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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner. Examiner notes that the Foreign Patent Document WO 2021097145 A1 does not appear to be attached and has therefore not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 4 appears to have a typo in Fig. 4A and 4B. It appears that “actuator(s)” is misspelled as “acturtor(s)” in box 310,311, 312. 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 Objections
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 42 recites the limitation “to the suction cup wall. At least one…” wherein there appears to be an improper period. Appropriate correction is required.
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 42-50 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 42 and 43 recite the limitation “the suction cup compartment wall” and “the suction cup compartment” wherein a “suction cup” is not recited and there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 48-49 appear to depend on now cancelled claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements. For purpose of examination, the claims will be interpreted as being dependent on independent claim 42.
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 42-46, 48, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2019/0217487 A1 hereinafter “Takahashi”).
Regarding claim 42 Takahashi discloses:
A gripper system comprising: a chamber compartment delimited by at least a chamber compartment wall; (Takahashi fig. 1 element 20 [0024] wherein the gripper includes an outer chamber holding the gripper and suction components in between flanges) a suction compartment delimited by a suction compartment wall; (Takahashi fig. 1 elements 42 and 41 [0030-0031] wherein the gripper includes a suction compartment portion) a deformable membrane; (Takahashi fig. 2 element 11 [0030-0034] [0045-0047] wherein the gripper includes a membrane that deforms to grip the workpiece) wherein the deformable membrane is attached to at least the chamber compartment wall and/or to the suction cup compartment wall; (Takahashi fig. 1 element 20 [0024] wherein the gripper includes an outer chamber holding the gripper and suction components in between flanges i.e. attached to the chamber and suction compartments) at least one actuator for modulating the position of the chamber compartment wall and/or the position of the suction compartment wall; (Takahashi [0079] wherein the robot includes a robot arm for moving the gripper based on controller commands, see also [0045] [0080] wherein when suction is applied by the vacuum pump causes the gripper surface position to deform i.e. modulate) at least one detecting element; (Takahashi [0081-0083] wherein the gripper includes detection devices to monitor operation of the gripper) and an algorithm to detect one or more failures. (Takahashi [0082-0088] wherein control algorithms detect abnormalities based on the information provided from the vacuum system and detection devices).
Regarding claim 43 Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of claim 42 and Takahashi further discloses:
The gripper system of Claim 42 wherein one or more pressure mechanisms can modulate the pressure within the suction cup compartment and/or the chamber compartment. (Takahashi [0029-0030] wherein the vacuum pressure in the chamber or suction portion are changed to manipulate the workpiece, including the second space acting as a suction cup area with an open bottom).
Regarding claim 44 Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of claim 43 and Takahashi further discloses:
The gripper system of Claim 43 wherein the pressure mechanism is a pump and/or an ejector and/or a venturi. (Takahashi [0080] wherein the vacuum is a pump).
Examiner notes that due to the “and/or” language only one of the pressure mechanisms is needed to fully teach the claim.
Regarding claim 45 Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of claim 42 and Takahashi further discloses:
The gripper system of Claim 42 wherein one or more detecting elements are selected from a list consisting of position, force, pressure, and image sensors, and their derivatives, such as velocity and acceleration sensors. (Takahashi [0081-0082] wherein the detection device includes the pressure or gas flow of the gripper).
Examiner notes that due to the “one or more detecting elements are selected from a list consisting of” language, only one of the listed sensor types is needed to fully teach the claim.
Regarding claim 46 Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of claim 42 and Takahashi further discloses:
The gripper system of Claim 42 wherein the algorithm is used for detecting one or more on-gripper failures wherein the failure is selected from a list consisting of membrane failure, mechanical component failure, actuator failure, pressure mechanism failure, sensor failure, controller failure. (Takahashi [0082] [0088-0094] wherein the system determines a failure in the gripping system, such as in the pressure from the suction system).
Examiner notes that due to the “one or more on-gripper failures wherein the failure is selected from a list consisting of” language, only one of the listed failure types is needed to fully teach the claim.
Regarding claim 48 Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of claim 42 and Takahashi further discloses:
The gripper system of Claim 1, wherein the failure is detected from one or more control signals applied to one or more actuators and/or from one or more control signals applied to one or more pressure mechanisms and/or from one or more detecting element signals. (Takahashi [0082] [0088-0094] wherein the system determines a failure in the gripping system, such as in the pressure from the suction system).
Examiner notes that due to the “failure is detected from one or more” language, only one of the listed failure types is needed to fully teach the claim.
Regarding claim 50 Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of claim 42 and Takahashi further discloses:
The gripper system of Claim 42 wherein the actuator to modulate the position of chamber compartment and/or the suction compartment is controlled by one or more controllers that control the position of the actuator over time. (Takahashi [0029-0030] wherein the vacuum pressure in the chamber or suction portion are changed to manipulate the workpiece, including the second space acting as a suction cup area with an open bottom, see also [0079] wherein the robot arm moves the entire gripping portion).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 47 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Diankov et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2020/0376670 A1 hereinafter “Diankov”).
Regarding claim 47 Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of claim 42 but Takahashi does not appear to disclose:
… wherein the algorithm is used for detecting one or more gripper system failures wherein the failure is due to the collision between the gripper and one or more items outside the gripper.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Diankov discloses:
“wherein the algorithm is used for detecting one or more gripper system failures wherein the failure is due to the collision between the gripper and one or more items outside the gripper.” (Diankov [0119] [0126] [0132] wherein the system determines errors based on the robot colliding with objects or the environment)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the gripping system failure of Diankov with the system of Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a robust system for moving items including errors or deviations from unexpected contact, drops, or movement of the environment around the robot (Diankov [0119] [0126]).
Regarding claim 49 Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of claim 42 and Takahashi further discloses:
The gripper system of Claim 1, wherein the failure is detected via monitoring the running performance and/or the expected response of the gripping system, (Takahashi [0082] [0088-0094] wherein the system determines a failure in the gripping system, such as in the pressure from the suction system using expected values or thresholds) …
Takahashi does not appear to disclose:
… including unexpected occurrence of unintentional dropping of one or more items.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Diankov discloses:
“including unexpected occurrence of unintentional dropping of one or more items.” (Diankov [0119] wherein the gripping system determines or monitors errors based on unexpected dropped or lost objects while placing the workpiece).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the gripping system failure of Diankov with the system of Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a robust system for moving items including errors or deviations from unexpected contact, drops, or movement of the environment around the robot (Diankov [0119] [0126]).
Claims 51-52, 54-56, 59, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Defranceski et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2017/0321799 A1 hereinafter “Defranceski”).
Regarding claim 51 Takahashi discloses:
A method of gripping an item, using a gripper system comprising: a chamber compartment; (Takahashi fig. 1 element 20 [0024] wherein the gripper includes an outer chamber holding the gripper and suction components in between flanges) a suction compartment; (Takahashi fig. 1 elements 42 and 41 [0030-0031] wherein the gripper includes a suction compartment portion) a membrane; (Takahashi fig. 2 element 11 [0030-0034] [0045-0047] wherein the gripper includes a membrane that deforms to grip the workpiece) at least one pressure mechanism; (Takahashi [0029-0030] wherein the vacuum pressure in the chamber or suction portion are changed to manipulate the workpiece, including the second space acting as a suction cup area with an open bottom) at least one actuator; (Takahashi [0079] wherein the robot includes a robot arm for moving the gripper based on controller commands, see also [0045] [0080] wherein when suction is applied by the vacuum pump causes the gripper surface position to deform i.e. modulated) at least one detecting element; (Takahashi [0081-0083] wherein the gripper includes detection devices to monitor operation of the gripper) and at least one controller; (Takahashi [0084] wherein the controller operates the gripper based on commands and detections) the method comprising the steps of: … and/or controlling the suction compartment pressure over time. (Takahashi [0080-0081] wherein the system controls depressuring in the suction compartments to apply a vacuum grip manipulation).
Examiner notes that due to the “and/or” language only one of the method steps is needed to fully teach the claim.
Additionally, Takahashi does not appear to disclose:
the method comprising the steps of: controlling the chamber compartment wall position over time if the chamber compartment wall is not fixed to the gripper body; and/or controlling the suction compartment wall position over time if the suction compartment wall is not fixed to the gripper body; and/or controlling the chamber compartment pressure over time;
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Defranceski discloses:
the method comprising the steps of: controlling the chamber compartment wall position over time if the chamber compartment wall is not fixed to the gripper body; (Defranceski [0016] wherein the chamber presser is changed by deforming the vacuum or bellows of the actuator) and/or controlling the suction compartment wall position over time if the suction compartment wall is not fixed to the gripper body; and/or controlling the chamber compartment pressure over time;
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the chamber wall position over time of Defranceski with the system of Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide the ability to flexibly alter the pressure supplied by the gripper, and monitor the changes over time to ensure that they are accurate and not changed too rapidly (Defranceski [0023-0025]).
Regarding claim 52 Takahashi in view of Defranceski discloses all of the limitations of claim 51 and Takahashi further discloses:
The method of Claim 51 wherein the detecting element is selected from a list consisting of position, force, pressure, and image sensors. (Takahashi [0081] wherein the system detects the pressure or flow rate of the gripper device).
Examiner notes that due to the “selected from a list consisting of” language, only one of the detection types is needed to fully teach the claims.
Regarding claim 54 Takahashi in view of Defranceski discloses all of the limitations of claim 51 and Takahashi further discloses:
The method in claim 51 wherein during a gripping process, one or more of the chamber compartment wall position, the suction compartment wall position, the chamber compartment pressure, and the suction compartment pressure, are controlled according to a gripping configuration that defines a set of process parameters of the gripping process. (Takahashi [0081] clms 8-9 wherein the gripping system is controlled based on parameters of the suction system and pressure to be applied).
Examiner notes that due to the “one or more of the” language, only one of the controlled parameters are needed to fully teach the claim.
Regarding claim 55 Takahashi in view of Defranceski discloses all of the limitations of claim 54 and Takahashi further discloses:
The method of Claim 54 wherein the set of process parameters is selected from a list consisting of position, velocity, acceleration, pressure, current, voltage, force, power, and electrostatic force. (Takahashi [0081] clms 8-9 wherein the gripping system is controlled based on parameters of the suction system and pressure to be applied).
Examiner notes that due to the “selected from a list consisting of” language, only one of the controlled parameters are needed to fully teach the claim.
Regarding claim 56 Takahashi in view of Defranceski discloses all of the limitations of claim 54 but Takahashi does not appear to explicitly disclose:
… wherein the gripping configuration comprises a set of process parameters selected from a list consisting of a profile of the chamber compartment wall position over time during the gripping process, a profile of the suction compartment wall position over time during the gripping, a profile of the chamber compartment pressure over time during the gripping process, and a profile of the suction compartment pressure over time during the gripping process.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Defranceski discloses:
“wherein the gripping configuration comprises a set of process parameters selected from a list consisting of a profile of the chamber compartment wall position over time during the gripping process, a profile of the suction compartment wall position over time during the gripping, (Defranceski [0064-0068] wherein the pressure of the gripping state and load on the actuator is determined at various points of operation) a profile of the chamber compartment pressure over time during the gripping process, and a profile of the suction compartment pressure over time during the gripping process.” (Defranceski [0064-0068] wherein the pressure of the gripping state and load on the actuator is determined at various points of operation).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the chamber wall position over time of Defranceski with the system of Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide the ability to flexibly alter the pressure supplied by the gripper, and monitor the changes over time to ensure that they are accurate and not changed too rapidly (Defranceski [0023-0025]).
Examiner notes that due to the “selected from a list consisting of” language, only one of the parameters is needed to fully teach the claims.
Regarding claim 59 Takahashi discloses:
A method of determining the gripping configuration, using a gripping system comprising: a chamber compartment; (Takahashi fig. 1 element 20 [0024] wherein the gripper includes an outer chamber holding the gripper and suction components in between flanges) a suction compartment; (Takahashi fig. 1 elements 42 and 41 [0030-0031] wherein the gripper includes a suction compartment portion) a membrane; (Takahashi fig. 2 element 11 [0030-0034] [0045-0047] wherein the gripper includes a membrane that deforms to grip the workpiece) at least one pressure mechanism; (Takahashi [0029-0030] wherein the vacuum pressure in the chamber or suction portion are changed to manipulate the workpiece, including the second space acting as a suction cup area with an open bottom).at least one actuator; (Takahashi [0079] wherein the robot includes a robot arm for moving the gripper based on controller commands, see also [0045] [0080] wherein when suction is applied by the vacuum pump causes the gripper surface position to deform i.e. modulate) at least one detecting element; (Takahashi [0081-0083] wherein the gripper includes detection devices to monitor operation of the gripper) and at least one controller; (Takahashi [0084] wherein the controller operates the gripper based on commands and detections) the method comprising the steps of: starting the gripping process following a given default gripping configuration comprising … and/or chamber compartment pressure value and/or profile over time, (Takahashi [0080-0081] wherein the system controls depressuring in the suction compartments to apply a vacuum grip manipulation) …
Examiner notes that due to the “and/or” language only one of the method steps is needed to fully teach the claim.
Takahashi does not appear to disclose:
… the method comprising the steps of: starting the gripping process following a given default gripping configuration comprising a chamber compartment position and/or profile over time, … and/or a suction compartment position value and/or profile over time; monitoring the detecting element readings before the chamber position reaches a given threshold; collecting data; and once the chamber position reaches the given threshold, feeding the collected data to the controller to determine a gripping configuration.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Defranceski discloses:
… the method comprising the steps of: starting the gripping process following a given default gripping configuration comprising a chamber compartment position and/or profile over time, … and/or a suction compartment position value and/or profile over time; (Defranceski [0024-0026] [0067-0068] wherein the suction profiles change over time, and differ based on weight force of the loading) monitoring the detecting element readings before the chamber position reaches a given threshold; (Defranceski [0026-0029] wherein the data is compared with reference values and target values i.e. thresholds to determine controls) collecting data; (Defranceski [0015-0021] wherein the system collects and determines operation based on functional data and once the chamber position reaches the given threshold, feeding the collected data to the controller to determine a gripping configuration. (Defranceski [0064-0068] wherein the pressure of the gripping state and load on the actuator is determined at various points of operation).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the data collection and gripper profiles of Defranceski with the system of Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide the ability to flexibly alter the pressure supplied by the gripper, and monitor the changes over time to ensure that they are accurate and not changed too rapidly (Defranceski [0023-0025]).
Regarding claim 61 Takahashi in view of Defranceski discloses all of the limitations of claim 59 but Takahashi does not appear to disclose:
… wherein the step of collecting data further comprises collecting the profile of the chamber compartment pressure, and/or the profile of the suction compartment pressure; and/or the profile of the signals from one of more detecting element.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Defranceski discloses:
“wherein the step of collecting data further comprises collecting the profile of the chamber compartment pressure, and/or the profile of the suction compartment pressure; (Defranceski [0024-0026] [0067-0068] wherein the suction profiles change over time, and differ based on weight force of the loading) and/or the profile of the signals from one of more detecting element.” (Defranceski [0064-0068] wherein the pressure of the gripping state and load on the actuator is determined at various points of operation).
Examiner notes that due to the “and/or” language only one of the collection profiles is needed to fully teach the claim.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the suction and detection profiles over time of Defranceski with the system of Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide the ability to flexibly alter the pressure supplied by the gripper, and monitor the changes over time to ensure that they are accurate and not changed too rapidly (Defranceski [0023-0025]).
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi and Defranceski as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Diankov.
Regarding claim 53 Takahashi in view of Defranceski discloses all of the limitations of claim 51 and Takahashi further discloses:
The method of Claim 51 further comprising the execution of one or more of the following functions during a gripping process: information provided by one or more detecting element is processed to control the gripper operation during the gripping process; (Takahashi [0065] [0074] wherein the controller applies suction to change the gripper shape and apply more gripping force)
and/or information provided by one or more detecting elements is processed to estimate the strength of the grip; and/or the controller generates one or more control commands to adjust the control parameters to modulate the strength of the grip; (Takahashi [0065] [0074] wherein the controller applies suction to change the gripper shape and apply more gripping force) …
Examiner notes that due to the “and/or” language only one of the functions is needed to fully teach the claim.
Takahashi does not appear to disclose:
… and/or information provided by one or more detecting element is processed to detect the unintentional dropping of one or more items.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Diankov discloses:
“and/or information provided by one or more detecting element is processed to detect the unintentional dropping of one or more items.” (Diankov [0119] wherein the gripping system determines or monitors errors based on unexpected dropped or lost objects while placing the workpiece).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the gripping system failure of Diankov with the system of Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a robust system for moving items including errors or deviations from unexpected contact, drops, or movement of the environment around the robot (Diankov [0119] [0126]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 57-58 and 60 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.
Regarding claims 57-58 and 60 the relevant art Takahashi in view of Diankov in view of Defranceski discloses a robotic gripper with flexible soft grips and suction controls (Takahashi [0030-0034] [0079]) but fails to disclose specific start up profiles, or logic to stop or modify the process based on the profiles, or determining the maximum readings and forces on the chamber walls during operation. Specifically, the relevant art fails to disclose “The method in claim 56 wherein the gripping configuration comprises: a process logic that determines at least a portion of the execution of the profiles comprising the steps of: starting the gripping process following a gripping configuration comprising a number of position profiles and pressure profiles over time; obtaining information through one or more detecting elements regarding one or more of the following values continuously: the suction compartment wall position, the chamber compartment wall position, the chamber compartment pressure, and the suction compartment pressure; feeding the information obtained in the previous step to the process logic continuously or at intervals; determining when, how, or whether to modify the gripping configuration currently being followed; and/or determining when, how, or whether to stop the execution of the gripping process; and/or a set of parameters used in the said process logic.” or “The method of Claim 56 wherein the gripping configuration comprises a chamber compartment wall position profile over time during the gripping process, a suction compartment wall position profile over time during the gripping process, a chamber compartment pressure profile over time during the gripping process, a suction compartment pressure profile over time during the gripping process, a process logic that decides about modifying or stopping the execution of the gripping process, and a set of parameters used in said process logic.” or “The method of Claim 59 wherein the step of collecting data further comprises collecting the maximum chamber compartment pressure reading between the time when the gripping process starts and the time when the chamber compartment wall position reaches the given threshold, the force experienced by the suction compartment wall when the chamber position reaches the given threshold, the chamber compartment pressure when the chamber compartment wall position reaches the given threshold and the suction compartment pressure when the suction compartment wall position reaches the given threshold.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6,846,029 discloses a gripping device with a flexible membrane to grasp objects
US 9,205,558 B1 discloses a suction gripper with multiple suction cups
US 9,623,570 B1 discloses a ripper with a soft grip and deformable membrane
US 2018/0257241 A1 discloses a gripper with thin vacuum pads
US 2022/0379494 A1 discloses a gripper with suction device to move a variety of objects
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle T Johnson whose telephone number is (303)297-4339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00 MT.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/KYLE T JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights