Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/912,394

GRIPPER ASSEMBLY WITH CONSECUTIVE PRODUCT CARRIERS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 10, 2024
Examiner
ADAMS, GREGORY W
Art Unit
3652
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Multivac Sepp Haggenmüller SE & Co. Kg
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
1033 granted / 1380 resolved
+22.9% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
1404
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
60.4%
+20.4% vs TC avg
§102
15.3%
-24.7% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1380 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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, 3-6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawes (US 8,210,586) in view of Jens (EP 4 059 672) (see also US publication at US 12,036,661) and Adams (US 4,124,128). Interpretative note 1. With respect to forming a "common product receiving surface" (claim 1, line 14) the size of an article supported is dependent upon a user's own requirements. However, if the art forms a surface which can support a single, large item that requires the surfaces of the first and second grippers then it can provide the means for the function of a common product receiving surface. In this case, Hawes' FIGS. 16 & 30 disclose first and second grippers 20, 20 arranged side-by-side and in a receiving position while defining a common plane. Although Hawes explicitly discloses supporting two articles 11A, 11C, one on each gripper 20, 20, it is enough to read on the limitation because they form a common surface. Interpretative note 2. Claims 3-6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 recite functions and positions enabled by the recited structure in claim 1 which have been addressed in the rejection thereof. Hawes discloses a gripper assembly, comprising: a control device; a main body 26 configured to be attached to a "robotic arm", e.g. travel device; a first gripper 8/20 (see FIG. 16 & 30) attached to a main body; and a second gripper 8/20 attached to a main body; wherein a first gripper comprises a first product carrier 8/20 and a first drive (C4/L24,25; C4/L37-40), wherein a first drive is configured to move a first product carrier parallel to a transverse direction that is defined relative to a main body between a first release position (FIG. 30) and a first receiving position (FIG. 40); wherein a second gripper comprises a second product carrier 8/20 and a second drive (C4/L24,25; C4/L37-40), wherein a second drive is configured to move a second product carrier parallel to a transverse direction between a second release position (FIG. 30) and a second receiving position (FIG. 40); and wherein a first and second grippers 20, 20 ( FIG. 30) are disposed consecutively along a longitudinal direction (indicated generally as supporting elements 11A, 11C in FIG. 40) that is perpendicular to a transverse direction so that a first product carrier and a second product carrier jointly form a part of a common product receiving surface (FIG. 40) when a first product carrier is in a first receiving position and a second product carrier in a second receiving position. Hawes discloses that first and second surfaces 20, 20 are independently driven as shown in FIG. 40. Hawes does not disclose that a control device is configured to determine or receive information whether a product drop with rotation or a product drop without rotation is to take place, and to control a first drive and a second drive as a function of whether a product drop with rotation or a product drop without rotation is to take place. Jens discloses system for food handling, especially soft or delicate products like meat or fish, disclosing a first and second product carriers 201, 201 that form a common product receiving surface. Jens discloses that the operation of the carriers 201, 201 thusly: As is shown in Figure 2b, at the releasing location, the food product is released from the gripper device 200 to the receiving location by moving the first jaw 201 relative to the second jaw 202 from the gripping position to the open position such that one side 208 of the food product 209 is un-supported from the first jaw 201 while an other side 207 of the food product is temporarily resting on the second jaw 202 so as to cause a tilting of the food product around a longitudinal axis 205 of the food product. Subsequent to moving the first jaw 201 relative to the second jaw 202 from the gripping position to the open position, the second jaw may be moved in an upward direction as indicated by arrow 222 in Figure 2b, either by means of moving the gripper device upwards by the robot device (not shown) or by means of moving the second jaw upwards relative to the first jaw via the moving mechanism, e.g. 103 as shown in figure 1. The tilting of the food product 208 may thus be enhanced which may result in that the height 206 of the gripper to the receiving location may be lowered. In this manner, the predictability of how the food product will land on the receiving location is improved. In an embodiment, the moving mechanism may further move the second jaw 202 away from the first jaw 201 as indicated by arrow 223 while or subsequent to moving the second jaw upwards. Thus, the food product is released to the receiving location 210 and into a tray or box, for example, as is shown in Figure 2c. (Paras, 31-34.) In other words, Jens discloses controlling first and second drives to drop a product with rotation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Hawes to perform rotation of a product by independently retracting one product carrier from a product receiving position to a product release position while leaving the other product carrier in a product receiving position thereby causing rotation of a product, as taught by Jens, which allows placement of for product such to be oriented in a particular manner such as skin-to-skin contact as identified in Jens' para. 3. And, Adams discloses a first product carrier 32 and a second product carrier 33 and respective first and second drives 61, 62. (see FIGS. 4 & 6), both carriers forming a common product receiving surface for a product S. Adams teaches that a control device (FIG. 9 and counter 26 described at C2/L27-30) is configured to determine or receive information from counter 26 whether a product drop with rotation or a product drop without rotation is to take place, and to control a first drive 61 and a second drive 62 as a function of whether a product drop with rotation or a product drop without rotation is to take place. Adams further discloses that product S "which are being delivered one at a time to the shingle supporting shelves a of starwheels 32 and 33 may be dropped…with or without flipping." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Hawes to provide a control device that is configured to determine or receive information whether a product drop with rotation or a product drop without rotation is to take place, and to control a first drive and a second drive as a function of whether a product drop with rotation or a product drop without rotation is to take place, as taught by Adams, thereby providing stack with the same height at opposite edges where individual products are thicker on one edge than the other. Claim(s) 7 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawes in view of Jens and Adams (US 4,124,128) and further in view of Morency (US 9,914,601) Hawes does not disclose a down-holder body and down-holder drive. Morency discloses a gripper assembly that comprises a down-holder body 40, 48 and a down-holder drive 54. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Hawes to include a down-holder body and down-holder drive, as taught by Morency, such that when gripping and moving an article the gripper precisely adapts to the real product's dimension because the exact dimensions of the cases are rarely their nominal values, and gripping under these conditions without crushing the article. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 18 is allowed. Claims 8, 9 & 17 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) s 1 & 3-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-5pm. 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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. /GREGORY W ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 10, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 17, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 22, 2025
Interview Requested
Jan 06, 2026
Interview Requested
Jan 30, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 24, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595156
VACUUM LIFTER FOR LIFTING OBJECTS LOCATED IN CONFINED SPACES BELOW GRADE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583692
DEVICE FOR PICKING UP PRODUCTS STACKED ON PALLETS AND METHOD FOR PICKING UP PRODUCTS STACKED ON PALLETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576555
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MOVING PAIRS OF WORKPIECES HAVING A ROUGH FACE AND AN OPPOSITE FINISHED FACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559206
STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR CONTAINERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12553299
System and Method for Transferring Tubulars to a Rig
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+24.2%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1380 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month