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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 24. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [075] would be clearer if it were amended to recite --pick instructions 305--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patil et al. (US 10,759,054 B1) (“Patil”).
Referring to claim 1: Patil teaches an end effector configured for attaching to a robotic arm 126, the end effector comprising:
a gripper 220 configured for being in fluid communication with a vacuum source (column 13, lines 52-67);
a carriage 130, 206, wherein the gripper is coupled to the carriage (FIG. 2A); and
a platform 202 having a distal end and a proximal end, wherein the proximal end is configured for being coupled to the robotic arm (column 13, lines 11-22),
wherein the carriage is operatively coupled to the platform and is configured to move back and forth between the distal and proximal ends of the platform (column 13, lines 11-22).
Referring to claim 2: Patil teaches the carriage is further configured to move the gripper upwards relative to the platform so that the gripper is in a lifted position relative to the platform (FIG. 2A versus FIG. 2B).
Referring to claim 3: Patil teaches the carriage comprises an actuator that is configured to move the gripper upwards to the lifted position (column 13, lines 11-51).
Referring to claim 8: Patil teaches the platform comprises a track 202 and the carriage is operatively coupled to the track, and wherein the carriage is configured to move back and forth within the track (column 13, lines 11-22).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil, alone.
Referring to claim 4: While Patil teaches an actuator and that the system may comprise a motor (column 14, lines 57-60), Patil does not specifically teach the actuator comprises at least one of: a pneumatic air cylinder and a servo motor. 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 actuator taught by Patil to comprise at least one of: a pneumatic air cylinder and a servo motor 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 5: Patil teaches a plurality of actuators (column 13, lines 11-51). However, Patil does not specifically teach the actuator comprises a plurality of pneumatic air cylinders that are configured to extend to move the gripper upwards to the lifted position. 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 actuator for the gripper taught by Patil to be a plurality of pneumatic air cylinders since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Referring to claims 9 and 10: Patil teaches the gripper is configured for engaging a package 302a (FIG. 3B), and wherein the carriage is configured for lifting the gripper and dragging the package onto a platform 132 while the package is engaged by the gripper (column 13, lines 52-65). While the engaged package 302a is indirectly supported by the platform 202, Patil does not specifically teach the carriage is configured for dragging the package onto the platform 202 while the package is engaged by the gripper. 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 end effector taught by Patil to teach the carriage is configured for dragging the package onto the platform 202 with a reasonable expectation of success since Patil already teaches the importance of supporting the package during transport.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil and in view of Girtman et al. (US 9,982,691 B2) (“Girtman”).
Referring to claims 6 and 7: Patil does not specifically teach the gripper comprises a plurality of suction cups coupled to a respective plurality of extendable arms. Girtman teaches a robot arm 140 end effector comprising a gripper, wherein the gripper comprises a plurality of suction cups 302 coupled to a respective plurality of extendable arms 366, and wherein the extendable arms are configured to extend and retract relative to a carriage 242. 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 gripper taught by Patil to include a plurality of suction cups coupled to a respective plurality of extendable arms as taught by Girtman with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have control over each arm to adhere to and pickup potentially uniquely shaped articles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patil et al. (US 2022/0088800 A1) also teaches a robot arm with an end effector comprising multiple grippers 328a/b, a carriage coupled to the grippers (FIG. 2), a platform comprising tracks 202 and a platform 334 to support an article.
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
10 July 2026
Prosecution Insights