Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/578,968

AUTOMATIC COUPLING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 12, 2024
Examiner
ELAHMADI, ZAKARIA
Art Unit
3618
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Fedegari Autoclavi S P A
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
580 granted / 761 resolved
+24.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
810
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
51.8%
+11.8% vs TC avg
§102
35.4%
-4.6% vs TC avg
§112
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 761 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites in line 3 and 4 “a first body” and “a second body” it should be “the first body” and “the second body” since these elements are mentioned previously. 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 3, 5 and 10 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “said opening ha a polygonal”, and the claim also recites “preferably hexagonal shape” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Same issue applies to claims 5, 10. 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. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabbels [ DE 102013008952] in view of Thakkar [US Pub # 2021/0283606]. Regarding claim 1: Wabbels shows an automatic coupling device configured to reversibly constrain at least a first body (robot arm, see translation [0038] “… carrier device designed as a robot arm or stationary bracket and likewise not shown..” ) and at least a second body (the tool, see [0038], line 2) and comprising: a first coupling body (2) and a rest configuration, in which said first locking means (6) and second locking means (7) are not respectively abutting on said first locking portion (6) and/or said second locking portion (7) thus permitting a relative movement between the first body and the second body a movement means (robot arm) configured to produce a relative movement between said first coupling body (2) and said second coupling body (3) said movement means (robot arm) being configured to move said first coupling body (2) and said second coupling body (3) at least between a proximal position, in which said constraining means (18) is active on respective constraining portions of said first coupling body (2) and said second coupling body (3) and a distal position, in which said constraining means (18) is not active on respective constraining portions of said first coupling body (2) and said second coupling body; (3); a control unit (see translation [0002], “…the movements of which are freely programmable with respect to the sequence of movements, paths and angles…”) configured to activate and/or deactivate at least said movement means (robot arm) and/or said constraining means and/or locking means (6, 7) on the basis of at least one operating parameter of said device and/or on the basis of a preloaded logic; wherein said first body is a robotic arm. Wabbels does not explicitly disclose that second body is a reservoir adapted to contain at least one sterile product to be transferred to a filling line. However, Thakkar teaches that second body is a reservoir (707c) adapted to contain at least one sterile product (706a) to be transferred to a filling line. It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have replaced the second body/tool with a reservoir adapted to contain sterile product or any other parts attached to robot to serve the intended use of the robot arm and having the ability to configure the robot for muti use. Regarding claim 2: Wabbels shows wherein said second coupling body (3) defines at least one opening adapted to receive said first locking means (6) and/or said second locking means (7) by at least partial insertion; and wherein said first locking portion (10 and 11) Regarding claim 3: Wabbels shows wherein said opening (4) has a polygonal, preferably hexagonal, shape. Regarding claim 4: Wabbels shows wherein said second locking body comprises a first pair of lead-in portions Regarding claim 5: Wabbels shows wherein said first locking portion (10 and 11) and said second locking portion (10 and 11) are defined by opposing, preferably facing, portions, of said second locking body. Regarding claim 6: Wabbels shows wherein said first locking means (6) and/or said second locking means (7) has portions (see fig 11 and fig 5) that are complementarily shaped with respect to said first locking portion (10 and 11) and/or to said second locking portion (10 and 11) respectively. Regarding claim 7: Wabbels shows wherein said second locking means (7) is reversibly movable away from and/or near to said first locking means (6) in order to achieve said active configuration and/or said rest configuration. Regarding claim 8: Wabbels shows wherein said locking means (6, 7) comprises at least one actuator (18) configured to produce a relative movement between said first locking means and said second locking means (6, 7) Regarding claim 9: Wabbels shows wherein said constraining means Regarding claim 10: Wabbels does not show comprising at least one sensor adapted to detect and to generate at least one signal representative of at least one operating parameter of said device preferably at least a relative positioning between the first coupling body and the second coupling body It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have added a sensor to monitor the operation status of the robot and detect any mal-function. Regarding claim 11: Wabbels shows wherein said control unit configured to:- actuate said movement means (robot arm ) so as to produce a relative movement between said first coupling body (5) and said second coupling body[0002], “…the movements of which are freely programmable with respect to the sequence of movements, paths and angles. If the tool is fixed to a carrier device designed as a robot, the tool is moved relative to the workpiece for and/or during the machining of the workpiece. If the carrier device is designed as a stationary bracket, the tool is arranged in a stationary manner and the workpiece to be machined is moved relative to the stationary tool…”); and/or - activate and/or deactivate said constraining means (17) so as to constrain and/or free the first body and the second body; automatically on the basis of at least one operating parameter of said device and/or on the basis of a preloaded logic. Regarding claim 12: Wabbels shows wherein said movement means (robot arm) comprises at least one robotic arm adapted to move said first coupling body (2) and/or said second coupling body (3) at least between said proximal position and said distal position. Regarding claim 13: Wabbels shows wherein said robotic arm is connected to said first coupling body (robot arm) Regarding claim 14: Wabbels shows wherein said constraining means (17) comprises a spring-loaded shutter mounted on the second coupling body and/or a centering block (B, see markup figure 12) mounted on the first coupling body operatively connected to substantially engage the first coupling body (2) and the second coupling body (3) (see [0041]). [AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: arrow] PNG media_image1.png 439 496 media_image1.png Greyscale Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, JP 2010-17834 shows robot with coupling device comprising a first locking mean (31) and second locking mean (31). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA ELAHMADI whose telephone number is (571)270-5324. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. 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. /ZAKARIA ELAHMADI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 12, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600191
An Off-road Vehicle and Suspension for Such Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602064
ROBOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12577087
OPERATOR CONTROL SYSTEM FOR A MATERIALS HANDLING VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578007
LINEAR DRIVE APPARATUS FOR CONVERTING A ROTATIONAL MOVEMENT INTO A LINEAR MOVEMENT AND MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12560227
BALL SCREW DRIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+11.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 761 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month