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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 were originally filed on 08/21/2024 and claimed priority on FR2202242, which was filed on 03/15/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 08/21/2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 is: control element acting on the pair of tips so as to move the pair of tips apart laterally in claim 5.
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.
According to page 6 lines 22-26 and Figures 10a-10b, the control element is a device that exerts a force on the tips to move them apart.
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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 5116094 A) in view of Curhan et al (US 20190039838 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Jones and Curhan respectively)
Regarding Claim 1, Jones teaches a gripper for gripping a honeycomb-shaped part and depositing the part on a target surface (See at least Jones Column 1 lines 21-24, and lines 38-48, the EOA tool is interpreted as the gripper) comprising gripping elements mounted on a support (See at least Jones Column 2 lines 20-44, and Figures 1-2, the gripper modules are interpreted as the gripping elements, which are mounted on the frame member/support) and each configured to be inserted in an internal cell of the honeycomb-shaped part (See at least Jones Column 2 lines 20-44, and Figure 3, the gripper modules are inserted into the honeycomb core section/internal cells), said gripping elements comprising a gripping surface that is laterally displaceable relative to the support so as to come into contact with a side wall element of the internal cell (See at least Jones Column 2 lines 20-44, lines 52-62, and Figure 5, the side of the pins are interpreted as the gripping surface, which are laterally displaceable to come into contact with the side walls of the internal cell)…
Jones fails to disclose…a deformable material being provided on a face of the support on which the gripping elements are mounted.
However, Curhan teaches a deformable material being provided on a face of the support on which the gripping elements are mounted (See at least Curhan Paragraphs 0083-0084, 0091, 0101, and Figure 3a, the mount 308 is made out of foam to allow for a certain amount of give when pressed, which is interpreted as a deformable material on the face of the support on which the gripping elements/actuators are mounted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Jones with Curhan to provide a deformable material on the face of the support. This feature, as taught by Curhan, allows for a certain amount of give when the deformable material is pressed into contact with the object to be grasped (See at least Curhan Paragraphs 0091), thus, allowing the grasping elements to tightly grasp the object without damaging the object.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Jones teaches the gripping elements include a set of laterally movable tips (See at least Jones Column 2 lines 20-44, lines 52-62, and Figures 1-2, the gripping modules/elements include a set of laterally movable tips/pins).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Jones fails to disclose the gripping elements are movable relative to the support so as to adapt to the shape of the part.
However, Curhan teaches the gripping elements are movable relative to the support so as to adapt to the shape of the part (See at least Curhan Paragraphs 0041-0042, 0078-0079, 0083, and Figure 3a, the actuators, which are interpreted as the gripping element, are movable relative to the support to adapt to the shape of the part).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Jones with Curhan to have the gripping elements be movable relative to the support so as to adapt to the shape of the part. This modification, as taught by Curhan, would allow the gripping elements to grasp objects of different shapes by conforming to their shape (See at least Curhan Paragraphs 0041-0042, 0078-0079, and 0083), thus, improving the adaptability of the gripping elements.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Jones teaches a release member of the part comprising a pusher acting on the honeycomb-shaped part so as to disengage the gripping elements from the internal cells of the part (See at least Jones Column 1 lines 44-48, Column 3 lines 14-22 and Figure 6, the cylinder is interpreted as the pusher).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Jones teaches a robot for gripping and depositing honeycomb-shaped parts on a target surface (See at least Jones Column 1 lines 21-24, and lines 38-48), the robot comprising the gripper according to claim 1 (See at least Jones Column 1 lines 21-24, and lines 38-48, the robot comprises the gripper/EOA tool).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Curhan, and in further view of Preta (US 6419291 B1) (Hereinafter referred to as Preta)
Regarding Claim 4, modified Jones teaches a set of tip-shaped gripping elements (See at least Jones Column 2 lines 20-44, lines 52-62, and Figures 1-3, the pins are a set of tip-shaped gripping elements).
Modified Jones fails to disclose the tip-shaped gripping elements are…each provided with an internal passage opening out axially, and an inflatable bladder disposed in the internal passage and able to laterally deform, by inflating, outside of the tip.
However, Preta teaches a gripping element… provided with an internal passage opening out axially (See at least Preta Column 6 lines 35-55 and Figure 1, the gripper element includes an internal passage/chamber that opens out axially), and an inflatable bladder disposed in the internal passage and able to laterally deform, by inflating, outside of the tip (See at least Preta Column 6 lines 35-55, Column 13 lines 8-18, and Figures 1 and 5, the inflatable bladder/gripper element is disposed in the internal chamber/passage and laterally/radially deforms by inflating outside the tip).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Jones with Preta to have each tip-shaped gripping element include an inflatable bladder disposed in the internal passage and able to laterally deform, by inflating, outside of the tip. This modification, as taught by Preta, would allow the gripping elements to grip objects of varying shapes such as those which have irregular shapes and/or non-symmetrical shapes by utilizing a gripping element which is circumferentially and/or radially adjustable so as to be able to conform to irregular-shaped objects of varying size (See at least Preta Column 1 lines 6-11), thus, increasing the adaptability of the gripping element.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Curhan, and in further view of Blixt (US 20190001506 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Blixt)
Regarding Claim 5, modified Jones teaches a set of gripping elements (See at least Jones Column 2 lines 20-44, and Figures 1-2, the gripper modules are interpreted as the set of gripping elements).
Modified Jones fails to disclose the set of gripping elements… each comprising a pair of tips articulated at one of their ends, and a control element acting on the pair of tips so as to move the pair of tips apart laterally inside an internal cell of the part.
However, Blixt teaches the gripping element comprises… a pair of tips articulated at one of their ends (See at least Blixt Paragraphs 0038-0039 and Figure 2, the gripper fingers are interpreted as a pair of tips, which are articulated), and a control element acting on the pair of tips so as to move the pair of tips apart laterally inside an internal cell of the part (See at least Blixt Paragraphs 0031-0032, 0038-0039 and Figure 3a, the actuator is interpreted as the control element, which acts of the fingers/pair of tips to move them laterally apart inside an internal hole/cell of the part).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Jones with Blixt to have each gripping element include a control element acting on the pair of tips so as to move the pair of tips apart laterally inside an internal cell of the part. This modification, as taught by Blixt, would allow the gripping element to grasp the part by moving the pair of tips apart laterally inside an internal cell of the part to apply a gripping force from inside the cell (See at least Blixt Paragraphs 0038-0039 and Figure 3a).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Curhan, and in further view of Bucknell (US 20130292958 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Bucknell)
Regarding Claim 6, modified Jones fails to disclose a bladder that is deformable under the action of a differential pressure applied between the bladder and the honeycomb-shaped part, so as to push the bladder laterally against the wall element of internal cells of the part.
However, Bucknell teaches a bladder that is deformable under the action of a differential pressure applied between the bladder and the honeycomb-shaped part, so as to push the bladder laterally against the wall element of internal cells of the part (See at least Bucknell Paragraphs 0030-0031, 0041, 0068, 0071, and Figure 1, the grasping element includes a deformable bladder that grasps the component/part by pushing/pressing the bladder laterally against the internal contours/walls).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Jones with Bucknell to push the bladder laterally against the wall element of internal cells of the part. This modification, as taught by Bucknell, would form a friction fit with the component/part by having the bladder adapt to the internal contour of an opening in the component/part. For example, the grasping element can completely contact the internal contour of the opening, as a result of which a large contact area between grasping element and component can advantageously be achieved. This creates a better stress distribution compared to an essentially punctiform grasping of a part (See at least Bucknell Paragraphs 0030-0031).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Curhan, and in further view of Lee et al (US 20210331327 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Lee)
Regarding Claim 7, modified Jones teaches the gripping elements are mounted on plates (See at least Jones Column 2 lines 20-44, and Figures 1-2, the extruded parts where the gripping elements/gripper modules 22 attach to the frame 101 are interpreted as plates).
Modified Jones fails to disclose the plates on which the gripping elements are mounted…are axially displaceable relative to the support, between a first deployed position, in which the gripping elements are positioned in the internal cells of the part, and a second retracted position, in which the gripping elements are extracted from the internal cells of the part.
However, Lee teaches the shaft on which the gripping elements are mounted… are axially displaceable relative to the support, between a first deployed position, in which the gripping elements are positioned in the internal cells of the part, and a second retracted position, in which the gripping elements are extracted from the internal cells of the part (See at least Lee Paragraphs 0023-0025, 0027, 0029, 0032, and Figures 4-5a, 6a, 7c, and 7e, the gripping elements/support pins 332 are mounted on shafts 331 that are axially displaceable relative to the support between a first deployed position in which the pins are in the through holes/internal cells and a second retracted position in which the pins are extracted from the through holes/internal cells).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Jones with Lee to have the plates on which the gripping elements are mounted to be axially displaceable relative to the support, between a first deployed position, in which the gripping elements are positioned in the internal cells of the part, and a second retracted position, in which the gripping elements are extracted from the internal cells of the part. This modification, as taught by Lee, would allow the gripping elements to be linearly actuated into the cells of the part to provide gripping support when gripping the object, and retracted when not gripping the object (See at least Lee Paragraphs 0023-0025, 0027, 0029, 0032, and Figures 4-5a, 6a, 7c, and 7e), thereby improving the gripping operation performed by the gripping elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Valdivia Y Alvarado et al (US 20230106364 A1) teaches a plurality of different types of grippers
Jarventausta (US 20180355718 A1) teaches a bladder that is inflated within an internal cell of a part
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm 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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657