – 12, that Dunkmann does not teach a ‘valve configured to control a high flow vacuum within a conduit path responsive to sensor information,’ as recited by claim 1. Examiner disagrees. Dunkmann teaches a valve configured to control a high flow vacuum within a conduit path responsive to sensor information (figure 2, element 44 being the ‘control module’ and ‘valve’; paragraphs 25 and 28). This can be found because when the valve of Dunkmann is open, vacuum within the conduit is released, causing the vacuum pressure to decrease. Likewise, when the valve of Dunkmann is closed, the vacuum within the conduit increases, causing the vacuum pressure to increase. Dunkmann further teaches that the valve is open and closed based on the sensor information (figure 2, element 44; paragraphs 25 and 28).
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 CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights