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 § 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 20 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 20 recites “the first upright support” in line 6, line 7, and line 8 and is unclear if this is the first upright support of the proximal hub or the distal hub. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the first upright support to be of the distal hub.
Claim 20 recites “the second upright support” in line 7 and line 8 and is unclear if this is the second upright support of the proximal hub or the distal hub. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the second upright support to be of the distal hub.
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 (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 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 1-2, 5-11, 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US PGPub 2022/0175408), hereinafter known as “Lee 408.”
With regards to claim 1, Lee 408 discloses (Figures 1-6) an end effector 120 for use with a robotic system (functional limitation – paragraphs 3-4 disclose description of related art being used with a robot arm), the end effector 120 comprising:
a proximal hub 124 including a first upright support opposing a second upright support (left and right supports of 124 as seen in figure 4; paragraph 79);
a distal hub 123 (also interpreted as the combination of 123 and 1251/1252 with respect to claim 17) pivotally coupled to the first and second upright supports of the proximal hub 124 about a first pivot axis (Y axis; pitch; figure2), the distal hub 123 including a first upright support and a second upright support (top and bottom supports as seen in figure 4; paragraphs 97-98 – “rotated downward in pitch motion” and “rotated upward in pitch motion”);
a first jaw member 121 pivotally coupled to the first upright support of the distal hub 123 about a second pivot axis (Z axis; actuation; figures 2 and 4-6);
a second jaw member 122 pivotally coupled to the second upright support of the distal hub 123 about the second pivot axis (figures 4-6);
a first idler pulley 1261 rotationally coupled to the first upright support of the distal hub 123, wherein a first cable set 130J1 is configured to extend around a portion of the first idler pulley 1261 and the first jaw member 121 to rotate the first jaw member 121 (paragraphs 82-90); and
a second idler pulley 1262 rotationally coupled to the second upright support of the distal hub 123, wherein a second cable set 130J2 is configured to extend around a portion of the second idler pulley 1262 and the second jaw member 122 to rotate the second jaw member 122 (paragraphs 82 and 94-96),
wherein the distal hub 123, the first idler pulley 1261, and the second idler pulley 1262 are angled to produce a first fleet angle of about zero degrees between the distal hub 123 and the first idler pulley 1261 and a second fleet angle of about zero degrees between the distal hub 123 and the second idler pulley 1262 (figures 4-5 – first and second fleet angles are 0 degrees as the first 1261 and second 1262 idler pulleys lie along the same axis of the distal hub 123).
With regards to claim 2, Lee 408 discloses further comprising a first pulley 1271out, a second pulley 1271in, a third pulley 1272in, and a fourth pulley 1272out each coupled to the proximal hub 124 via a distal pulley pin 127A (paragraph 78; figure 5),
wherein the first pulley 1271out is disposed adjacent the second upright support of the proximal hub 124, and the fourth pulley 1272out is disposed adjacent the first upright support of the proximal hub 124 (figures 4-5), and
wherein a third fleet angle of about zero degrees is produced between the first idler pulley 1261 and the first pulley 1271out, a fourth fleet angle of about zero degrees is produced between the first idler pulley 1261 and the second pulley 1271in, a fifth fleet angle of about zero degrees is produced between the second idler pulley 1262 and the third pulley 1272in, and a sixth fleet angle of about zero degrees is produced between the second idler pulley 1262 and the fourth pulley 1272out (figure 6 – fleet angle is defined as the angle of the cable as the cable exits a pulley, and is measured between a pulley centerline and a centerline of the cable exiting the pulley – thus the configuration of Lee 408’s figures 5-6 with relation to the first, second, third, and fourth pulleys, the first and second idler pulleys, and the first and second wire cables are the same as Applicant’s figures 3-6).
With regards to claim 5, Lee 408 discloses wherein the first jaw member 121 further comprises a protrusion 1251, and wherein the first cable set 130J1 wraps around a portion of the first pulley 1271out, a portion of the protrusion 1251 of the first jaw member 121, a portion of the first idler pulley 1261, and a portion of the second pulley 1271in (paragraphs 85-87; figures 5-6).
With regards to claim 6, Lee 408 discloses wherein the second jaw member 122 further comprises a protrusion 1252, and wherein the second cable set 130J2 wraps around a portion of the fourth pulley 1272out, a portion of the protrusion 1252 of the second jaw member 122, a portion of the second idler pulley 1262, and a portion of the third pulley 1272in (paragraphs 94-96; figures 5-6).
With regards to claim 7, Lee 408 discloses further comprising a fifth pulley 1281out, a sixth pulley 1281in, a seventh pulley 1282in, and an eighth pulley 1282out each coupled to the proximal hub 124 via a proximal pulley pin 128A (paragraph 156), wherein the fifth pulley 1281out is disposed adjacent the second upright support of the proximal hub 124, and the eighth pulley 1282out is disposed adjacent the first upright support of the proximal hub 124 (figures 4-5).
With regards to claim 8, Lee 408 discloses wherein the first jaw member 121 further comprises a protrusion 1251, and wherein the first cable set 130J1 wraps around a portion of the firth pulley 1281out, a portion of the first pulley 1271out, a portion of the protrusion 1251 of the first jaw member 121, a portion of the first idler pulley 1261, a portion of the second pulley 1271in, and a portion of the sixth pulley 1281in (paragraphs 85-87; figures 5-6).
With regards to claim 9, Lee 408 discloses wherein the second jaw member 122 further comprises a protrusion 1252, and wherein the second cable set 130J2 wraps around a portion of the eighth pulley 1282out, a portion of the fourth pulley 1272out, a portion of the protrusion 1252 of the second jaw member 122, a portion of the second idler pulley 1262, a portion of the third pulley 1272in, and a portion of the seventh pulley 1282in (paragraphs 95-97; figures 5-6).
With regards to claim 10, Lee 408 discloses wherein at least one of the first cable set 130J1 or the second cable set 130J2 includes an outer cable portion and an inner cable portion, and wherein the inner cable portion of the first cable set 130J1 or the second cable set 130J2 extends around the first idler pulley 1261 or the second idler pulley 1262, respectively (see figures 5-6 – inner cable portions of each of the first 130J1 and second 130J2 cable sets extends around its respective pulley, 1261 and 1262).
With regards to claim 11, Lee 408 discloses wherein:
the end effector 120 defines a longitudinal axis (X axis; figure 2);
the first pivot axis (Y axis; pitch; figure 2) and the longitudinal axis (X axis) define a first plane;
the second pivot axis (Z axis; actuation; figure 2) and the longitudinal axis (X axis) define a second plane; and
the second plane is oriented at a non-orthogonal angle relative to the first plane (figure 2 – the first plane created by the X axis and Y axis is non-orthogonal to the second plane created by the X axis and Z axis).
With regards to claim 13, Lee 408 discloses wherein the first idler pulley 1261 and the second idler pulley 1262 rotate about a third axis (axis extending through both 1261 and 1262 as seen in figure 5), and wherein the third axis and the longitudinal axis (X axis) define a third plane oriented at a non-orthogonal angle relative to the first plane (first plane created by the X axis and Y axis seen in figure 2 is non-orthogonal to the third axis).
With regards to claim 16, Lee 408 discloses wherein an angle of the third plane (plane created by the third axis and longitudinal X axis) relative to the first plane (plane created by the X axis and Y axis) is determined at least in part by a size of at least one of the first idler pulley 1261 or the second idler pulley 1262 (figures 5-6 – size of either idler puller 1261 or 1262 determines the relative angle between the third plane and the first plane).
With regards to claim 17, Lee 408 discloses wherein:
the first upright support of the distal hub 123/1251/1252 further includes a first inner surface (inner surface of 1251) and a second inner surface (inner surface of the bottom support of 123), wherein the first inner surface of the first upright support is configured to angle the first jaw member 121 and the second inner surface of the first upright support is configured to angle the first idler pulley 1261 (functional limitation – the first inner surface of the first upright support is capable of angling the first jaw member 121 as the jaw member 121 rotates; the second inner surface of the first upright support is capable of angling the first idler pulley 1261 as the first idler puller 1261 is laid flat against the second inner surface), and
the second upright support of the distal hub 123/1251/1252 further includes a first inner surface (inner surface of 1252) and a second inner surface (inner surface of the top support of 123), wherein the first inner surface of the second upright support is configured to angle the second jaw member 122 and the second inner surface of the second upright support is configured to angle the second idler pulley 1262 (functional limitation – the first inner surface of the second upright support is capable of angling the second jaw member 122 as the jaw member 122 rotates; the second inner surface of the second upright support is capable of angling the second idler pulley 1262 as the second idler puller 1262 is laid flat against the second inner surface).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US PGPub 2021/0244427), hereinafter known as “Lee 427.”
With regards to claim 20, Lee 427 discloses (Figures 2-6) an end effector 120 for use with a robotic system (functional limitation – paragraphs 2-3 disclose description of related art being used with a robot arm), the end effector 120 comprising:
a proximal hub 142 including a first upright support opposing a second upright support (left and right supports of 142 as seen in figure 4);
a distal hub 125 pivotally coupled to the first and second upright supports of the proximal hub 142 about a first pivot axis (paragraphs 71-72 – “rotated downward, thereby performing a pitch motion” and “rotated upward, thereby performing a pitch motion”), the distal hub 125 including:
a first upright support 125b; and
a second upright support 125a located in juxtaposed relation to the first upright support 125b (figure 6; paragraph 77);
a body portion 125c supporting the first upright support 125b and the second upright support 125a such that a first central plane is defined between the first upright support 125b and the second upright support 125a, the body portion 125c defining a second central plane (horizontal plane intersecting a vertical plane created by the first and second upright supports 125b/125a) oriented orthogonal to the first central plane, the body portion 125c defining:
a first pair of longitudinally extending passages (bottom groove of 125d, see annotated figure 6 below) located on a first side of the distal hub 125, relative to the first central plane, wherein each passage of the first pair of passages includes a relatively outer inner wall portion facing the second central plane, wherein the outer inner wall portion of each of the first pair of longitudinally extending passages is oriented at an angle relative to the second central plane (angle is 0 degrees; see annotated figure 6 below); and
a second pair of longitudinally extending passages (top groove of 125d, see annotated figure 6 below) located on a second side of the distal hub 125, opposite the first pair of longitudinally extending passages and opposite the first central plane, wherein each passage of the second pair of passages includes a relatively outer inner wall portion facing the second central plane, wherein the outer inner wall portion of each of the second pair of longitudinally extending passages is oriented at an angle relative to the second central plane (angle is 0 degrees; see annotated figure 6 below); and
a pair of jaw members 121/122 pivotally coupled to the first upright support and the second upright of the distal hub 125 about a second pivot axis (paragraph 47).
PNG
media_image1.png
542
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 3-4, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 408.
With regards to claim 3, Lee 408 discloses the end effector as claimed in claim 2. Lee 408 further discloses wherein the distal hub 123 is rotated counterclockwise, or downward, and clockwise, or upward, in a pitch motion (paragraphs 97-98). Lee 408 does not explicitly disclose wherein the distal hub is angled about fifteen degrees relative to the first pulley, the second pulley, the third pulley, and the fourth pulley.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end effector of Lee 408 to have wherein the distal hub is angled about fifteen degrees relative to the first pulley, the second pulley, the third pulley, and the fourth pulley since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the end effector of Lee 408 would not operate differently with the claimed angle and since the distal hub can rotate in a pitch direction as disclosed in paragraphs 97-98, the end effector would function appropriately having the claimed angle. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0008 and 0076]).
With regards to claim 4, Lee 408 discloses the end effector as claimed in claim 2. Lee 408 further discloses wherein the distal hub 123 is rotated counterclockwise, or downward, and clockwise, or upward, in a pitch motion (paragraphs 97-98). Lee 408 does not explicitly disclose wherein the first idler pulley and the second idler pulley are each angled about ten degrees relative to the first pulley, the second pulley, the third pulley, and the fourth pulley.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end effector of Lee 408 to have wherein the first idler pulley and the second idler pulley are each angled about ten degrees relative to the first pulley, the second pulley, the third pulley, and the fourth pulley since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the end effector of Lee 408 would not operate differently with the claimed angle and since the distal hub can rotate in a pitch direction as disclosed in paragraphs 97-98, the end effector would function appropriately having the claimed angle. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0009 and 0077]).
With regards to claims 12 and 14-15, Lee 408 discloses the end effector as claimed in claims 11 and 13. Lee 408 further discloses wherein the distal hub 123 is rotated counterclockwise, or downward, and clockwise, or upward, in a pitch motion (paragraphs 97-98). Lee 408 does not explicitly disclose wherein the second plane is angled at about seventy-five degrees relative to the first plane (claim 12); wherein the third plane is angled at about eighty degrees relative to the first plane (claim 14); and wherein the third plane is angled at about sixty degrees relative to the first plane (claim 15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end effector of Lee 408 to have wherein the second plane is angled at about seventy-five degrees relative to the first plane; and wherein the third plane is angled at about eighty degrees, or at about sixty degrees, relative to the first plane since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the end effector of Lee 408 would not operate differently with the claimed angles and since the distal hub can rotate in a pitch direction as disclosed in paragraphs 97-98, the end effector would function appropriately having the claimed relative angles of the respective planes. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0017, 0019, 0020, 0067, 0077, and 0082]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claims 18-19, Lee 408 does not disclose wherein the first inner surface of the first upright support and the first inner surface of the second upright support are angled at about fifteen degrees relative to the first plane (claim 18); and wherein the second inner surface of the first upright support and the second inner surface of the second upright support are angled at about ten degrees to thirty degrees relative to the first plane (claim 19). The first and second inner surfaces of the respective first and second upright supports are not oriented at a non-zero angle, and therefore cannot be angled relative to the first plane.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ADAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8981. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
/MOHAMMED S ADAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 07/24/2026
Prosecution Insights