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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “producing an incomplete meatal part by a first additive manufacturing process, a second manufacturing process, laser bed powder fusion process, and a second manufacturing process,” recited in claims 19-21 and 22, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 1-22 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the end effector" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14-15, and 19 are indefinite and vague. What constitutes “two or more digits?” In so far the claim is understood as any finger that can move with respect to each other meets the limitations of the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the end effector" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 19-22 are indefinite and vague. How and what constitutes “producing an incomplete meatal part by a first additive manufacturing process, a second manufacturing process, laser bed powder fusion process, and a second manufacturing process?” In so far the claims are understood as any additive manufacturing process using any laser meets the limitations of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavan Dafle et al., U.S. Patent No. 11247345 B2, in view of CN 203003036-U.
Regarding claim 1, 5-6, 14-15, 17, Chavan Dafle ‘345 discloses a robotic end effector finger assembly (see figure 1) comprising: two or more digits (i.e., fingers 100) moveable with respect to one another for a variable size gripping stroke (see figure 1), with a ceramic insulator 110 which includes a contact portion with rigid parts (i.e., 112, 120, as an external object interface, claims 2 and 16, other materials can be used as such as ceramics as the present disclosure is not so limited, see column 7, lines 20-26), and a finger 102 (i.e., any other suitable material can be used, see column 8, lines 12-28) backing the ceramic insulator 110, wherein an end of effector (near 100) has a maximum operation temperature; an adapter (near 104) which is offset (i.e., a step portion, see figures 3A-3B) configured for connecting the finger 102 to a body of an end effector 200 (claims 12-13 and 18), see figures 1-11.
As stated above, Chavan Dafle ‘345 does not explicitly explain a range of the maximum operation temperature for the end effector.
CN ‘036 discloses a robotic end effector finger assembly with an end of effector (near 3, 5) that can handle the workpiece up to more than 1000 celsius (see paragraph [0004], claims 10-11), and embedded (i.e., rather than mounting) with an infrared sensor 4 to whether perception workpiece current temperatures and detection handgrip clip (see paragraph [0013], claims 7-9). See figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the material of Chavan Dafle ‘345 with already known materials (i.e., alloy, ceramic, cast ceramic, aluminum oxide ceramic materials, since applicant did not invent these known materials) to include an end of effector that can handle at least 400 celsius and a temperature measurement device embedded instead of mounting as suggested by CN ‘036, to ensure that the industrial robot can handle any extreme temperature of the workpiece. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 3-4, as stated above, Chavan Dafle ‘345 shows the ceramic insulator 110 attached to the finger 102 by mounting onto a support channel 106, but does not explicitly explain how it is attached. However, Chavan Dafle ‘345 recognizes that any suitable fastener such as a bolt or other types of fastening can be used to mounting holes 104 onto the robot gripper.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the attachment of ceramic insulator of Chavan Dafle ‘345 in view of CN ‘036 to include already known fastening bolts as suggested by Chavan Dafle ‘345, onto the finger with the ceramic insulator to ensure it is tightly secured.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavan Dafle et al., U.S. Patent No. 11247345 B2, in view of CN 203003036-U, and further in view of Lofving et al., US 2021/0023617 A1.
Regarding claim 19-22, Chavan Dafle ‘345 discloses a robotic end effector finger assembly (see figure 1) comprising: two or more digits (i.e., fingers 100) moveable with respect to one another ke (see figure 1), with a ceramic insulator 110 which includes a contact portion with rigid parts (i.e., 112, 120, other materials can be used as such as ceramics as the present disclosure is not so limited, see column 7, lines 20-26), and a finger 102 (i.e., any other suitable material can be used, see column 8, lines 12-28) backing the ceramic insulator 110, wherein an end of effector (near 100) has a maximum operation temperature, see figures 1-11.
As stated above, Chavan Dafle ‘345 does not explicitly explain a range of the maximum operation temperature for the end effector.
CN ‘036 discloses a robotic end effector finger assembly with an end of effector (near 3, 5) that can handle the workpiece up to more than 1000 celsius (see paragraph [0004], claims 10-11), and embedded (i.e., rather than mounting) with an infrared sensor 4 to whether perception workpiece current temperatures and detection handgrip clip (see paragraph [0013]). See figure 1.
Lofving ‘617 discloses a method for monitoring a powder layer in additive manufacturing first and second layers (see paragraph [0136]) with using selective laser powder fusion process (see paragraph [0062], using alloy) to produce metal parts by monitoring with a sensor 114, see figures 1-8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the material of Chavan Dafle ‘345 with already known materials (i.e., alloy, ceramic, cast ceramic, aluminum oxide ceramic materials, since applicant did not invent these known materials) to include an end of effector that can handle at least 400 celsius and a temperature measurement device embedded instead of mounting as suggested by CN ‘036, and using a first additive and a second additive manufacturing process as taught by Lofvign ‘617 to ensure that the industrial robot can handle any extreme temperature of the workpiece. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-6947. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 9 P.M or Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Hodge, can be reached on (571) 272-2097. 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).
SK
8/26/26
/SANG K KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights