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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Domestic Benefit
The examiner notes that the instant application claims domestic benefit to provisionally-filed application 63/385,906, filed 02 December 2022. Claim to domestic benefit is acknowledged as requirements of 37 CFR 1.78 and 35 U.S.C. 119(e) are met.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 July 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 14 July 2026, received with request for continued examination (RCE), following Notice of Allowance dated 14 April 2026. No new matter was entered by way of amendment.
Claims 1-14 and 19-20 are cancelled. Claims 15-18 and 21-35 are pending. Claims 15, 32, and 34 are independent claims. Claims 29 and 32-35 are rejected for the reasons presented below. Claims 15-18, 21-28, and 30-31 are allowable.
Claim Objections
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 35 mistakenly omits the consistent indentation of the final limitation (“…outputting a lift object command…”) when compared to the other limitations in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29 and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
ISSUE 1: Claim 29 states "…to grip a plurality of objects using different ones of the plurality of gripping elements."; "different ones of the plurality of gripping elements" is generally unclear. The examiner consulted the specification but was unable to locate where "different ones of the plurality of gripping elements" is further clarified. The examiner believes that "various combinations of the plurality of gripping elements" is intended and would remedy the noted issue.
ISSUE 2: Claims 32 and 34 recite "…a suction gripping command configured to cause each dual gripping device to engage suction gripping…"; however, a "dual gripping device" has not been established, so it is unclear what "each dual gripping device" could refer to. The examiner notes that both claims 32 and 34 establish "a plurality of gripping elements", however the terminology is inconsistent between the terms, leading to a lack of clarity as to what components are present and are controlled. The examiner recommends use of analogous terminology from analogous independent claim 15 such as “at least one of the plurality of gripping elements” rather than “each dual gripping device”, if this is intended. Claims 33 and 35 depend upon parent claims 32 and 34, respectively, and are rejected under the same premise, as further outlined below as claims 33 and 35 introduce an additional lack of clarity issue.
ISSUE 3: Claims 33 and 35 state "…each of the plurality of dual gripping devices…" and "…each dual gripping device…". As noted in the parent claims (see ISSUE 2 pertaining to claims 32 and 34), neither a "dual gripping device" nor a "plurality" of dual gripping devices has been established, leading to a lack of clarity as to what component is being claimed and controlled, especially in the case that a “plurality” are claimed. The examiner recommends maintaining consistency in recitation of “at least one of the plurality of gripping elements” to prevent a lack of clarity in the event that this is intended.
Therefore, the examiner notes that the above-noted phrases are indefinite and fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application. Consistent with USPTO examination practices, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be treated as best understood by the Examiner, which according to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), would mean that the examiner could follow any one or more of the interpretations discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter / Prior Art Rejections Not Being Made
As previously indicated in the Notice of Allowance dated 14 April 2026, the primary prior art of note (Liu et al. US 2023/0405841 A1, hereinafter Liu) no longer directly reads upon the independent claim. Particularly, in order to modify the disclosure of Liu to create the invention of the instant application would not only require the combination of references previously discussed, but a rearrangement of parts of Liu to exchange the pinch elements with the vacuum elements, a change that would require impermissible hindsight to incorporate. The examiner considers Liu the closest art of note, but notes that Liu does not disclose the control elements, nor the particular configuration of suction and pinching elements of the claimed invention of the instant application.
US 2020/0282571 A1 Kiefer et al. discusses a multi-mode end effector with a suction element and pinching elements that rotate downward (see Figure [8]), but does not disclose the additional structure recited in the independent claim, nor would combination with other references to accomplish the structure be obvious.
US 2022/0063112 A1 Nishigaito et al. discusses a multi-mode end effector with a suction element and pinching elements that rotate downward (see Figure [4-5]), but does not disclose the additional structure recited in the independent claim, nor would combination with other references to accomplish the structure be obvious.
As previously indicated in the Notice of Allowance dated 14 April 2026, independent claim 15 recites a novel and non-obvious system with a particular structure including a plurality of arms, each arm comprising a plurality of gripping elements, with a gripping span that is adjustable via particular means, and with a particular control scheme permitting a plurality of types of gripping including a pivoting of pinch gripper(s) into a certain position in order to apply a clamping force to an object that is not disclosed, taught, suggested, or rendered obvious by any of the prior art of note.
As claim 15 is allowable, the claims which depend upon claim 15 are allowable by dependency with the exception of claim 29, for the reasons presented above. Thus, claims 15-18, 21-28, and 30-31 are allowable.
Claims 29 and 32-35 are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indicated above, but would be allowable subject to amendments that would overcome the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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 WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights