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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cutting blade." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is unclear, because the recitation that the jaw “at least partially defining a closed loop” suggest there are other elements that would complete the closed loop (see applicant’s disclosure elements 33 meet at apex 35); it is the language itself of the claims which must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention, without limitations imported from the specification, whether such language is couched in terms of means plus function or consists of a detailed recitation of the inventive matter. Limitations in the specification not included in the claim may not be relied upon to impart patentability to an otherwise unpatentable claim. In re Lundberg, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957).
In claim 1, the blade sheath “housing a cutting blade … when the cutting blade is not being used” cannot be determined, i.e. the metes and bound of the claim cannot be determined because a functional recitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Fuller, 1929 C.D. 172; 388 O.G. 279.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (CN 202550216, cited by Applicant, “X” reference)
It should be noted that the recitation “for," "mountable," "to permit,” “able to,” “configured to” etc. is considered as merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Since it is the language itself of the claims which must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention, without limitations imported from the specification, whether such language is couched in terms of means plus function or consists of a detailed recitation of the inventive matter. Limitations in the specification not included in the claim may not be relied upon to impart patentability to an otherwise unpatentable claim. In re Lundberg, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957).
1. An end-effector (Abstract) for a robotic manipulator arm (intended use with a connect plate 4-3) for robotic crop management (intended use with a control system),
the end-effector comprising:
a chassis mountable on the robotic manipulator arm (housing 1 intended to be mounted on the arm, fig 1);
a jaw (finger grasp mechanism 4) movably mounted on the chassis to permit translation of jaw on the chassis (intended capability, although the structure is not claimed distinctly/particularly, a bi-directional screw 4-11 is capable of adjusting the right & left fingers), the jaw at least partially defining a closed loop through which a horticultural object is able to pass (intended use taught in fig 11, i.e. fruit enters the “loop” partially defined by the fingers );
a tactile sensor mounted on the end-effector configured to measure a force applied to the horticultural object by the end-effector as the horticultural object passes through the closed loop (a force sensitive sensor G-24 can be monitored in real time to the right finger K4-25, likewise on the left side, par. 11);
a cutter mounted on the chassis (the cutting blades 5-4, 5-7), the cutter configured to cut a portion of the horticultural object when the portion of the horticultural object is brought into contact with the cutter by translation of the jaw on the chassis (intended configuration, par. 5 & 12); and,
a blade sheath (front portion of the housing 1 & the connecting plate on either side of the blade) housing the cutting blade therein when the cutting blade is not being used (initial opening state, fig 3).
3. The end-effector of claim 1, wherein the cutter comprises a cutting blade immovably mounted on the chassis, a cutting edge of the cutting blade oriented into the closed loop (left & right blades 5-7, 5-4, fixed within the cutting mechanism & and oriented toward the fruit, fig 3).
9. The end-effector of claim 1, wherein: the chassis is fixedly mountable on the robotic manipulator arm (fig 1), the end-effector further comprises a rack-and-pinion mechanism (gears 4-16, 4-17, screw 4-11, spur gears 5-10) and an actuator (motor G-12, 5-12), whereby the actuator and a pinion gear are mounted on the chassis and a toothed rack is mounted on the jaw (figs 1, 2), wherein the pinion gear is rotatably connected to the actuator and operatively engaged with the toothed rack (see spur gear 5-10), wherein actuation of the actuator causes the jaw to translate linearly on the chassis (by rotating the shaft 4-11, the fingers linearly move closer to grasp the fruit).
10. The end-effector of claim 1, wherein the tactile sensor comprises a force-sensitive resistor (G-24).
12. The end-effector of claim 1, further comprising a gripper that grips the horticultural object when the cutter cuts the portion of the horticultural object when the portion of the horticultural object is brought into contact with the cutter by translation of the jaw on the chassis (contact / sponge pads operate as taught in par. 11).
13. The end-effector of claim 12, wherein the gripper comprises a pinch gripper connected to the chassis and a jaw tab connected to the jaw, the pinch gripper and jaw tab having gripping surfaces between which the horticultural object is gripped (as taught in par. 11, the pinch gripper, finger & pads contact the fruit).
14. The end-effector of claim 1, wherein the horticultural object is a fruit or vegetable (abstract, incorporated by reference, see par. 2).
15. The end-effector of claim 1, wherein the horticultural object is a cucumber (incorporated by reference, see par. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-9, 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Nir et al (WO 2018/167784) teaches an effector with a sensor, a closed loop configuration and a shear / cutting (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6990. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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.
/ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights