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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 4 are amended. Claims 5-6 are cancelled. Claims 11-13 are new.
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 bristles on the fixing-ejecting element (2) 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,124,741 to Crawford.
Regarding claim 1, Crawford ‘741 discloses a system for picking-up elements, comprising: an automated arm 18 provided with at least one tool 23 at one of its ends for picking up said elements 14, a work surface 16 on which said elements 14 are placed, and a fixing ejecting element 28 characterized in that said tool 23 comprises at least one pick 24 (figs 9-10), wherein the fixing-ejecting element 28 removes from the at least one pick 24 at least one of said elements 14 that has been picked up, and wherein the fixing-ejecting element 28 remains fixed (col. 3, lines 20-26 – element 28 is fixed to the automated arm 18) and the automated arm 18 moves while the at least one element 14 is being removed from the at least one pick 24.
Regarding claim 2, Crawford ‘741 discloses wherein said tool 23 also comprises a head 23a at which said at least one pick 24 is fixed (fig 10 – col. 3, lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 3, Crawford ‘741 discloses wherein said fixing- ejecting element 28 comprises at least one hole or groove for the passage of said at least one pick 24 (fig. 2 – col. 3, line 11).
Regarding claim 4, Crawford ‘741 discloses wherein said fixing-ejecting element 28 is movable with respect to said head 23a (col. 3, lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 8, Crawford ‘741 discloses wherein said at least one pick 24 is in the form of a needle or harpoon.
Regarding claim 9, Crawford ‘741 discloses wherein an end of said at least one pick 24 for perforating said element is beveled (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Crawford ‘741 discloses wherein said at least one pick 24 is pivoting in relation to said head 23a (note that there is a pivotal connection where pick 24 is in pivoting relation to head 23a – when the set screw is not locking the pivotal connection).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,124,741 to Crawford in view of US 4,688,837 to Ball.
Regarding claim 7, Crawford ‘741 teaches a work surface 16.
Ball ‘837 teaches using a soft pourous member (equates to flexible bristles) on which said elements A are placed in order to offer additional support.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work surface taught in Crawford ‘741 to include the pourous member or flexible bristles as taught in Ball ‘837 in order to offer more support.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,124,741 to Crawford in view of US 4,157,825 to Ellenberger et al.
Regarding claim 11, Crawford ‘741 discloses a system for picking-up elements, comprising: an automated arm 18 provided with at least one tool 23 at one of its ends for picking up said elements 14, a work surface 16 on which said elements 14 are placed, and a fixing-ejecting element 28,characterized in that said tool comprises at least one pick 24, wherein the fixing-ejecting element 28 removes from the at least one pick 24 at least one of said elements 14 that has been picked up,
Ellenberger ‘825 teaches a fixing-ejecting member 11/12 that comprises bristles 10 for directing the workpiece. Ellenberger ‘825 also teaches that the bristles may be strips or loops of leather or rubber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fixing-ejecting element 28 taught in Crawford ‘741 to include the bristles, strips or loops in order to direct a workpiece.
Noting that once element 28 of Crawford ‘741 is modified with the bristles, strips or loops – which would extend along the sides of the fixing-ejecting element 28 since the bristles in Ellenberger extend around the roll 9. Then, Crawford ‘741, as modified, would teach wherein said fixing-ejecting element 28 comprises a plurality of flexible bristles 10 (as taught by Ellenberger ‘825) that secure the at least one element 14 by surrounding at least a portion of the at least one element 14.
Regarding claim 12, Crawford ‘741, as modified, discloses wherein the automated arm 18 moves to pick up the at least one element 14 using the at least one pick 24 and moves in an opposite direction to remove the at least one element 14 from the at least one pick 24.
Regarding claim 13, Crawford ‘741, as modified, discloses wherein the plurality of flexible bristles (10 as taught in Ellenberger) would surround the at least one pick. Noting that Crawford ‘741 is modified with bristle, strips or loops that extend around and from the fixing-ejecting element 28, as modified.
Response to Arguments
Applicants submits that the bristles are depicted in Fig. 9. However, claim 11 recites that the fixing-ejecting element comprises a plurality of flexible bristles, which is not shown in Fig. 9.
Applicant’s specification states that “Figure 9 shows another possible configuration of the fixing-ejecting element 2, which incorporates an array of flexible bristles securing the element 3 to be picked up before being perforated.” However, the bristles (unlabeled) are shown extending from head 6. The fixing -ejecting element 2 does not appear to be shown in Fig. 9 and is clearly not shown as claimed by applicant. Claimed subject matter must be shown in the claims. The object is upheld.
New claim 11 is rejected under US 4,124,741 to Crawford in view of US 4,157,825 to Ellenberger et al. Applicant argues that the bristles 10 taught in Ellenberger ‘825 do not secure the sections by surrounding portions of the stack S. Rather, the bristles 10 merely contact the stack S on one side. Applicant then submits that Ellenberger ‘825 fails to teach or suggest “wherein said fixing-ejecting element (2) comprises a plurality of flexible bristles that secure the at least one element (3) by surrounding at least a portion of the at least one element (3).”
The examiner disagrees and submits that once element 28 of Crawford ‘741 is modified with the bristles, strips or loops of Ellenberger ‘825 – which would obviously extend around the sides of the fixing-ejecting element 28 as the bristles in Ellenberger ‘825 extend around the roll 9. Thus, Crawford ‘741, as modified, would teach wherein said fixing-ejecting element 28 comprises a plurality of flexible bristles 10 (as taught by Ellenberger ‘825) that secure the at least one element 14 by surrounding at least a portion of the at least one element 14. The examiner is suggesting that the bristles 10 would surround Crawford’s fixing-ejecting element 28 just like the bristles in Ellenberger ‘825 surround the roll 9.
Applicant’s other arguments are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection. Noting that the examiner addressed the arguments made to Ellenberger which is the secondary reference in the claim 11 rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7507. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:00pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/MONICA E MILLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632