DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed April 30, 2026 for the above identified patent application.
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.
Claims 31-37 and 39-58 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 31, line 12, the limitation “the plurality of joints” (referring to the arm joints) lacks proper antecedent basis. The claim only defines a single joint.
Claim 41, line 12, the limitation “the plurality of joints” (referring to the arm joints) lacks proper antecedent basis. The claim only defines a single joint.
Claim 50, line 11, the limitation “the plurality of joints” (referring to the arm joints) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 50, lines 10-15, the limitation “the plurality of joint portions of the hose…are slidably coupled to each adjacent arm section at locations generally similarly spaced from adjacent joints of the programmable motion robotic system” is unclear. More specifically, the language “generally similarly spaced” is considered a relative spacing, and fails to particularly define the metes and bounds of the desired patent protection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 31, 32, 39, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeda (USPub 2019/0105745).
Takeda teaches a method of providing a high flow vacuum source to an end effector of a programmable motion robotic system, said method comprising: coupling a hose (C) from an end effector (3) of the programmable motion device to a vacuum source (inherent, see section [0055]), the hose including a plurality of joint portions (upper portion and lower portions of C, Fig. 2B), each joint portion of the hose being attached (F1,F2) to two adjacent arm sections (a1,a2) of the programmable motion robotic system, the two adjacent arm sections being mutually attached to a respective joint (10X,10Y) therebetween such that each joint portion of the hose extends across each of the two associated arm sections around the respective joint therebetween; rotating at least one arm section of the at least two arm sections with respect to the other of the at least two arm sections about the respective joint about an axis of rotation, wherein the hose extends across the at least two arm sections (Fig. 3B) such that the plurality of joint portions of the hose alternate on opposite sides of the joint; and permitting translation (due to the flexibility of C) of the joint portion (section of C between F1 and F2) with respect to at least one arm section of the at least two arm sections in a direction in which it extends across the at least one arm section of the at least two arm sections.
32: Takeda teaches each joint portion of the hose (the end portions are defined by a horizontal plan which cuts through a midsection of an arcuate portion of C in Fig. 3B) defines a plane (extending in a vertical direction in Fig. 3B) that includes a respective direction that is generally parallel with an axis of rotation of the respective joint .
39: Takeda illustrates no joint portion of the hose that is attached to at least two adjacent arm sections mutually attached to the respective joint such that the joint portion of the hose defines a plane that includes a respective direction that is generally parallel with an axis of rotation of the respective joint.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 50, 56, and 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al. (USP 9,415,520) in view of either Nakako et al. (JP 08-155881) or Inoue et al. (JP 2010-36231).
It was well known to configure a robot with an end effector connected to a vacuum source. For example, applicant’s admitted prior art in the specification titled “Background” discloses the known configuration of a robot having an end effector powered by a vacuum source. Further, Sanders teaches a robot arm having a plurality of arm sections that are joined by a plurality of joints to form an articulated arm, and an end effector in the form of a suction cup (50) connected to a vacuum pump (52) with a hose arrangement.
The invention is in the positioning of the hose on the robot arm to provide vacuum/air to an end effector. The prior art to Nakako and Inoue teach the claimed routing of a hose between adjacent arm sections of a robot.
Referring to Figure 1, Nakako teaches a method of providing a hose arrangement comprising coupling a hose (8) to an end effector (7) of the programmable motion robotic system, wherein the hose includes a plurality of joint portions, each joint portion of the hose being slidably coupled (due to flexibility of 81) to two adjacent arm sections mutually attached (at 81) to a respective joint (S3) such that each joint portion of the hose defines a path that avoids the respective joint, and wherein the hose extends across the plurality of arm sections (4,5) such that the plurality of joint portions of the hose alternate on opposite sides of the joint and are slidably coupled (due to the flexibility of 81) to each adjacent arm section at locations generally similarly spaced (Fig.1 illustrates generally similarly spacing) from adjacent joints (S2,S3,S4) of the programmable motion robotic system.
Alternatively, Figure 5 of Inoue teaches a method of providing a hose arrangement comprising coupling a hose (conduit 56) to an end effector (50) of the programmable motion robotic system, wherein the hose includes a plurality of joint portions, each joint portion of the hose being slidably coupled to two adjacent arm sections (26,30) mutually attached (at 72,114) to a respective joint (connecting 26 and 30) such that each joint portion of the hose defines a path that avoids the respective joint, and wherein the hose extends across the plurality of arm sections (26,30) such that the plurality of joint portions of the hose alternate on opposite sides of the joint and are slidably coupled (section [0041] and elsewhere describe support members 72 and 114 configured to support 56 for axial movement) to each adjacent arm section at locations generally similarly spaced (Fig.5 illustrates generally similarly spacing) from adjacent joints of the programmable motion robotic system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to modify the vacuum hose arrangement of Sanders et al. with a hose arrangement slidably supported by adjacent arm sections, as taught by either Nakako et al. or Inoue et al., motivation being to support the hose across an arm joint such that the hose moves with the arm and prevents damage to the hose during operation.
56: Inoue teach the hose includes at least three joint portions of the hose, each of the at least three joint portions of the hose being attached to at least two adjacent arm sections mutually attached to a respective joint such that the joint portions of the hose each define a plane that includes a respective direction that is generally parallel with an axis of rotation of the respective joint, and wherein a tangent to the hose at each attachment point of the at least three joint portions of the hose is substantially parallel with the axis of rotation of the respective joint.
57: Inoue teach the hose no portion of the hose that is attached to at least two adjacent arm sections mutually attached to a respective joint such that the joint portion of the hose defines a plane that includes a respective direction that is generally parallel with an axis of rotation of the respective joint.
Claim(s) 33-37 and 51-55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (USPub 2019/0105745) alone, or alternatively, Sanders et al. (USP 9,415,520) in view of either Nakako et al. (JP 08-155881) or Inoue et al. (JP 2010-36231), as described above.
With respect to claims 33-36 and 51-54, neither Takeda nor Sanders teach the claimed vacuum flow rate, the claimed vacuum pressure, or the claimed hose size. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a vacuum source having a flow rate of at least 100 cubic feet per minute and a vacuum pressure of no more than 50,000 Pascals below atmospheric, and a hose having an inner diameter of at least 3 inches, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claims 37 and 55, neither Takeda nor Sanders teach the hose having a helical ribbing. Official Notice is taken with respect to using ribbed hose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to configure the hose of either Takeda or Sanders as a ribbed hose, since a ribbed hose was known in the art, so as to provide a more rigid hose for a particular operation.
Claim(s) 40 and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (USPub 2019/0105745) alone, or alternatively, Sanders et al. (USP 9,415,520) in view of either Nakako et al. (JP 08-155881) or Inoue et al. (JP 2010-36231), as applied to claims 31 and 50 above, and further in view of Tell (USP 8,534,633).
Takeda and Sanders teaches a robot having an end effector configured as a suction cup for transporting items. Sanders does not teach the suction cup being formed as a bellows. However, it was well known in the art to configure an end effector as a bellows. The prior art to Tell teaches a suction cup formed as a bellows. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to configure the end effector of Takeda or Sanders as a suction cup configured as a bellows, as taught by Tell, motivation being to provide a suction cup having a predetermined operating capacity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 41 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 42-49 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach the hose arrangement of claims41, including the hose extending substantially perpendicular across each of the plurality of arm sections at each attachment point such that the plurality of joint portions of the hose alternate on opposite sides of the joint.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the hose arrangement of JP 10-109289.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the
statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C JOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-270-7778. 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.
/WILLIAM C JOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights