DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 07/29/2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 12/01/2025 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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 plurality of projections include projections of different sizes, and wherein the plurality of apertures include apertures of different sizes, as required by claims 10 and 19, 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 108. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 2-3, 5-6 and 9 are in greyscale and do not conform to the standards according to 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (a)(1) which reads "India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings" and 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (m) which reads "The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections". Figures 2-3, 5-6 and 9 prohibit proper understanding of the drawings and have reduced legibility.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 13-16 and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,409,567. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the U.S. Patent include all the limitations of the instant claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 19 recite the limitation "the plurality of projections include projections of different sizes". However, the originally filed specification fails to disclose the subject matter above and therefore it is considered new matter.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 13-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 20220022990 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a system (see Fig. 1, 2, 5, 13-16 and 18-20; 200) comprising: a flexible connecting plate (see Fig. 13-15; front plate of 104. See paragraph [0044], wherein “Band 104 can be formed with a resilient material); comprising: a flexible body (body of the front plate of 104) including a flexible first surface (surface of 104 facing 202) and a flexible second surface (surface of 104 facing 208) opposite the flexible first surface; a first kinematic interface (210) at the flexible first surface to connect to a robot flange (106); and a second kinematic interface (see Fig. 2; 214) at the flexible second surface to connect to an end effector (208; see paragraph [0052], wherein “the raised shapes can be provided on an endplate of flange 210 of tool 208…Mating depressions (not shown) can be formed in end face 214 of arm 202); a drape (102) connectable to the flexible connecting plate (at 104); and a locking assembly (204) to releasably secure the end effector to the robot flange while sandwiching the drape between the locking assembly and the robot flange (see Fig. 1 and 16).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses the first kinematic interface (210) and the second kinematic interface (214) each comprise at least one rigid projection (218A).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses the robot flange (106), the robot flange comprising a first kinematic receiver (214) to connect with the first kinematic interface of the flexible connecting plate (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses the robot (106) flange further comprises a groove (see Fig. 13; groove between 206 and 202), and wherein the locking assembly (204) comprises a projection (see Fig. 20; projections of 224) that fits in the groove (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses the drape (102) is sandwiched between the projection (projections of 224) and the groove (groove between 206 and 202) when the locking assembly secures the end effector (208) to the robot flange (106).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses the drape (102) contacts the groove (groove between 206 and 202) and the projection (projections of 224; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses the projection (projections of 224) is one of a plurality of projections (see Fig. 20) for securing the locking assembly (204) to the robot flange (106).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses the flexible body (body of the front plate of 104) comprises an aperture (see Fig. 13; aperture where 128 is provided) to accommodate an electrical connector (128) that electrically connects the end effector to the robot flange (see paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses a system (see Fig. 1, 2, 5, 13-16 and 18-20; 200) comprising: a flexible connecting plate (see Fig. 13-15; front plate of 104. See paragraph [0044], wherein “Band 104 can be formed with a resilient material) comprising: a flexible body (body of the front plate of 104) including a flexible first surface (surface of 104 facing 202) and a flexible second surface (surface of 104 facing 208) opposite the flexible first surface; a first kinematic interface (210) at the flexible first surface to connect to a robot flange (106); and a second kinematic interface (see Fig. 2; 214) at the flexible second surface to connect to an end effector (208; see paragraph [0052], wherein “the raised shapes can be provided on an endplate of flange 210 of tool 208…Mating depressions (not shown) can be formed in end face 214 of arm 202); a drape (102) connectable to the flexible connecting plate (at 104); and a locking assembly (204) to releasably secure the end effector to the robot flange (see Fig. 1 and 16) while sandwiching the drape between a projection of the locking assembly (see Fig. 20; projection of 224) and a groove of the robot flange (see Fig. 13; groove between 206 and 202).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang discloses the drape (102) contacts the groove (groove between 206 and 202) and the projection (projection of 224).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses the projection (projection of 224) is one of a plurality of projections (projections of 224) for securing the locking assembly (204) to the robot flange (106).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang discloses a system (see Fig. 1, 2, 5, 13-16 and 18-20; 200), comprising: a flexible connecting plate (see Fig. 13-15; front plate of 104. See paragraph [0044], wherein “Band 104 can be formed with a resilient material); comprising: a flexible body (body of the front plate of 104) including a flexible first surface (surface of 104 facing 202) and a flexible second surface (surface of 104 facing 208) opposite the flexible first surface; at least one first rigid projection (218A) at the flexible first surface to enable connection to a robot flange (106); and at least one second rigid projection (218A) at the flexible second surface to enable connection to an end effector (208; see paragraph [0052], wherein “the raised shapes can be provided on an endplate of flange 210 of tool 208…Mating depressions (not shown) can be formed in end face 214 of arm 202); a drape (102) connectable to the flexible connecting plate (at 104); and a locking assembly (204) to releasably secure the end effector to the robot flange while sandwiching the drape between the locking assembly and the robot flange (see Fig. 1 and 16).
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 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20220022990 A1) in view of Flatt (US 20200170724 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang fails to disclose the at least one rigid projection is spherical. However, Flatt discloses the at least one rigid projection (see Fig. 4; 64) is spherical (see Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Zhang with a rigid projection that is spherical, as taught by Flatt, to provide indexing elements of the appropriate shaft, arrangement or configuration sufficient to promote proper orientation of the sterile barrier…the different size and/or shape than the other indexing elements allows for a single alignment orientation (see paragraph [0065]).
Claim 9-12 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20220022990 A1) in view of Fawcett (US 6893284 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang fails to disclose the locking assembly comprises: an inner ring including the plurality of projections; and an outer ring including a plurality of apertures corresponding to the plurality of projections. However, Fawcett teaches the locking assembly (see Fig. 1-9) comprises: an inner ring (inner ring of 1) including the plurality of projections (25); and an outer ring (outer ring of 2) including a plurality of apertures corresponding to the plurality of projections (see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Zhang with the locking assembly of Fawcett, to provide a connector which can meet stringent safety requirements even if elements of the connector are separated when still connected to a source of electrical energy (see column 1 lines 44-47); and to provide a quick disconnect connection which reduces the chance of accidental disconnect, e.g., a snag of the latch assembly during operation (see column 5 lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang in view of Fawcett fail to disclose the plurality of projections include projections of different sizes, and wherein the plurality of apertures include apertures of different sizes. However, due to manufacturing tolerances the projections and apertures are inherently different sizes. Additionally, it has been held that a change in shape is an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this instance, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify the sizes of the projections and apertures to provide an indexing mechanism so that the end effector and robot flange can only be locked in a specific orientation. Note, Applicant’s specification fails to disclose any criticality of using projections and apertures of different sizes. As such, a reliance on case law for a rejection is appropriate.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of claim 9 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the locking assembly (Fawcett; Fig. 1-9) comprises a nut (Fawcett; 3. See column 6 lines 4-5 reads “A captive screw thread ring nut or staplelock system could be used to hold the collar 3 in a locked position”) to compress the plurality of projections (Fawcett; 25) into the groove (Fawcett; grooves in 1) when secured to the outer ring (Fawcett; outer ring of 2).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of claim 9 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the nut (Fawcett; 3) and the outer ring (Fawcett; outer ring of 2) comprise threading to enable the nut to be secured to the outer ring (Fawcett; column 6 lines 4-5, wherein “A captive screw thread ring nut or staplelock system could be used to hold the collar 3 in a locked position”).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang fails to disclose the locking assembly comprises: an inner ring including the plurality of projections; and an outer ring including a plurality of apertures corresponding to the plurality of projections. However, Fawcett teaches the locking assembly (see Fig. 1-9) comprises: an inner ring (inner ring of 1) including the plurality of projections (25); and an outer ring (outer ring of 2) including a plurality of apertures corresponding to the plurality of projections (see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Zhang with the locking assembly of Fawcett, to provide a connector which can meet stringent safety requirements even if elements of the connector are separated when still connected to a source of electrical energy (see column 1 lines 44-47); and to provide a quick disconnect connection which reduces the chance of accidental disconnect, e.g., a snag of the latch assembly during operation (see column 5 lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of claim 17 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the locking assembly (Fawcett; Fig. 1-9) comprises a nut (Fawcett; 3. See column 6 lines 4-5 reads “A captive screw thread ring nut or staplelock system could be used to hold the collar 3 in a locked position”) to compress the plurality of projections (Fawcett; 25) into the groove (Fawcett; grooves in 1) when secured to the outer ring (Fawcett; outer ring of 2).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang in view of Fawcett fail to disclose the plurality of projections include projections of different sizes, and wherein the plurality of apertures include apertures of different sizes. However, due to manufacturing tolerances the projections and apertures are inherently different sizes. Additionally, it has been held that a change in shape is an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this instance, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify the sizes of the projections and apertures to provide an indexing mechanism so that the end effector and robot flange can only be locked in a specific orientation. Note, Applicant’s specification fails to disclose any criticality of using projections and apertures of different sizes. As such, a reliance on case law for a rejection is appropriate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
US 20230070830 A1 and US 20230045591 A1 disclose quick release end effectors and robot arms with drapes.
US 20250143811 A1 and WO 2021222701 A1 disclose drapes that are sandwiched between a locking mechanism and a flange of the robot arm.
EP 3075497 A1 discloses a sliding quick release with ball cams.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
