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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 17, and 21-35 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 17, 21-24, and 26 are amended. Claims 27-35 are new. Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 10, 12-16, and 18-20 are canceled.
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the final rejection dated 24 February 2026.
The prior art from the prior office action included the English Translation of JP-H0760664-A (hereinafter, Matsumoto), U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0076902 (Gao et al., hereinafter, Gao), and U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0219917 (Yang et al., hereinafter, Yang).
In response to applicant's argument that the Matsumoto fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Applicant appears to be arguing that that there is a predetermined path determined by the controller corresponding to the first motion, which is not claimed) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 requires (1) “one or more controllers, configured to: cause the end effector to perform a first motion” and (2) “a first motion to move an access door along a predetermined path toward a closed position”. The claims do not require that “a first motion” is “a predetermined path”. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive as one of ordinary skill in the art understands that closing a hinged door is “to move an access door along a predetermined path toward a closed position” (i.e., a predetermined path is how a normally-operating hinged door closes).
Applicant has amended Claim 1 to recite “applying a controlled force on the access door”. Applicant’s arguments regarding Matsumoto and Gao and the limitations relating to “controlled force” are moot because Examiner is relying upon Yang (see below). Applicant argues references do not teach “the force applied to the door is actively regulated or controlled”. Examiner found no support for “the force applied to the door is actively regulated or controlled” in the original disclosure and accordingly is rejecting the amendments as failing to comply with the written description requirement (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) below).
In response to applicant's argument that Yang does not teach or suggest a certain intended use (“used to move and close an access door”), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (i.e., that Yang does not teach entire limitations that are taught by the combination, see below), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
Claim Interpretation
The underlined portions of the following limitations are interpreted as intended use: “an end effector for enabling an energy transfer to a work machine via a receptacle access point of the work machine” (Claim 1), “a door closing system for closing an access door of a receptacle access point” (Claim 11), “an interaction system, for interacting with and closing an access door of a receptacle access point” (Claim 17). Examiner notes a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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), 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) 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:
“access mechanism to” in Claim 1, 11, and 25
“interaction system configured to” in Claim 5
“door interaction component…to” / “door interaction component to” in Claims 7, 9, 11, 17, 22-23, 25, and 32
“driver component…to” / “driver component…configured to” / “driver component configured to” in Claims 9, 11, 17, 32, and 35
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Based on the specification, Examiner is interpreting “assess mechanism” to be a latch, a bolt, a catch, a hook, a hasp, and/or a fastener or equivalents thereof (see paragraph [0026] of specification).
Based on the specification, Examiner is interpreting “interaction system” to be a system including one or more rollers, or equivalents thereof (see FIG. 5A: interaction system 404).
Based on the specification, Examiner is interpreting “Door interaction component” to be one or more rollers, or equivalents thereof (see paragraph [0048] of the specification).
Based on the specification, Examiner is interpreting “driver component” to be a pneumatic cylinder, or equivalents thereof (see paragraph [0047] of the specification).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 17, and 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has amended Claim 1 to recite “one or more controllers configured to: cause the end effector to perform a first motion…, wherein the first motion comprises…applying a controlled force on the access door”. The specification does not support every reasonable interpretation what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be applying a controlled force on the access door and therefore includes new matter. The specification describes a system where the roller is following a controlled path and does not explicitly describe a system where the force is controlled through feedback with software and force sensors: this is best shown in paragraph [0054] which states “the door interaction component 408 may apply a force (e.g., as a result of moving along the path) to allow the access door 202 to close (e.g., to allow the access door 202 to move to the closed position, shown in Fig. 2A, and remain in the closed position, such as when the access mechanism 204 locks the access door 202 in the closed position)”. The specification does discuss that there is a force threshold in order to move the door, but just that the force applied must be enough to overcome frictional and similar forces (one of ordinary skill in the art understands that forces greater than friction are necessary to close a door), which does not mean the force is controlled through a feedback loop with software and sensors, just that some force greater than the forces required to complete those actions is applied. (See also paragraphs [0037] and [0046]-[0049]: “apply a force on the access door 202 while moving along the path to allow the access door 202 to close”; “contact the access door 202 (e.g., when the access door 202 is in an open position) and to apply a force (e.g., a pushing force) on the access door 202 to allow the access door 202 to close. The applied force may be greater than or equal to a force threshold associated with closing the access door 202, such that the access door 202 is able to move to the closed position (e.g., by overcoming a resistive force of the one or more support components 212)”, “The door interaction component 408 (e.g., when driven by the driver component 406) is configured to contact the access door 202, to move along a path (e.g., from an initial point of the path to a termination point of the path), and to apply a force on the access door 202 while moving along the path to allow the access door 202 to close”; “When the applied force is greater than or equal to the force threshold (e.g., when the applied force is great enough to overcome the resistive force of the one or more support components 212), the door interaction component 408 may move the access door 202 to the closed position”). The other independent claims (Claims 11 and 17) include similar limitations and are rejected for the same reason as Claim 1. The dependent claims (Claims 5, 7, 9, and 21-35) are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 28, 31, and 34 are further rejected because, as there is no support for “controlled force” in the original specification, there also is not support for the controlled force being a downward controlled force, as recited in these new claims. Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 17, and 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Matsumoto in further view of Gao.
Note: references to Matsumoto paragraph numbers / page numbers refer to the English translation (NPL) uploaded by the examiner and dated 13 November 2025.
Yang teaches all of the physical robot structure necessary for these limitations (i.e., robot with an end effector with a pneumatic cylinder to deploy rollers– see below for mapping). Furthermore, Yang teaches computer control of the end effector (see at least Yang FIG. 1 and FIG. 17). The disclosure of Yang uses the end effector for wet-out (i.e., a vehicle manufacturing process well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art). Finding multiple uses for the end effector / robot of Yang would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art with the motivation of making development of the robot of Yang more cost effective (for example, finding more uses and building more end effectors brings down the manufacturing cost per end effector because tooling can be shared). As evidenced by Matsumoto, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known another area that could benefit from robotic solutions was door closing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have taken the structure of the robot of Yang and the basic control strategy of Yang to perform door closing as taught by Matsumoto, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made the minor control adjustments to incorporate that usage.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that some doors to electrical changing receptacles have a push lock/unlock strategy as taught by Gao (see at least Gao [0047]) and combining the solution of Gao of robotic operation of the locks on doors with the Yang and Matsumoto combination would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of ensuring the new usage worked for as many doors as possible.
Regarding Claim 1, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches A robotic system (see at least Yang FIG. 1) comprising:
an end effector (see at least Yang FIG. 14: end effector 320) for enabling an energy transfer to a work machine via a receptacle access point of the work machine (the intended use is taught by Matsumoto / Gao); and
one or more controllers (see at least Yang FIG. 1: controller 26) configured to:
cause the end effector to perform a first motion (see at least Yang FIG. 17) to move an access door along a predetermined path toward a closed position (one of ordinary skill in the art understands that doors on hinges, like the one in Matsumoto Figure 2 inherently have predetermined paths to close), wherein the first motion comprises rolling along a region (see at least Yang [0055], [0057], [0063], and FIG. 16: roller 31 rolling on emblem 36) of the access door while in contact with the region of the access door (one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the combination, would determine there is contact with the access door) and applying a controlled force (see at least Yang [0061], [0068], and FIG. 16: “in step 424, a force F3 is applied within a third range of forces via the wet-out roller 31 to the emblem during the wet-out mode. During step 424, the method 400 may include step 426, monitoring a magnitude of the force applied so that the force may be adjusted in step 424, if necessary, to maintain the force F3 applied within the third range of forces”) on the access door (one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the combination, would determine the force is on the access door); and cause, after causing the end effector to perform the first motion, the end effector to perform a second actuation that causes engagement of an access mechanism to lock the access door (see at least Gao [0047]: “In another configuration it may involve pushing on the door to release a lock, followed by a retraction/articulating motion to fully open the door. The grasping may be accomplished using any suitable selective coupling effector, such as for example, suction devices, hooks, and/or latches. Following the completion of a charging routine, the robotic arm 12 may be configured to close the receptacle door in a similar manner”).
Regarding Claim 5, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches further comprising: a door closing system mounted on the end effector of the robotic system (see at least Yang FIG. 15 and FIG. 16: second arm 320B), wherein the door closing system includes an interaction system configured to cause the first motion (see at least Yang FIG. 15 and FIG. 16: second arm 320B includes pneumatic cylinder 382 that moves roller 31 into contact with emblem 36)
Regarding Claim 7, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches Claim 5. Furthermore, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches wherein to cause the end effector to perform the first motion, the one or more controllers are configured to cause a door interaction component of the interaction system to perform the first motion (see at least Yang FIG. 16: roller 31 rolls).
Regarding Claim 9, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches Claim 7. Furthermore, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to: cause a driver component of the interaction system to move the door interaction component to an initial point of the predetermined path to perform the first motion (see at least Yang FIG. 15 and FIG. 16: second arm 320B includes pneumatic cylinder 382 that moves roller 31 into contact with emblem 36).
Regarding Claim 11, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches An end effector of a robotic system (see at least Yang FIG. 14: end effector 320), comprising:
a door closing system for closing an access door of a receptacle access point (the intended use is taught by Matsumoto / Gao), wherein the door closing system includes:
an interaction system including: a door interaction component (see at least Yang FIG. 14: roller 31), and a driver component, coupled to the door interaction component (see at least Yang FIG. 14: pneumatic cylinder 382), configured to:
cause the door interaction component to perform a first motion to move (see at least Yang FIG. 15, FIG. 16, and FIG. 17) the access door along a predetermined path toward a closed position (one of ordinary skill in the art understands that a door on hinges, like the door in Figure 2 of Matsumoto inherently has a predetermined path for closing), wherein the first motion comprises the door interaction component rolling along a region (see at least Yang [0055], [0057], [0063], and FIG. 16: roller 31 rolling on emblem 36) of the access door while in contact with the region of the access door (one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the combination, would determine there is contact with the access door) and applying a controlled force (see at least Yang [0061], [0068], and FIG. 16: “in step 424, a force F3 is applied within a third range of forces via the wet-out roller 31 to the emblem during the wet-out mode. During step 424, the method 400 may include step 426, monitoring a magnitude of the force applied so that the force may be adjusted in step 424, if necessary, to maintain the force F3 applied within the third range of forces”) on the access door (one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the combination, would determine the force is on the access door); and
cause, after causing the door interaction component to perform the first motion, the door interaction component to perform a second motion that causes engagement of an access mechanism to lock the access door in the closed position (see at least Gao [0047]: “In another configuration it may involve pushing on the door to release a lock, followed by a retraction/articulating motion to fully open the door. The grasping may be accomplished using any suitable selective coupling effector, such as for example, suction devices, hooks, and/or latches. Following the completion of a charging routine, the robotic arm 12 may be configured to close the receptacle door in a similar manner”).
Regarding Claim 17, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches A door closing system of an end effector of a robotic system (see at least Yang FIG. 14), comprising:
an interaction system (see at least Yang FIG. 16), for interacting with and closing an access door of a receptacle access point (the intended use is taught by Matsumoto / Gao), that includes:
a door interaction component (see at least Yang FIG. 16: roller 31); and
a driver component (see at least Yang FIG. 16: pneumatic cylinder 382) configured to:
cause the door interaction component to move between a retracted non-contact position (see at least Yang FIG. 15) and an extended engagement position (see at least Yang FIG. 16) in which the door interaction component performs a first motion (see at least Yang FIG. 16 and FIG. 17) to move the access door along a predetermined path toward a closed position prior to closing the access door (one of ordinary skill in the art understands that a door on hinges, like the door in Figure 2 of Matsumoto inherently has a predetermined path for closing), wherein the first motion comprises the door interaction component rolling (see at least Yang 16: roller 31 rolls) along a region of the access door while in contact with the region of the access door (one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the combination, would determine there is contact with the access door) and applying a controlled force (see at least Yang [0061], [0068], and FIG. 16: “in step 424, a force F3 is applied within a third range of forces via the wet-out roller 31 to the emblem during the wet-out mode. During step 424, the method 400 may include step 426, monitoring a magnitude of the force applied so that the force may be adjusted in step 424, if necessary, to maintain the force F3 applied within the third range of forces”) on the access door (one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the combination, would determine the force is on the access door); and
cause the door interaction component to perform a second motion to lock the access door after the access door is closed (see at least Gao [0047]: “In another configuration it may involve pushing on the door to release a lock, followed by a retraction/articulating motion to fully open the door. The grasping may be accomplished using any suitable selective coupling effector, such as for example, suction devices, hooks, and/or latches. Following the completion of a charging routine, the robotic arm 12 may be configured to close the receptacle door in a similar manner”).
Regarding Claim 21, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches wherein the predetermined path is an arc-shaped path (one of ordinary skill in the art understands that a door on hinges, like the door in Figure 2 of Matsumoto inherently has a predetermined arc-shaped path for closing).
Regarding Claim 22, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches Claim 7. Furthermore, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches wherein, the one or more controllers are further configured to:
position the end effector in a first configuration in which the door interaction component is spaced (see at least Yang FIG. 15) from the access door (one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the combination, would determine the roller is first spaced away from the access door), and
transition, after positioning the end effector in the first configuration, the end effector to a second configuration in which the door interaction component is configured to perform the first motion (see at least Yang FIG. 16),
wherein the door interaction component is caused to perform the first motion after the end effector is transitioned to the second configuration (see at least Yang FIG. 15 and FIG. 16: roller 31 rolls when in contact).
Regarding Claim 23, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches Claim 7. Furthermore, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches wherein, the one or more controllers are further configured to cause the door interaction component to be extended from the end effector, wherein the door interaction component is caused to perform the first motion after being extended from the end effector (see at least Yang FIG. 16: roller 31 rolls in the extended position).
Regarding Claim 24, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches Claim 11. Furthermore, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches wherein the predetermined path is an arc-shaped path corresponding to a pivoting motion of the access door (one of ordinary skill in the art understands that a door on hinges, like the door in Figure 2 of Matsumoto inherently has a predetermined arc-shaped path for closing).
Regarding Claim 25, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches Claim 11. Furthermore, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches wherein, during the second motion, the door interaction component is configured to maintain engagement with the access door to cause engagement of the access mechanism that locks the access door in the closed position (see at least Gao [0047]).
Regarding Claim 26, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 24, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 24.
Regarding Claim 27, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches wherein the end effector comprises two rollers configured to contact the access door and apply force to the access door during the first motion (see at least Yang [0061] and FIG. 14: “A second arm 320B extends from the base 352 and the wet out roller 31 extends from a terminal end portion 320C of the second arm 320B. Another force sensor 70 is operatively connected with the wet-out roller 31. Additional wet-out rollers 31 may extend from additional arms further along the base 352 (e.g., further into the page in FIG. 14) adjacent any additional modules extending from additional first arms”).
Regarding Claim 28, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches wherein the controlled force is a downward, controlled force applied on the access door (see at least Yang [0050]: “Accordingly, the multiple vacuum gripper modules and the wet-out roller(s) may be somewhat customized in this manner to the contour (profile variation), shape, and relative stiffnesses (compliant material properties) of different portions of an emblem” and see at least Matsumoto page 8: door closing can apply to trunk which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand has an upper hinge and should have downward force applied).
Regarding Claim 29, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to cause the end effector to retract (see at least Yang FIG. 15: retracted position) from the receptacle access point (one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the combination, would determine the spacing is from the door / receptacle access point) prior to causing the end effector to perform the first motion (see at least Yang FIG.15 and FIG. 16: must be set in the retracted position in shown in FIG. 15 to get to the position in FIG. 16).
Regarding Claim 30, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches Claim 11. Furthermore, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches wherein the door interaction component comprises two rollers configured to contact the access door and apply force to the access door during the first motion (see at least Yang [0061] and FIG. 14: “A second arm 320B extends from the base 352 and the wet out roller 31 extends from a terminal end portion 320C of the second arm 320B. Another force sensor 70 is operatively connected with the wet-out roller 31. Additional wet-out rollers 31 may extend from additional arms further along the base 352 (e.g., further into the page in FIG. 14) adjacent any additional modules extending from additional first arms”).
Regarding Claim 31, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches wherein the controlled force comprises a downward force applied to the access door during the first motion (see at least Yang [0050]: “Accordingly, the multiple vacuum gripper modules and the wet-out roller(s) may be somewhat customized in this manner to the contour (profile variation), shape, and relative stiffnesses (compliant material properties) of different portions of an emblem” and see at least Matsumoto page 8: door closing can apply to trunk which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand has an upper hinge and should have downward force applied).
Regarding Claim 32, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, the Yang, Matsumoto, and Gao combination teaches wherein the driver component is configured to cause the door interaction component to retract (see at least Yang FIG. 15: retracted position) from the receptacle access point (one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the combination, would determine the spacing is from the door / receptacle access point) prior to performing the first motion (see at least Yang FIG.15 and FIG. 16: must be set in the retracted position in shown in FIG. 15 to get to the position in FIG. 16).
Regarding Claim 33, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 30, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 30.
Regarding Claim 34, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 31, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 31.
Regarding Claim 35, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 32, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 32.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights