DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action in response to the above identified patent
application filed on October 18. 2024.
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 36 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 36, the limitation “the hose has an inner diameter of at least 23 inches” appears to be inaccurate because the specification discloses “the hose may have an inner diameter of at least 1 inch (or at least 3 inches).” See section [0051]. In the event applicant intends to expand the scope of the disclosure to define the hose as having a diameter of 23 inches, then applicant must file an Continuation-in-Part (CIP) application to introduce new matter.
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) 31-39, 41-48, 50-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al. (USP 9,415,520) over Haniya et al. (USP 7,971,504).
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 appears to be the positioning of the hose on the robot arm to provide vacuum/air to an end effector. The prior art to Haniya teaches the claimed routing of a hose between adjacent arm sections of a robot. Haniya discloses the hose is configured to supply a fluid, such as air, to a robot end effector. Column 11, lines 10-12.
Referring to Figure 6, Haniya teaches a method of providing a hose arrangement comprising a plurality of joint portions (portions of 10), each joint portion of the hose being attached (at 802a,802b) to two adjacent arm sections (C1,C2) of the programmable motion device, the two adjacent arm sections being mutually attached to a respective joint (at 12,14) therebetween; and 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 such that the plurality of joint portions of the hose alternate on opposite sides of the plurality joints.
Claim 32: Haniya illustrates (Fig. 6) the hose includes at least two joint portions (at each left side and the right side of J2 of the hose, each of which joint portion of the hose is attached (at 802a and 802b) to at least two adjacent arm sections mutually attached to a respective joint such that the joint portions of the hose each defines a plane (along J2) that includes a respective direction that is generally parallel with the axis of rotation (J2) of the respective joint.
Claim 38: Haniya illustrates the hose includes at least three joint portions of the hose, each of which joint portion of the hose is attached to at least two adjacent arm sections (Fig. 1 illustrates multiple adjacent arm sections with joints) mutually attached to a respective joint such that the plurality of joint portions of the hose defines a plane that includes a respective direction (along J2,J4,J6) that is generally parallel with an axis of rotation of the respective joint.
Claims 39, 48, and 57: Haniya illustrates wherein the hose includes no portions of the hose that is attached to at least two adjacent arm sections mutually attached to the respective joint such that the joint portions of the hose defines a plane that includes a respective direction that is generally not parallel with an axis of rotation of the respective joint.
Claim 41: The above described teachings of Sanders modified with Haniya anticipates the claim limitations, including the hose extending substantially perpendicular across the plurality of arm sections at (or adjacent to) each attachment point such that the plurality of joint portions of the hose alternate on opposite sides of the plurality of joints.
Claims 47 and 56: Haniya illustrates the hose includes at least three joint portions of the hose (associated with J2,J4,J6), each of the at least three joint portions of the hose is attached to at least two adjacent arm sections mutually attached to a respective joint such that the at least three joint portions of the hose each defines a plane that includes a respective direction that is generally parallel with an axis of rotation of the respective joint, and wherein the hose extends substantially perpendicular across a respective arm section at each attachment point of the at least three joint portions of the hose.
With respect to claims 33-36, 42-45, and 51-54, Sanders does not 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 2 (3 or 23) 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, 46, and 55, neither Sanders nor Haniya teach the hose having a helical ribbing. Official Notice is taken with respect to using ribbed hose for transmitting a vacuum between components. 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 described above in the combination of Sanders and Haniya as a ribbed hose, since a ribbed hose was known in the art, so as to be capable of a predetermined vacuum pressure for a particular operation.
Claim(s) 40, 49, and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al. (USP 9,415,520) in view of Haniya et al. (USP 7,971,504), as applied to claims 31, 41, and 50 above, and further in view of Tell (USP 8,534,633).
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 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.
Conclusion
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