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 3-4,7-14 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 3 recites the limitation "the coupled state" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the uncoupled state" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the coupled state" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the uncoupled state" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the coupled state" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the uncoupled state" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the control device" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-2,6,9,11,15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tang (CN107088888A).
Re claim 1, Tang teaches a method for handling a gripping object (14) by means of a handling system including an end effector (7) for gripping the gripping object (14), a manipulator (2) for moving the end effector, and a coupling device (8,16) for, automated, coupling and uncoupling of the end effector to/from the manipulator, the method comprising: - gripping the gripping object by the end effector (figures 1-3); - depositing the gripping object at a deposit location (4, or inherently other places [0019,0039] handling involves picking up one place and & dropping off somewhere); - picking up the gripping object from a pickup location (see prior comments & figures 1-3), wherein for depositing the gripping object, the end effector is uncoupled from the manipulator so that the end effector remains on the gripping object (figure 1,2), and in that, for picking up the gripping object from the pickup location, the end effector remaining on the gripping object is recoupled to the manipulator (figures 1-3).
Re claim 2, Tang teaches (figures 1-2) wherein, between depositing the gripping object (14) and picking up the gripping object, the gripping object continues to be gripped by the end effector.
Re claims 6,11, Tang teaches the end effector (5,7, fig 2,6,etc.) comprises a vacuum gripping device or a suction gripper.
Re claim 9, Tang teaches a handling system for performing the method according to claim1, the handling system comprising: - an the end effector (7) for gripping the gripping object (14), the manipulator (2) for moving the end effector (7), the coupling device (8,16) for automated, coupling and uncoupling of the end effector to/from the manipulator, the control device (PLC, circuits, etc., [0037,0040]) cooperating with the manipulator and the coupling device which is designed to perform the method according to claim 1.
Re claim 15, Tang teaches a handling system (see figures) comprising: - an end effector 7 for gripping a gripping object 14, - a manipulator 2 or moving the end effector, - a coupling device 8,16 for, automated, coupling and uncoupling of the end effector to/from the manipulator, - a control device (PLC, circuits, etc., [0037,0040]) cooperating with the manipulator and the coupling device which is designed to perform a method for handling the gripping object by the handling system including the end effector for gripping the gripping object, the manipulator for moving the end effector, and the coupling device for, automated, coupling and uncoupling of the end effector to/from the manipulator, comprising: - gripping the gripping object by the end effector; - depositing the gripping object at a deposit location (4, or inherently other places [0019,0039] handling involves picking up one place and & dropping off somewhere); - picking up the gripping object from a pickup location (see prior comments), wherein for depositing the gripping object, the end effector is uncoupled from the manipulator so that the end effector remains on the gripping object (figure 2,3), and for picking up the gripping object from the pickup location, the end effector remaining on the gripping object is recoupled to the manipulator.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5,10,12,13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (CN107088888A) in view of Tsutsumi (JPH0538690A).
Re claims 4-5,10,12,13, Tang shows end effectors powered via a primary energy supply (15-18, figures) in the coupled state and also in the uncoupled state is supplied with operating energy via a secondary, (independent) auxiliary energy supply (figures 1-3). Tang does not give details of the secondary, independent, auxiliary energy supply (storage) but Tsutsumi teaches (figures, abstract; electric, suction, etc. [0020,0022]) a robot 2 with detachable end effector 3 with secondary, independent, auxiliary energy supply/ storage (electric battery) 8 which can act to reduce wiring and/or act as a fail/safe power source for safety. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Tang in view of Tsutsumi as claimed in order to reduce wires and/or have a fail/safe power source for safety.
Re claim 3, Tang teaches the end effector in the coupled state is connected to a supply line for supplying the end effector (see figures) with operating energy. Figure 2 item 6 seems to show the power line still on the disconnected end effector 6 (screw machine) though Tang does not discuss, but such a power line would allow for quicker or extra powering of that end effector. Tsutsumi teaches (figures, abstract; electric, suction, etc. [0020,0022]) a robot 2 with detachable end effector 3 with an energy supply/ storage (electric battery) 8 which can act to reduce wiring and/or act as a fail/safe power source for safety and wherein the supply line remains connected to the end effector in the uncoupled state of the end effector. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Tang in view of Tsutsumi as claimed in order to reduce wires and/or have a local or fail/safe power source for safety or extra power/ quicker powering.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (CN107088888A) in view of Tsutsumi (JPH0538690A) and Eisele (US 2008/0174076).
Re claim 7, Tang shows end effectors powered via a primary energy supply (15-18, figures) in the coupled state and also in the uncoupled state is supplied with operating energy via a secondary, independent, auxiliary energy supply (figures 1-3). Tang does not give details of the secondary, independent, auxiliary energy supply (storage) but Tsutsumi teaches (figures, abstract) a robot 2 with detachable end effector 3 with secondary, independent, auxiliary energy supply/ storage 8 which can act to reduce wiring and/or act as a fail/safe power source for safety. Eisele teaches suction grippers in the coupled state is supplied with negative pressure by a primary negative pressure supply and also teaches an auxiliary power supply (energy generation device 22) that can be of varied types electrical, pressure, etc. ([0012,0013,0039,0043]). Also official notice is given that generated power is already known to be electrical, vacuum, and other types used in such robot grippers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Tang in view of Tsutsumi & Eisele as claimed in order to reduce wires and/or have a fail/safe power source of any needed type for safety.
Claims 8,14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (CN107088888A) in view of Tsutsumi (JPH0538690A), Eisele (US 2008/0174076) and Rankin (US 2014/0072396).
Re claims 8,14, Tang as already modified teaches the end effector may have varied types of grippers capable of gripping in coupled and uncoupled states but not auxiliary and primary vacuum gripping devices operating in only certain states. Rankin teaches (see figures) a gripper robot 14 with an end effector 18 with different and operationally selectable on/off first and second grippers 22,26 (which may be of varied types [0022]) for moving items 30 based on the individual situational needs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Tang in view of Rankin as claimed in order to grip as needed for the given situational needs, including fail/safe gripping when primary gripping power is unavailable, as well as to save power when additional / auxiliary as well as primary gripping is not needed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Uchiyama teaches a similar handling system with a robot with a quick connect for detachable, end effectors holding items.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights