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 1-2, 5-9, 11-12, 14, 16-19, and 21-26 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein. Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-12, 14, and 16-19 are amended. Claims 21-26 are new. Claims 3-4, 10, 13, 15, 20 are canceled.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the non-final rejection dated 13 November 2025. The objections to the drawings from the prior office action are withdrawn in view of the amended claims. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection from the prior office action is withdrawn in view of the amended claims. The claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) from the prior office action are updated to reflect the currently presented claims (see below). The prior art rejections from the prior office action are withdrawn because the prior art replied upon in the prior office action does not explicitly disclose / teach the amended limitations including “lock the access door”. However, after further consideration of the newly amended claims, new prior art was found and applied (see below).
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).
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” in Claim 1, 11, and 25
“interaction system” in Claims 5-6
“door interaction component” in Claims 7-9, 11-12, 14, 16-19, and 22-26
“driver component” in Claims 9, 11, and 16-17
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 § 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 1-2, 5-8, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the English translation of JP-H0760664-A (hereinafter, Matsumoto) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0076902 (Gao et al., hereinafter, Gao).
Note: references to Matsumoto paragraph numbers / page numbers refer to the English translation (NPL) uploaded by the examiner and dated 13 November 2025.
Regarding Claim 1, Matsumoto discloses A robotic system (see at least Figure 1) comprising:
an end effector… (see at least Figure 1: this includes at least support member 4 and roller 5); and
one or more controllers (see at least Figure 1: control means 6) configured to:
cause the end effector to perform a first motion to move an access door along a path toward a closed position (see at least pages 7-8 and Figure 2: the roller 5 is rolled along filler door 9 to make filler door 9 close).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose an end effector for enabling an energy transfer to a work machine via a receptacle access point of the work machine or 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.
Gao, in the same field of robotics, and therefore analogous art, teaches an end effector for enabling an energy transfer to a work machine via a receptacle access point of the work machine (see at least [0028]-[0030] and Figure 1: “the arm 12 is configured to automatically couple an end effector 16 to a mating plug/receptacle 102 on the vehicle 100 to charge the vehicle's battery 104”) 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 [0047]: “Furthermore, prior to charging, the robotic arm 12 may be configured to open a receptacle door that may conceal the charging receptacle 102. In one configuration, this action may include transmitting a signal to the vehicle to automatically open the door. 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.”).
It 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, to combine the teachings of Gao with the invention of Matsumoto with the motivation of allowing a robot to assist with charging a vehicle: “Various types of automotive vehicles, such as electric vehicles (EVs), extended-range electric vehicles (EREVs), and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) are equipped with an energy storage system that requires periodic charging. Typically, this energy storage system may be charged by connecting it to a power source, such as an AC supply line. While it may be advantageous to re-charge the vehicle's energy storage system before or after each vehicle use, current systems require the vehicle operator to manually plug the supply line into the vehicle. Such manual operation may not always be convenient for the vehicle operator, which may result in missed charging instances and/or subsequently degraded vehicle performance” (see at least Gao [0003]).
Regarding Claim 2, the Matsumoto and Gao combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Matsumoto further discloses wherein to cause the first motion, the one or more controllers are configured to cause the end effector to contact the access door and to apply a force on the access door while the access door is moved along the path to allow toward the closed position (see at least pages 7-8: movement of roller 5 along a path to close filler door 9 is described).
Regarding Claim 5, the Matsumoto and Gao combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Matsumoto further discloses a door closing system mounted on the end effector of the robotic system, wherein the door closing system includes an interaction system to perform the first motion (see at least Figure 3 and Figure 5: roller 5).
Regarding Claim 6, the Matsumoto and Gao combination teaches the limitations of Claim 5. Furthermore, Matsumoto further discloses wherein to cause the end effector to perform the first motion, the one or more controllers are configured to cause the interaction system perform the first motion (see at least pages 7-8: roller 5 is rolled along filler door 9).
Regarding Claim 7, the Matsumoto and Gao combination teaches the limitations of Claim 6. Furthermore, Matsumoto further discloses wherein to cause the interaction system to perform the first motion, the one or more controller are configured to cause a door interaction component of the interaction system to contact the access door, to perform the first motion, and to apply a force on the access door while moving along the path while performing the first motion (see at least pages 7-8 and Figure 1: roller 5 applies pressure along filler door 9).
Regarding Claim 8, the Matsumoto and Gao combination teaches the limitations of Claim 7. Furthermore, Matsumoto further discloses wherein the door interaction component is further configured to contact and roll along a region of the access door while performing the first motion (see at least [0006]: the roller rolls along the surface of the door to close the door).
Regarding Claim 21, the Matsumoto and Gao combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Matsumoto further discloses wherein the path is an arc-shaped path (see at least pages 7-8 and Figure 2: the roller 5 is moved along the body 8 of the automobile 7).
Regarding Claim 22, the Matsumoto and Gao combination teaches the limitations of Claim 7. Furthermore, Matsumoto further discloses wherein, prior to performing the first motion, the one or more controllers are configured to position the end effector in a first configuration in which the door interaction component is spaced from the access door, and wherein, to perform the first motion, the one or more controllers are configured to transition the end effector to a second configuration in which the door interaction component engages the access door and applies the force on the access door (see at least pages 7-8 and Figure 2: the roller 5 rolls along the body 8 of the automobile 7 including the filler door 9 while applying pressure).
Regarding Claim 23, the Matsumoto and Gao combination teaches the limitations of Claim 7. Furthermore, Matsumoto further discloses wherein, to perform the first motion, the one or more controllers are configured to cause the door interaction component to be extended from the end effector to engage the access door (see at least pages 7-8 and Figure 2: motion of roller 5 to engage filler door 9 is described, roller 5 is the most outwardly extending portion of the robot).
Claims 9, 11, 14, 16-19, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the English translation of Matsumoto in view of Gao in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0219917 (Yang et al., hereinafter, Yang).
Regarding Claim 9, the Matsumoto and Gao combination teaches the limitations of Claim 7. The Matsumoto and Gao combination does not explicitly teach 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 path to perform the first motion.
Yang, in the same field of robotics, and therefore analogous art, 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 path to perform the first motion (see at least [0062]-[0064], FIG. 15, and FIG. 16: pneumatic cylinder 382 moves wet-out roller 31).
It 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, to combine the Matsumoto and Gao combination, specifically the end effector with a roller of Matsumoto, with the pneumatic cylinder attached to a roller of Yang to ensure proper pressures are achieved by the roller (see at least Yang [0002]).
Regarding Claim 11, Matsumoto discloses An end effector of a robotic system (see at least Figure 1: includes at least support member 4 and roller 5), comprising:
a door closing system for closing an access door of a receptacle access point (see at least Figure 2), wherein the door closing system includes:
an interaction system including:
a door interaction component (see at least Figure 1: roller 5), and
…cause the door interaction component to perform a first motion that moves the access door toward a closed position (see at least pages 7-8: roller 5 closing filler door 9 is described).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose an interaction system including… a driver component, coupled to the door interaction component, configured to: cause the door interaction component to perform a first motion…, 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.
Gao, in the same field of robotics, and therefore analogous art, teaches 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 [0047]: “Furthermore, prior to charging, the robotic arm 12 may be configured to open a receptacle door that may conceal the charging receptacle 102. In one configuration, this action may include transmitting a signal to the vehicle to automatically open the door. 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.”). The motivation is the same as Claim 1.
Yang, in the same field of robotics, and therefore analogous art, teaches an interaction system including… a driver component, coupled to the door interaction component (see at least FIG. 15: wet-out roller 31 attached to pneumatic cylinder 382), configured to: cause the door interaction component to perform a first motion… (see at least FIG. 15 and FIG. 16: wet-out roller 31 moves when pneumatic cylinder 382 is extended), and cause, after causing the door interaction component to perform the first motion, the door interaction component to perform a second motion… (see at least FIG. 17). The motivation is the same as Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 12, the Matsumoto, Gao, and Yang combination teaches the limitations of Claim 11. Furthermore, Matsumoto further discloses wherein to cause the door interaction component to perform the first motion, the door interaction component is configured to contact the access door and apply a force on the access door that moves the access door towards the closed position (see at least pages 7-8: roller 5 rolls applies pressure to filler door 9 to close filler door 9).
Regarding Claim 14, the Matsumoto, Gao, and Yang combination teaches the limitations of Claim 11. Furthermore, Matsumoto further discloses wherein the door interaction component is configured to contact and roll along a region of the access door (see at least pages 7-8: the rolling of roller 5 is described).
Regarding Claim 16, the Matsumoto, Gao, and Yang combination teaches the limitations of Claim 11. Furthermore, Matsumoto further discloses wherein to cause the door interaction component to perform the first motion,…cause the door interaction component to contact and roll along a region of the access door to move the access door toward the closed position (see at least pages 7-8: roller 5 closing filler door 9 is described). Additionally, Yang further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 9) wherein to cause the door interaction component to perform the first motion, the driver component is configured to cause the door interaction component to contact and roll along a region… (see at least [0062]-[0064], FIG. 15, and FIG. 16: pneumatic cylinder 382 moves wet-out roller 31).
Regarding Claim 17, Matsumoto discloses A door closing system of an end effector of a robotic system (see at least Figure 1: includes at least support member 4 and roller 5), comprising:
an interaction system, for interacting with and closing an access door of a receptacle access point (see at least Figure 1: includes at least roller 5), that includes:
a door interaction component (see at least Figure 1: roller 5); and
…the door interaction component performs a first motion to move along a region of the access door prior to closing the access door (see at least pages 7-8: closing the filler door 9 with roller 5 is described).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose a driver component configured to cause the door interaction component to move between a retracted non-contact position and an extended engagement position in which the door interaction component performs a first motion to move…, wherein the interaction system is configured to perform a second motion to lock the access door after the access door is closed.
Gao, in the same field of robotics and therefore analogous art teaches wherein the interaction system is configured to perform a second motion to lock the access door after the access door is closed (see at least [0047]: “Furthermore, prior to charging, the robotic arm 12 may be configured to open a receptacle door that may conceal the charging receptacle 102. In one configuration, this action may include transmitting a signal to the vehicle to automatically open the door. 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.”). The motivation is the same as Claim 1.
Yang, in the same field of robotics, and therefore analogous art, teaches a driver component configured to cause the door interaction component to move between a retracted non-contact position and an extended engagement position in which the door interaction component performs a first motion to move… (see at least [0062]-[0064], FIG. 15, and FIG. 16: pneumatic cylinder 382 moves wet-out roller 31 into an extended contact position). The motivation is the same as Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 18, the Matsumoto, Gao, and Yang combination teaches the limitations of Claim 17. Furthermore, Matsumoto further discloses wherein, during the first motion, the door interaction component is configured to move along the region of the access door and to apply a force on the access door while moving along the region (see at least pages 7-8: applying pressure on filler door 9 is described).
Regarding Claim 19, the Matsumoto, Gao, and Yang combination teaches the limitations of Claim 17. Furthermore, Matsumoto further discloses wherein, during the first motion, the door interaction component is configured to contact and roll along the region of the access door (see at least page 8: the roller 5 rolls along filler door 9).
Regarding Claim 24, the Matsumoto, Gao, and Yang combination teaches the limitations of Claim 11. Furthermore, Matsumoto further discloses wherein, during the first motion, the door interaction component is configured to move along an arc-shaped path corresponding to a pivoting motion of the access door (see at least pages 7-8 and Figure 2: roller 5 is moved along filler door 9).
Regarding Claim 25, the Matsumoto, Gao, and Yang combination teaches the limitations of Claim 11. Furthermore, Gao further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 11) 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 [0047]: push lock system).
Regarding Claim 26, the Matsumoto, Gao, and Yang combination teaches the limitations of Claim 17. Furthermore, Matsumoto further discloses wherein, during the first motion, the door interaction component is configured to move along an arc-shaped path corresponding to a pivoting motion of the access door (see at least pages 7-8 and Figure 2: the roller is moved along the filler opening door 9).
Conclusion
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 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.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658