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 .
Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority of PRO 63/545,420 on 10/24/23 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant filed an IDS on 2/3/25. It has been annotated and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the multi-axis robotic arm and gripper, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh (US 20080069730 hereinafter Itoh) and further in view of Eliuk (US 20060259195 hereinafter Eliuk).
Regarding claim 1, Itoh teaches a robot arm (not shown).”):
at least one conveyor belt (See at least: Fig. 2; [0029] via “[0029] The following is a specific description of configurations of various parts of the first transport line 11. The test tube transport path 13 of the first transport line 11 shown in FIG. 2 is of a belt-conveyor type, and is provided with an outward path 13a and an inward path 13b, which extend and travel parallel to each other from the upstream side to the downstream side and from the downstream side to the upstream side, respectively.”);
at least one the test tube transport path 13 so that the specimen-filled test tubes 24 can be transferred from the test tube racks 23 to the holders 24A by a robot arm (not shown).”);
wherein the at least one conveyor belt is operable to transport at least one container to the at least one
wherein
but fails to teach at least one multi-axis robotic arm, and at least one gripper; wherein the at least one gripper is removably attached to the at least one multi-axis robotic arm; wherein, via the at least one gripper, the at least one multi-axis robotic arm is operable to grab the at least one container; and wherein, once the at least one gripper captures the at least one container, the at least one multi-axis robotic arm is operable to transport the at least one container to a storage device.
However, Eliuk teaches at least one multi-axis robotic arm, and at least one gripper; wherein the at least one gripper is removably attached to the at least one multi-axis robotic arm; wherein, via the at least one gripper, the at least one multi-axis robotic arm is operable to grab the at least one container; and wherein, once the at least one gripper captures the at least one container, the at least one multi-axis robotic arm is operable to transport the at least one container to a storage device (See at least: Figs. 4 item 318 “robotic arm” and 9-11; [0091] via “[0091] The processing chamber 304 includes a multiple degree of freedom robotic arm 318, and the robotic arm 318 further includes a gripper that can be used, for example, to pick items from a pocket on a rack or to grasp items within the APAS cell 100 for manipulation. An illustrative gripper is described in further detail with reference to FIGS. 9-11.” Note: According to broadest reasonable interpretation, the gripper is removably attached since it was previously put together when building the robotic arm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Itoh in view of Eliuk to teach at least one multi-axis robotic arm, and at least one gripper; wherein the at least one gripper is removably attached to the at least one multi-axis robotic arm; wherein, via the at least one gripper, the at least one multi-axis robotic arm is operable to grab the at least one container; and wherein, once the at least one gripper captures the at least one container, the at least one multi-axis robotic arm is operable to transport the at least one container to a storage device so that an multi-axis robotic arm with a gripper can be used to successfully transport test tube containers to storage holders with the necessary mobility and grip strength.
Regarding claim 3, Itoh teaches wherein the storage device includes a tray, wherein the at least one container includes a vial (See at least: Fig. 3 item 22 “test tube rack holder section”; item 24 “test tube”).
Regarding claim 5, Itoh teaches wherein the at least one conveyor belt includes at least one container sorting component, wherein the at least one container sorting component is operable to rotate a plurality of containers moving along the at least one conveyor belt, wherein the at least one container sorting component is operable to maintain spacing of the plurality of containers (See at least: Fig. 3 as test tubes travel along a circular transport path 13).
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of Eliuk and further in view of Schubert (US 20220144567 hereinafter Schubert).
Regarding claim 2, modified Itoh fails to teach the following limitation but Schubert teaches wherein the at least one multi-axis robotic arm has at least three degrees of freedom (See at least: [0037] via “The dual-arm robot 3.1 preferably comprises two arms that can be moved independently of one another and that each include gripper systems 3.2, which preferably have multiple, particularly preferably at least six, degrees of freedom.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Itoh in view of Schubert to teach wherein the at least one multi-axis robotic arm has at least three degrees of freedom so that the robotic arm has enough mobility to successfully complete a task of transporting containers like test tubes.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of Eliuk and further in view of Fine et al. (US 20250256403 hereinafter Fine).
Regarding claim 4, modified Itoh fails to teach the following limitation but Fine teaches wherein the at least one gripper includes a vacuum gripper, wherein the vacuum gripper includes an attachment module, a vacuum generation component, and a gripping component, wherein the attachment module is removably attached to the multi-axis robotic arm (See at least: Fig. 10; [0152] As shown in FIG. 10, the robotic arm 1005 includes a vacuum head 1004 as an end effector and a pressure sensor 1006, which may be used to measure pressure in the vacuum head to facilitate its operation (e.g., to determine whether an object has been appropriately gripped or released by the vacuum head before causing the robotic arm 1005 to move). Note: the attachment module was put together to build the robotic arm so it also removable.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Itoh in view of Fine to teach wherein the at least one gripper includes a vacuum gripper, wherein the vacuum gripper includes an attachment module, a vacuum generation component, and a gripping component, wherein the attachment module is removably attached to the multi-axis robotic arm so that the robotic arm can use suction instead of gripping to provide more careful gripping and transport of the container to a storage device.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of Eliuk and further in view of Mizoguchi et al. (US 20220314440 hereinafter Mizoguchi).
Regarding claim 6, modified Itoh fails to teach the following limitation but Mizoguchi teaches wherein the at least one multi-axis robotic arm is operable to automatically change at least one gripper, wherein the at least one multi-axis robotic arm changes the at least one gripper based on a container characteristic, wherein the container characteristic includes at least one of container size or container shape (See at least: [0058] In some embodiments, the lower portion 320 can include a gripper head (e.g., a gripping tool) that can be interchangeable (e.g., swapped out) according to the picking operation. For example, the lower portion 320 can include a first set of gripping components (e.g., a vacuum-based gripper having a first quantity/size of suction cups) configured to grab a first set of target objects while a second set of gripping components (e.g., a vacuum-based gripper having a second quantity/size of cups or a pincher-based gripper) configured to grab a second set of target objects. The first set of gripping components and the second set of gripping components can be interchangeable with the end effector 300, while the upper portion 310 remains the same. As a result, for example, a single upper mounting component 312 and force-torque sensor 314 can be used with a variety of interchangeable lower portions for a variety of picking operations.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Itoh in view of Mizoguchi to teach wherein the at least one multi-axis robotic arm is operable to automatically change at least one gripper, wherein the at least one multi-axis robotic arm changes the at least one gripper based on a container characteristic, wherein the container characteristic includes at least one of container size or container shape so that the robotic arm can use interchangeable grippers in order to choose a tool for improved manipulation of the specific type of container being transported.
Regarding claim 7, Itoh fails to teach the following limitation, but Eliuk teaches wherein the at least one gripper is operable to move in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction (See at least: Fig. 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Itoh in view of Eliuk to teach teaches wherein the at least one gripper is operable to move in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction so that an multi-axis robotic arm with a gripper can be used to successfully transport test tube containers to storage holders with the necessary vertical and horizontal mobility for successful transport.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of Eliuk in view of Mizoguchi and further in view of Dettman et al. (US 5879277 hereinafter Dettman).
Regarding claim 8, modified Itoh fails to teach the following limitation but Dettman teaches a plurality of grippers positioned above the at least one multi-axis robotic arm, wherein the at least one multi-axis robotic arm is operable to extend toward the plurality of grippers, wherein the at least one multi-axis robotic arm is further operable to attach to at least one gripper of the plurality of grippers. (See at least: Fig. 1 item 18 “tool rack”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Itoh in view of Dettman to teach a plurality of grippers positioned above the at least one multi-axis robotic arm, wherein the at least one multi-axis robotic arm is operable to extend toward the plurality of grippers, wherein the at least one multi-axis robotic arm is further operable to attach to at least one gripper of the plurality of grippers so that the multi-axis robotic arm can access the necessary gripper from above in order to leave more working space for the multi-axis robot arm around the conveyer belt.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of Eliuk and further in view of Ikemoto (US 20220371833 hereinafter Ikemoto).
Regarding claim 9, Itoh in view of Eliuk teaches a multi-axis robotic loading system comprising: at least one conveyor belt;
once the plurality of containers is captured, the
but fails to teach a plurality of multi axis robotic arms and a plurality of grippers.
However, Ikemoto teaches a plurality of multi axis robotic arms and a plurality of grippers wherein the at least one conveyor belt is operable to transport a plurality of workpieces to the plurality of multi-axis robotic arms (See at least: Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Itoh in view of Ikemoto to teach a plurality of multi axis robotic arms and a plurality of grippers wherein the at least one conveyor belt is operable to transport a plurality of containers to the plurality of multi-axis robotic arms to create an assembly line with at least one conveyer belt so a plurality of multi-axis robotic arms can work together to accomplish a task faster.
Regarding claim 10, modified Itoh teaches wherein the at least one conveyor belt includes at least two conveyor belts, wherein the at least two conveyor belts includes a first conveyor belt and a second conveyor belt, wherein the first conveyor belt transports a first plurality of containers to a first multi-axis robotic arm, wherein the second conveyor belt transports a second plurality of containers to a second multi-axis robotic arm (Refer at least to claim 1 for reasoning and rationale. Note: Two of Itoh’s systems can teach this limitation since the conveyer belts and robotic arms do not have to be in the same system in this claim.)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of Eliuk in view of Ikemoto and further in view of Le (US 20230120642 hereinafter Le).
Regarding claim 11, modified Itoh fails to teach the following limitation but Le teaches wherein the speed of a conveyer belt is adjustable (See at least: [0011] via “The speed of the conveyor belt is adjustable.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Itoh in view of to teach wherein the speed of a conveyer belt moves at a different speed than the second conveyor belt so that each conveyer belt system can adjust the conveyer belt speed tailored to the task and the working speed of its respective robotic arm.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of Eliuk in view of Ikemoto and further in view of Schubert.
Regarding claim 12, modified Itoh in view of Schubert teaches wherein each multi-axis robotic arm of the plurality of multi-axis robotic arms includes at least three degrees of freedom (Refer at least to claim 2 for reasoning and rationale.).
Regarding claim 13, modified Itoh in view of Schubert teaches wherein each multi-axis robotic arm of the plurality of multi-axis robotic arms includes at least five degrees of freedom (Refer at least to claim 2 for reasoning and rationale).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of Eliuk in view of Ikemoto and further in view of Fine.
Regarding claim 14, modified Itoh in view of Fine teaches wherein the plurality of grippers includes at least one vacuum gripper, wherein the at least one vacuum gripper includes an attachment module, a vacuum generation component, and a gripping component (Refer at least to claim 4 for reasoning and rationale.).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of Eliuk in view of Ikemoto and further in view of Hansen et al. (US 10921336 hereinafter Hansen).
Regarding claim 15, modified Itoh fails to teach the following limitation but Hansen teaches wherein the 2026 is adapted to grip cartridge 90 upon contact thereof. In one example, gripping is achieved through application of negative air pressure on the cartridge contact surface 2026 of the gripper plate 2020. To obtain negative air pressure, a suction cup 2028 is embedded in the plate's cartridge contact surface 2026 (see FIG. 24) and is connected to a pneumatic conduit 2037 fed through an opening in the plate 2026 which supplies the vacuum from vacuum pump 2002 (see FIG. 20).”) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Itoh in view of Hansen to teach wherein the plurality of grippers includes a pneumatic gripper, wherein the pneumatic gripper includes an attachment module, a vacuum generation component, and a gripping component so that the robotic arm can use suction instead of gripping to provide more careful gripping and transport of the container to a storage device.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of Eliuk in view of Ikemoto and further in view of Mizoguchi.
Regarding claim 16, modified Itoh in view of Mizoguchi teaches wherein each multi-axis robotic arm of the plurality of multi-axis robotic arms is operable to automatically change at least one gripper (Refer at least to claim 6 for reasoning and rationale.)Regarding claim 17, modified Itoh in view of Mizoguchi wherein each multi-axis robotic arm of the plurality of multi-axis robotic arms is operable to change the at least one gripper based on a container characteristic, wherein the container characteristic includes at least one of container size or container shape (Refer at least to claim 6 for reasoning and rationale.)
Regarding claim 18, modified Itoh teaches wherein the at least one gripper is operable to move in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction (Refer at least to claim 7 for reasoning and rationale.)
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of Eliuk in view of Ikemoto in view of Mizoguchi and further in view of Dettman.
Regarding claim 19, modified Itoh in view of Dettman teaches a plurality of grippers positioned above the plurality of multi-axis robotic arms, wherein each multi-axis robotic arm of the plurality of multi-axis robotic arms is operable to extend toward the plurality of grippers, wherein each multi-axis robotic arm of the plurality of multi-axis robotic arms is further operable to attach to at least one gripper of the plurality of grippers (Refer at least to claim 8 for reasoning and rationale.).
Regarding claim 20, modified Itoh fails to teach the following limitation but Dettman teaches wherein each multi-axis robotic arm of the plurality of multi-axis robotic arms is operable to place a connected gripper in the plurality of grippers, wherein, after placing the connected gripper in the plurality of grippers, the multi-axis robotic arm is operable to attach to a second gripper. (See at least: Fig. 1 item 18 “tool rack”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Itoh in view of Dettman to teach wherein each multi-axis robotic arm of the plurality of multi-axis robotic arms is operable to place a connected gripper in the plurality of grippers, wherein, after placing the connected gripper in the plurality of grippers, the multi-axis robotic arm is operable to attach to a second gripper so that the multi-axis robotic arm can access the necessary gripper from above in order to leave more working space for the multi-axis robot arm around the conveyer belt and choose a gripper appropriate to a task.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657