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. you
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3, 7, 11, 13, 15, 20-22, 38, 40-42 and 44-47 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 27 July 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I-A. claims 1-2, 4 and 6, in the reply filed on 27 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the cited references, alone or in combination, fail to disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as amended; and, in particular Tsuchihashi does not disclose Applicant’s claimed invention. This is not found persuasive because Tsuchihashi, alone, was not relied upon to anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention. As recited below, Applicant’s claimed invention, as recited by independent claim 1, is rendered obvious in view of Examiner’s proposed combination of Tsuchihashi et al. (US 4,955,654) and Roberts et al. (US 2013/0249229 A1).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: translation mechanism and position monitoring device in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed indicates a translation mechanism may be a jaw assembly translator which may include a ball screw and ball nut and equivalents thereof. Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed provides no support for a position monitoring device.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2, 4 and 6 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 a “position monitoring device for monitoring a position of the moving component relative to the calibration position and generating an output to stop retraction of the moving component when the moving component has reached a target preload position along the capture axis that achieves the target preload.” The limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the term “device” is a generic placeholder that does not connote sufficiently definite structure for performing the recited monitoring and output-generating functions, and the claim language does not otherwise impart sufficient structure to the “position monitoring device.”
The specification fails to disclose corresponding structure that performs the claimed functions of (1) monitoring the position of the moving component relative to the calibration position and (2) generating an output to stop retraction when the moving component reaches the target preload position. Although the specification recites a “position monitoring device” and describes the functions performed by that device, the disclosure merely repeats the functional language without identifying structure, material, or ascertain the scope of he claimed means-plus-function limitation because the specification fails to identify the structure corresponding to the recited functions. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 requires the position monitoring device to monitor the position of the moving component relative to a calibration position and to generate an output to stop retraction when the moving component reaches a target preload position corresponding to a target preload. The specification recites these required functions but does not disclose structure or sufficient implementation details explaining how the position monitoring device determines the position of the moving component relative to the calibration position, determines that the target preload position has been reached, or generates the output that causes retraction to stop. Rather, the disclosure describes the desired result without teaching how the position monitoring device is constructed or implemented to accomplish that result.
The disclosure does not provide sufficient information to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed position monitoring device throughout the claimed scope without undue experimentation. Therefore, the specification fails to satisfy the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill. in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchihashi et al. (US 4,955,654) in view of Roberts et al. (US 2013/0249229 A1).
Claim 1:
Tsuchihashi discloses a robotic end effector device having an arm interfacing end (end at 202) including a robotic arm interface for connecting to a robotic arm and a payload interfacing end (at 212) for interfacing with a payload (figs. 1-2), the payload having a grapple fixture which includes a first coupling element (301) mounted to a surface of the payload and a grapple probe (302) (fig. 3, c3, ll. 40-43), the device comprising:
a housing (101) for enclosing an interior compartment of the end effector device (figs. 1-2, c1, ll. 39-41);
a second coupling element (212) that is connected to the housing (101) at the payload interfacing end for mating with the first coupling element (301) during rigidization of the end effector to the payload, the second coupling element (212) having an opening therethrough to enable the grapple probe (302) of the grapple fixture to enter the interior compartment as the payload interfacing end is moved towards the grapple fixture by the robotic arm (figs. 1-2, c2 ll. 68 – c3 ll. 2); and,
a generic grapple mechanism (6, 212, 216, 301, 302) disposed in the interior compartment for capturing and rigidizing the payload to the end effector device through the grapple fixture (see figs. 1-2).
Tsuchihashi does not disclose the specific grapple mechanism structure recited in claim 1. Instead, Tsuchihashi discloses a grapple mechanism comprising an assembly for grappling the grapple probe.
Roberts disclose a capture mechanism for capturing and locking onto exterior surfaces of spacecraft/satellites (abstract), further comprising
a jaw assembly (5, 6) including jaws (5, 6) for grappling a grapple probe (figs. 5-6, ¶98);
a payload present sensor (sensors) for sensing that the grapple probe is in a position to be grappled by the jaws (5, 6) (¶126 and ¶144);
a moving component (4) for translating along a capture axis of the grapple mechanism in a direction opposite a payload interfacing end to bring a first coupling element and a second coupling element into mating connection while the jaws (5, 6) are grappling a component (40) to rigidize an end effector to the payload to a target preload, the moving component (4) including the jaw assembly (5, 6), and wherein the retraction of the moving component (4) closes the jaws (5, 6) to grapple the component (40) (figs. 5-6, ¶¶144-145);
a translation mechanism (12, 13, 27 and associated rigidization actuator driven by motor, 9) for retracting the moving component (4) along the capture axis (fig. 6, ¶¶146-147);
a motor (9) for driving the translation mechanism (12, 13, 27), the motor (9) triggered to drive the translation mechanism (12, 13, 27) in response to the payload present sensor sensing the grapple probe in the grappling position (figs. 5-6 ¶¶145-147);
a calibration sensor (position sensors) for sensing that the moving component (4) has retracted from a calibration position (¶126); and,
a position monitoring device (500) for monitoring a position of the moving component (4) relative to the calibration position and generating an output to stop retraction of the moving component (4) when the moving component (4) has reached a target preload position along the capture axis that achieves the target preload (fig. 16, ¶126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the robotic end effector device of Tsuchihashi by incorporating the grapple mechanism as taught by Roberts because Roberts teaches an improved grapple mechanism that performs the same fundamental function of capturing and rigidizing a payload to a robotic end effector while providing a jaw-based capture mechanism, controlled rigidization, and integrated sensing and control of known grapple mechanism to obtain the recognized advantages taught by Roberts, yielding no more than the predictable result of improved payload capture and rigidization. See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchihashi in view of Roberts as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawashita et al. (US 2020/0191207 A1).
Claim 2:
Tsuchihashi in view of Roberts renders obvious the device of claim 1; and, Tsuchihashi in view of Roberts fails to disclose the first and second coupling elements each comprise a plurality of radially disposed teeth and notches.
Kawashita discloses a coupling device (abstract); comprising first and second coupling elements (24a, 24b) each comprise a plurality of radially disposed teeth (30a, 30b) and notches, and wherein the teeth (30a, 30b) of the second coupling element are configured to mate with the notches of the first coupling element and the teeth (30a, 30b) of the first coupling element are configured to mate with the notches of the second coupling element when the first and second coupling elements (24a, 24b) are brought together during rigidization of the payload to the end effector (figs. 3, 4A, 4B, ¶¶60-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the robotic end effector coupling device of Tsuchihashi in view of Roberts to incorporate the Hirth coupling tooth geometry of Kawashita in order to improve the meshing characteristics, torque transmission, and positioning accuracy of the mating coupling members while reducing localized stress and wear at the coupling interface (Kawashita, ¶¶2-3). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Such a modification merely substitutes one know coupling tooth configuration for another known coupling tooth configuration to obtain its recognized advantages.
Claim 4:
Tsuchihashi in view Roberts and Kawashita renders obvious the device of claim 2, wherein the first and second coupling elements (24a, 24b) each comprise six teeth and six notches such that when mated the first and second coupling elements (24a, 24b) have twelve points of contact through the respective teeth and notches (figs. 3, 4A, 4B, ¶¶60-61).
Claim 6:
Tsuchihashi in view Roberts and Kawashita renders obvious the device of claim 2, wherein the teeth of the second coupling element and the complementary notches on the first coupling element each comprise three curved side surfaces (27a1, 27a1, 27c) for promoting alignment of the teeth of the second coupling element with the notches of the first coupling element as the first and second coupling elements (24a, 24b) are engaged (figs. 9A-9B, ¶100).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hay et al. (US 2018/0170585 A1) discloses a mechanism for releasably securing components of a spacecraft.
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 3726
Prosecution Insights