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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. A certified copy of application FR 2206250 was filed on 12/20/2024.
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.
"straightening means" in claim 4.
“vision means” in claim 10.
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites “the plurality of gripping devices is arranged in two parallel rows movable relative to each other so that the distance between them can be varied according to the size of the package to be gripped”, however the specification fails to describe the mechanism how the distance between the two parallel rows is made to vary according to the size of the package to be gripped
Claim 8 recites “a row comprises two gripping devices separated by a distance capable of being varied according to the dimensions of the package to be gripped”, however the specification fails to describe the mechanism how the distance between two gripping devices on a row is being varied according to the dimensions of the package to be gripped.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 is 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 limitation “straightening means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is not clear as to what exactly the claimed straightening means relates to. One of ordinary skill in the art is left to guess if it is a deformable structure, a spring, a hydraulic device, or some sort of pneumatic actuator that performs the straightening function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 10 is 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 limitation “vision means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is not clear as to what exactly the claimed vision means is referring to. As vision means encompasses a large field of technology including cameras, Lidar, laser sensors and so on, one cannot accurately determine the scope of the claim limitation with reasonable certainty. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-2, 5, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al. (US 20220219317 A1), hereinafter “Lei”, in view of Zheng (CN 112091943 A).
Regarding claim 1, Lei discloses a gripper intended to be mounted on a robot of a loading/unloading system to grip when actuated a package to be moved from or to a container, said gripper comprising a chassis carrying a plurality of gripping devices each having a first end fixed to the chassis and a second end carrying a suction cup, said suction cup being connected to a vacuum device (para. [0054]; Fig. 3-4, robot 300, gripper 320 , chassis made of first and second carrying plates 424, 430), in which:
each suction cup can be individually actuated to grip the package by suction (para. [0070], [0094]); a subset of gripping components are actuated to grip or transport an object), and
a gripping device comprises a linear axis movable relative to the chassis and capable of moving the suction cup of said gripping device between a retracted position and an advanced position (para. [0069], [0082]; Figs. 4A-4B, linear extendable rod 474 moving suction cup 476 between a retracted position and an advanced position).
Lei further discloses the linear axis to carry the suction cup from the retracted position to the advanced position and vice versa that can be actuated by a variety of mechanisms including, hydraulic struts, spring struts, twist-driven expanding components, screw jacks, and/or telescoping elements (para. [0082]). However, Lei does not disclose the gripping device comprising an annular motor through which the linear axis passes, said motor being configured to move said linear axis to carry the suction cup from the retracted position to the advanced position and vice versa.
Zheng discloses a robotic hand wherein the gripping device comprises an annular motor through which the linear axis passes, said motor being configured to move said linear axis to carry the suction cup from the retracted position to the advanced position and vice versa (para. [0044]; Fig. 4, annular motor 7 actuating the leadscrew 8 carrying a suction cup from a retracted position to the advanced position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuator generically disclosed in Lei and incorporate the teachings in Zheng of using an annular motor through which the linear axis passes, said motor being configured to move said linear axis to carry the suction cup from the retracted position to the advanced position and vice versa to permit a more compact coaxial actuator design to reduce the overall size of the gripper. Lei recognizes that different types of actuators may be used to produce the controlled reciprocating advance and retract motion of the suction cup, thus substituting the annular actuator of Zheng merely involves substituting one known actuator for another to obtain a predictable result.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lei and Zheng, discloses all limitations of claim 1. Lei further discloses the gripping component includes a suction element, and a vacuum port (para. [0069]). However, Lei does not explicitly disclose the linear axis is a hollow cylinder having an upper end connected to the vacuum device and a lower end carrying the suction cup.
Zheng discloses the linear axis is a hollow cylinder having an upper end connected to the vacuum device and a lower end carrying the suction cup (para. [0042]; One end of the lead screw 8 is connected to a vacuum suction head 11, and the other end is connected to a vacuum pumping device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generically disclosed gripping component in Lei and incorporate the teachings in Zheng of using a hollow cylinder having an upper end connected to the vacuum device and a lower end carrying the suction cup to reduce the number of components required for the gripper by integrating the mechanical extension function and vacuum conduit in to a single component. Incorporating Zheng’s known technique of a hollow cylinder having an upper end connected to the vacuum device and a lower end carrying the suction cup would have predictably achieved the desired extending and retracting motion while simultaneously providing vacuum to the suction cup through the same structural element.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lei and Zheng, discloses all limitations of claim 1. Lei further discloses the gripping device comprises an encoder configured to measure the position of the linear axis and transmit it to a control means external to the gripper (para. [0052], [0082]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lei and Zheng, discloses all limitations of claim 1. Lei further discloses the plurality of gripping devices is arranged in two parallel rows movable relative to each other so that the distance between them can be varied according to the size of the package to be gripped (para. [0057]; Figs. 8A, 8B).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lei and Zheng, discloses all limitations of claim 7. Lei further discloses a row comprises two gripping devices separated by a distance capable of being varied according to the dimensions of the package to be gripped (para. [0057]; Figs. 8A, 8B).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lei and Zheng, a loading or unloading system comprising a gripper according to claim 1 (para. [0051], [0089]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lei and Zheng, discloses all limitations of claim 9. Lei further discloses a vision means capable of detecting an inclined package and control means capable of controlling the movement of at least one suction cup according to an inclination of said packet deduced from information transmitted by the vision means (para. [0051], [0089]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lei and Zheng, discloses all limitations of claim 9. Lei further discloses a depalletizing or palletizing method in which packages are unloaded or loaded from a container using an unloading or loading system according to claim 9 (para. [0026], [0079]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lei and Zheng, discloses all limitations of claim 10. Lei further discloses a, depalletizing or palletizing method in which packages are unloaded or loaded from a container using an unloading or loading system according to claim 10 (para. [0026], [0079], [0087]-[0095]).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al. (US 20220219317 A1), hereinafter “Lei”, in view of Zheng (CN 112091943 A), and in further view of IT201800005679 A1.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lei and Zheng, discloses all limitations of claim 2. The combination of Lei and Zheng does not disclose the gripping device comprises a ball joint connecting the suction cup to said cylinder.
IT201800005679 A1 discloses a robotic manipulator where the gripping device comprises a ball joint connecting the suction cup to said cylinder (para. [0106]; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gripper of Lei in view of Zheng, and incorporate the teachings in IT201800005679 A1 where the gripping device comprises a ball joint connecting the suction cup to said cylinder to allow the gripper to make a better contact with objects that are not perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the gripper (IT201800005679 A1: paras. [0104], [0105]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lei, Zheng, and IT201800005679 A1, discloses all limitations of claim 3. IT201800005679 A1 further discloses the gripping device comprises a straightening means configured to cooperate with the ball joint to restore the position of the suction cup relative to the linear axis (para. [0120]; Fig. 2, spring 17').
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gripper of Lei, Zheng, and IT201800005679 A1, and further incorporate the teachings in IT201800005679 A1 of a straightening means configured to cooperate with the ball joint to restore the position of the suction cup relative to the linear axis to return the gripper orientation back to its initial position in preparation for the next pickup action (IT201800005679 A1: para. [0120]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al. (US 20220219317 A1), hereinafter “Lei”, in view of Zheng (CN 112091943 A), and in further view of Ikeya et al. (US 20210094766 A1), hereinafter “Ikeya”.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lei and Zheng, discloses all limitations of claim 1. The combination of Lei and Zheng does disclose the gripping device comprises a brake capable of being controlled to block the linear axis according to certain positions of the suction cup.
Ikeya discloses a gripping device comprising a brake capable of being controlled to block the linear axis according to certain positions of the suction cup (para. [0039], [0048]-[0049]; Fig. 6, lock mechanism 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gripper of Lei in view of Zheng, and incorporate the teachings in Ikeya of a brake capable of being controlled to block the linear axis according to certain positions of the suction cup to prevent unwanted movement of the linear axis due to gravitational and inertial forces during transporting of an object (Ikeya: para. [0059]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Polido et al. (US 10611037 B1) discloses an end of arm tool for a robot with an array of suction cups where a given set of suction cups are individually controlled. Polido further discloses suction cups mounted on a hollow extendable and retractable tube for providing compliance, and implements a vision system to identify shape of target item (col. 2, lines 37-50, col. 4, lines 9-24, col. 5, lines 39-53; Fig. 11).
EICKHORST (EP 0567803 A1) discloses a suction cup with a spherical mounting structure (Figs. 1, 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMESGEN M. MARU whose telephone number is (571)272-0039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571)270-3415. 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.
/TEMESGEN M. MARU/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights