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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alvite (US 4,784,421).
Claim 1:
Alvite discloses a robot system (abstract) comprising:
an arm part (30) (figs. 1-2, c5, ll25-27);
a tool part (18) (figs. 1-2, c5, ll6-15); and
a connection part (16, 18) comprising a receiving part (16) and a projection part (18), wherein the receiving part (16) is provided on one of the arm part and the tool part, and the projection part (18) is provided on the other one of the arm part and the tool part,
wherein the receiving part (16) is configured to connect the arm part and the tool part by securely receiving the projection part (18), and to disconnect the arm part from the tool part by releasing the projection part (18) (figs. 1-2, c5, ll6-15 and ll25-27),
wherein the receiving part (16) comprises: a first plane (48) (figs. 1-2, c5, ll34-41); a second plane (50) (figs. 1-2, c5, ll34-41); and,
an interlocking device (hydraulic assembly comprising 78/80, 82/84 86/92 and communicating fluid passages) configured to interlock the first plane (48) and the second plane (50) with each other (figs. 1-5, c6, ll9-25), and
wherein the receiving part (16) is configured to securely receive or release the projection part (18) by moving the first plane (48) in a first direction and moving the second plane (50) in a second direction different from the first direction by the interlocking device (hydraulic assembly comprising 78/80, 82/84 86/92 and communicating fluid passages) (figs. 1-5, c5, ll34-41).
Claim 3:
Alvite discloses the robot system of claim 1, wherein the receiving part (16) is further configured to securely receive or release the projection part (18) by sliding the first plane in the first direction by a force of a first spring (101), and sliding the second plane in the second direction by a force of a second spring (103) (figs. 1-4, c6, ll47-55).
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.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvite (US 4,784,421) in view of Asano et al. (US 2022/0016789 A1).
Claim 13:
Alvite discloses a robot system (abstract) comprising:
an arm part (30) comprising a first connection part (16) (figs. 1-2, c5, ll25-27);
a tool part (18) comprising a second connection part (18) (figs. 1-2, c5, ll6-15); and
wherein the first connection part comprises one of a receiving part (16) and a projection part (18), and the second connection part comprises the other one of the receiving part (16) and the projection part (18) (figs. 1-2, c5, ll6-15 and ll25-27), and
wherein the receiving part (16) further comprises an interlocking device (hydraulic assembly comprising 78/80, 82/84 86/92 and communicating fluid passages) configured to interlock a plurality of claws (48, 50, 56, 58) on the receiving part (16), and
wherein the fluid of the communicating fluid passages is further configured to cause the receiving part (16) to securely receive or release the projection part (18) by moving a first claw (48) of the plurality of claws (48, 50, 56, 58) in a first direction, and moving a second claw (50) of the plurality of claws (48, 50, 56, 58) in a second direction different from the first direction by the interlocking device (hydraulic assembly comprising 78/80, 82/84 86/92 and communicating fluid passages) (figs. 1-5, c5, ll34-41 and c6, ll26-33).
Alvite fails to disclose a processor.
Asano discloses a robot system (abstract) comprising:
an arm part (100) comprising a first connection part (250) (fig. 23, ¶168);
a tool part (300c’) comprising a second connection part (301) (fig. 23, ¶168);
and, at least one processor (600) (fig. 1, ¶¶58, 61 and 208-212),
wherein the first connection part (250) comprises one of a receiving part (392, 393) and a projection part (252, 253), and the second connection part comprises the other one of the receiving part (392, 393) and the projection part (252, 253) (fig. 23, ¶¶175-176); and,
wherein the at least one processor (600) is configured to control the arm part to connect to the tool part by securely receiving the projection part (252, 253) with the receiving part (392, 393), and control the arm part to disconnect from the tool part by causing the receiving part (392, 393) to release the projection part (252, 253) (figs. 1 and 23, ¶¶58, 61 and 175-176).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Alvite’s robot system with a processor configured to control the supply and discharge of actuating fluid, as taught by Asano, thereby controlling engagement and disengagement of Alvite’s tool-support member. Such modification would permit tool attachment and detachment to be coordinated with the robot’s programmed operation, predictably using Alvite’s existing fluid-actuated clamping mechanism to perform the commanded connection and disconnection. See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Alvite in view of Asano renders obvious at least one processor (Asano, 600) configured to control the arm part (Alvite, 30) to connect to the tool part (Alvite, 18) by securely receiving the projection part (Alvite, 18) with the receiving part (Alvite, 16), and control the arm part (Alvite, 30) to disconnect from the tool part (Alvite, 18) by causing the receiving part (Alvite, 16) to release the projection part (Alvite, 18) (Asano, fig. 1, ¶¶58, 61 and 208-212 and Alvite, c6, ll26-33); and,
the at least one processor (Asano, 600) is further configured to cause the receiving part (Alvite, 16) to securely receive or release the projection part (Alvite, 18) by moving a first claw (Alvite, 48) of the plurality of claws in a first direction, and moving a second claw (Alvite, 50) of the plurality of claws in a second direction different from the first direction by the interlocking device (Alvite, figs. 1-5, c5, ll34-41 and c6, ll26-33).
Claim 14:
Alvite in view of Asano renders obvious the robot system of claim 13, wherein the projection part (Alvite, 18) comprises a front end part, a groove part (Alvite, 68), and a foundation part, and wherein the receiving part comprises the plurality of claws (Alvite, 48, 50, 56, 58) (Alvite, figs. 1-5, c5, ll34-41 and c6, ll26-33 – see also annotated reproduction of Alvite, fig. 2 - below); and,
the plurality of claws (Alvite, 48, 50, 56, 58) is configured to fit between the front end part and the foundation part in the groove part (Alvite, 68) (Alvite, figs. 1-5, c5, ll34-41 and c6, ll26-33 – see also annotated reproduction of Alvite, fig. 2 - below).
PNG
media_image1.png
876
1430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 12, Applicant argues the application is in condition for allowance because Applicant has amended claims 1 and 13 to include features of allowable dependent claims 2 and 15. Examiner disagrees. Applicant has not rewritten the independent claims to include all of the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claim. As recited above, the prior art of record anticipates independent claim 1 and renders obvious independent claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 are allowed.
Claims 2, 4-5, 11-12 and 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the robot system of claim 1, wherein the receiving part further comprises: a cam; and an actuator configured to cause the cam to rotate; wherein the receiving part is further configured to securely receive or release the projection part by sliding the first plane in the first direction by a rotation of the cam, and sliding the second plane in a second direction opposite from the first direction by the interlocking device.
Claim 4:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the robot system of claim 1, wherein the first plane comprises a first short radius curved part and a first long radius curved part, and the first long radius curved part has a larger radius than the first short radius curved part, wherein the second plane comprises a second short radius curved part and a second long radius curved part, and the second long radius curved part has a larger radius than the second short radius curved part, wherein the first short radius curved part overlaps with the second long radius curved part, and the second short radius curved part overlaps with the first long radius curved part, and wherein the receiving part is further configured to: securely receive or release the projection part by sliding the first short radius curved part in the first direction by an external force to the first long radius curved part, and sliding the second short radius curved part in a-the second direction opposite from the first direction by an external force to the second long radius curved part.
Claim 11:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the robot system of claim 1, wherein the tool part comprises: a container that is microwavable; a plate-shaped member comprising an electronic shield material; and a memory, and wherein the plate-shaped member is configured to seal a microwave when the container is located within the microwave, and wherein the memory is disposed on a side of the plate- shaped member opposite from an interior of the microwave.
Claim 12:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the robot system of claim 1, wherein the tool part comprises: a container; a fan; and an air bag, and wherein the fan is configured to inflate the air bag, and the air bag is configured to discharge an object housed in the container to an outside of the container when the air bag is inflated.
Claim 15:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the robot system of claim 14, wherein the receiving part further comprises: a cam; and an actuator configured to cause the cam to rotate; and an interlocking device configured to interlock the plurality of claws, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the receiving part to securely receive or release the projection part by sliding a-the first claw of the plurality of claws in a-the first direction by a rotation of the cam, and sliding a second claw of the plurality of claws in a second direction different from the first direction by the interlocking device.
Claim 17:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the robot system of claim 13, wherein the receiving part further comprises a first plane and a second plane, wherein the first plane comprises a first short radius curved part and a first long radius curved part, and the first long radius curved part has a larger radius than the first short radius curved part, wherein the second plane comprises a second short radius curved part and a second long radius curved part, and the second long radius curved part has a larger radius than the second short radius curved part, wherein the first short radius curved part overlaps with the second long radius curved part, and the second short radius curved part overlaps with the first long radius curved part, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: cause the receiving part to securely receive or release the projection part by sliding the first short radius curved part in a-the first direction by an external force to the first long radius curved part, and by sliding the second short radius curved part in a-the second direction opposite from the first direction by an external force to the second long radius curved part.
Claim 18:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the robot system of claim 13, wherein the tool part comprises a container, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to process managing product information for a product housed in the container.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kerestes et al. (US 10,414,055 B2) discloses a robotic end effector quick change coupling apparatus. Carter et al. (US 2017/0072567 A1) discloses a device for aligning a robotic arm with an end-effector.
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 Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
