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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/1/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 7 and 12 are amended. Claims 5-6 are cancelled.
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 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,214,741 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 stationary in place and the automated arm 18 moves with respect to the fixing-ejecting element 28 while the at least one element 14 is being removed from the at least one pick 24 (Fig. 7, col. 3, lines 44-58).
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 (pick 24 is pivotally connected to head 23a and pivots when the set screw is loosened).
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 4,214,741 to Crawford in view of US 4,688,837 to Ball and US 2005/0217092 to Barker et al.
Regarding claim 7, Crawford '741 teaches a work surface 16 upon which the elements are placed. Crawford ‘741, however, is silent as to the work surface comprising an array of flexible bristles and preventing collision of the a least one pick with the work surface while the at least one element is being picked up.
However, Ball '837 teaches using a soft porous member on which said elements A are placed to permit penetration of the needles while avoiding contact with the underlying work surface (col. 4, line 51-53).
Further, Barker ‘092 teaches an array of bristles (brush apron 22) that supports the workpiece while allowing the pick to pass between the bristles, thereby preventing contact with the underlying support surface (para 0036).
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 soft porous member taught in Ball '837 and to implement the porous member as an array of flexible bristles as taught by Barker ‘092 in order to support the element while permitting penetration of the pick between the bristles, thereby avoiding contact with the underlying work surface.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,214,741 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.
However, Crawford is silent as to the fixing-ejecting element 28 comprising a plurality of flexible bristles that secure the at least one element 14 by surrounding at least a portion of the at least one element 14.
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 (col. 5, lines 52-64).
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 plurality of flexible bristles taught in Ellenberger ‘825 in order to provide an elastically deformable gripping surface capable of directing and retaining the workpiece during the pick-up and ejection operation, as taught by Ellenberger ‘825.
Noting that once the fixing-ejecting element 28 of Crawford ‘741 is modified to include the plurality of flexible bristles taught by Ellenberger ‘825, the flexible bristles extend radially outward from the fixing-ejecting element and engage the workpiece during the pick-up and ejection operation, such that the plurality of bristles engage and retain the workpiece around at least a portion thereof during removal from the pick. Accordingly, Crawford ‘741, as modified, teaches 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 with respect to the fixing-ejecting element 28 to pick up the at least one element 14 using the at least one pick 24 and moves in an opposite direction with respect to the fixing-ejecting element 28 to remove the at least one element 14 from the at least one pick 24 (Fig. 7, col. 3, lines 44-58).
Regarding claim 13, Crawford '741, as modified, discloses wherein the plurality of flexible
bristles (10 as taught in Ellenberger ‘825) surround the at least one pick. Noting that once the fixing-ejecting element 28 is modified to include the plurality of bristles 10 taught by Ellenberger ‘825, the flexible bristles extend radially outward from the fixing-ejecting element and such that the at least one pick 24 necessarily passes into the field of the flexible bristles during the pick-up and ejection operation, whereby the plurality of flexible bristles surround the at least one pick.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Crawford fails to disclose a stationary fixing-ejecting element with the automated arm moving with respect to the fixing-ejecting element, that Balls’ soft porous member is not an array of flexible bristles, and that Ellenberger’s bristles neither surround nor secure the workpiece as recited.
However, the present Office Action has been revised in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments as filed in the RCE received 61/26.
The rejection of claim 1 has been revised, based on the claim amendments, to expressly identify Crawford’s disclosed stationary fixing-ejecting element and the relative movement of the automated arm with respect thereto, as taught by Crawford.
Specifically, the rejection of claim 7 has been revised to additionally rely on Barker for teaching an array of flexible bristles that supports the workpiece while allowing the pick to pass between the bristles, thereby preventing contact with the underlying support surface.
The rejection of claims 11-13 has also been revised to more particularly explain how Crawford, as modified by Ellenberger, teaches the claimed fixing-ejecting element modified to comprise a plurality of flexible bristles and how the modified structure satisfies the claimed relationship between the flexible bristles, the workpiece, and the pick during the pick-up and ejection operation.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights