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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hack et al (US 2024/0409347), in view of Spada (US 5653087).
Claim 1 and 19 , Hack teaches “A gripping system for gripping a label roll having an annular roll core…”
a system for handling label rolls, including gripping label rolls with a robot end effector. See para [0001], [0008]:
“The invention relates to a mobile robot… for changing a label roll on a labeling assembly… The end effector is configured to manipulate label rolls and emptied roll cores.”;
“an inner gripper having a plurality of inner clamping jaws… arranged distributed in a circumferential direction around a central axis… movable radially… for gripping the label roll on an inner circumferential face of the annular roll core”
The primary reference teaches gripping on the inner side of the roll core but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of circumferentially distributed radial jaws. See para [0065-0068]:
“The gripping elements have inwardly directed contact surfaces for gripping on the inside, i.e., on the roll cores.”, however, Spada teaches this exact structure. See col. 5-6, lines 60–10:
“The gripper includes a plurality of jaws arranged around the axis of the reel, said jaws being radially movable to engage the inner surface of the reel core.”, thus, it would have been obvious to modify the inner gripping elements of Hack to use known radial, circumferentially distributed jaws as taught by Spada to achieve stable and centered gripping.
“and at least one distance sensor… arranged for detecting a distance between the gripping system and the label roll.”
Hack teaches sensors (e.g., ultrasonic sensors) for detecting relative position. See para [0044]:
“Ultrasonic sensors are provided on the end effector for determining the relative position of the label roll with respect to the end effector.”, determining relative position inherently includes detecting distance between the gripper and the roll.
Claim 2, Hack teaches “the at least one distance sensor has a plurality of distance sensors… arranged distributed in a circumferential direction…”
Hack teaches multiple sensors on the end effector. See para [0031]:
“Ultrasonic sensors are provided on the end effector…”, thus, It would have been obvious to distribute multiple sensors circumferentially to improve detection accuracy (routine design choice), “the at least one distance sensor is aligned parallel to the central axis.”
(para 0019), sensor orientation is an obvious implementation detail depending on detection direction, aligning sensors along the axis for axial distance measurement is a predictable variation.
Claim 3, Spada teaches “the plurality of inner clamping jaws are mechanically coupled… for joint radial movement”
coordinated movement of jaws. See col. 6, lines 35-65:
“The jaws are actuated simultaneously to move radially outwardly into engagement with the reel core.”, “contact faces… are profiled”
Spada teaches gripping surfaces designed to engage the core securely. See col. 6-7, lines 64-15, “The jaws include contact surfaces adapted to grip the internal surface of the reel.”, , thus it would have been obvious within the knowledge of ordinary skilled artisan to modify Hack by Spada to come up with the claimed invention as a design choice.
Claim 4, Spada teaches “elastically biased radially outwards…” spring-biased engagement. See col. 6, lines 34-60: “Biasing means urge the jaws outwardly into engagement…”
“pressure control valve… adjusting gripping force” Hack teaches pneumatic actuation of gripping elements (implied in industrial robotic end effectors), use of pressure control valves for force adjustment is well-known in pneumatic grippers, para 0029-0033);
“non-return valve for holding gripping force”
Non-return valves are standard in pneumatic systems to maintain pressure and obvious design feature, thus it would have been obvious to combine both Spada and Hack to come up with the claimed invention.
Claim 6, Hack teaches “further has an outer gripper… outer clamping jaws… gripping outer circumferential face”, teaches outer gripping. See para [0008]:
“The gripping elements have outwardly directed contact surfaces for gripping on the outside circumference of the label roll.”
Claim 9, Hack doesn’t teach “radial lift cylinders… for radially moving outer clamping jaws”, Hydraulic/pneumatic cylinders for radial movement are standard, Spada teaches actuated jaws; and cylinders are obvious equivalents as a design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 10-18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASUD AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-1315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-8:30 PM PST with IFP.
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.
MASUD . AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657A
/MASUD AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657