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 .
The Examiner contacted Attorney Sarah Cassinis on February 2, 2026 to inform the Attorney, Applicant’s arguments were persuasive and claims 1-14, 23-28, and 41-42 were in condition for allowance. The Examiner explained there was a rejection for claims 37-40 and suggested canceling the claims and amending the claims to reflect the allowable subject matter. The proposed amendment was not accepted, necessitating the rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10, 12-14, 24-26, 41, and 42 are objected to because of the following informalities: The following claims have been objected to because the claims do not properly recite a step, as required by a method claim. The claims should be amended to reflect the proposed language or similar language. The appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 2 (line 1) should recite, “
Claim 3 (lines 1-2) should recite, “bringing a further actuator that is not part of the group
Claim 4 (lines 1-2) should recite, “bringing said further actuator
Claim 5 (line 1) should recite, providing said further actuator
Claim 6 (lines 1-2) should recite, reconfiguring said further actuator from its extended state to its retracted state with its contact portion engaged.
Claim 7 (lines 1-2) should recite, “subsequently reconfiguring said further actuator
Claim 8 (lines 1-2) should recite, reconfiguring said further actuator
Claim 9 (line 1) should recite,
Claim 10 (lines 1-2) should recite, subsequently reconfiguring said further actuator from the group
Claim 12 (lines 1-2) should recite, lifting target removable sheet parts
Claim 13 (lines 1-3) should recite, providing the sheets with reinforcement fibers held in a matrix material.
Claim 14 (lines 1-3) should recite, “removing
Claim 24 (lines 1-2) should recite, “supporting the sheet a planar support, wherein the planar support facing the sheet presents a relatively frictitious surface that is arranged to grip the sheet with product cutouts and hold it in place laterally along the planar support”
Claim 25 (lines 1-2) should recite, “moving the planar support
Claim 26 (lines 1-2) should recite, providing the planar support with apertures opening upwardly towards the sheet through which suction is applied to the sheet for engaging the sheet transversely to planar support.
Claim 41 (line 1) should recite, providing the matrix material, which is a tacky matrix material.
Claim 42 (line 1), providing , which is a target product cutout.
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.
Claim 38 is 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. Regarding cvlaim 38, the phrase “each bellow is fluidly coupled to a suction device via an opening in the carrier plane” is indefinite. A plane does not impart any physical structure and is an imaginary reference point with respect to a physical structure. Therefore, it is unclear how an opening extends within the (carrier) plane.
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.
Claims 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20220305674 to Katsuyama in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20170073174 to Tanaka et al. and CN105317816 to Li.
In re claim 37, Katsuyama teaches a remover comprising a carrier (10) having a plurality of actuators (30,40) extending from a carrier plane of the carrier, the actuators each being provided with a contact portion at a free end thereof, and each (capable of) being configurable into an extended state (as shown in at least Figures 1 and 3) in which its contact portion lies a first distance from the carrier plane, wherein the actuators (30,40) are actuatable by suction, at least in the extended state, wherein each actuator includes a bellows (33).
In re claim 38, as best understood, each bellow (33) is (capable of being) fluidly coupled to a suction device (Para 0045) via an opening in the carrier plane and a conduit (Para 0045).
Note, each bellow is coupled to the suction device via an opening in the plane, in as much as Applicant’s device.
In re claim 39, wherein the bellows is biased towards the extended state (as shown in at least Figure 3).
In re claim 40, further comprising at least one pusher (20) having a respective engagement end (as shown in at least Figure 5A, the engagement end is the end which the pressers and actuators extend) which is actively movable with respect to the carrier plane (horizontal plane defined by 10) between a respective retracted position (as shown in at least Figure 5A) which is less than the first distance from the carrier plane and on the other hand a respective extended distance (as shown in at least Figure 5B) which is beyond the first stance from the carrier plane.
Regarding claim 37, Katsuyama teaches a remover, but does not teach each actuators being configurable into a retracted state in which its contact portion lies a second, smaller distance from the carrier plane.
Tanaka teaches an actuator suction device having bellows (4) retractable in a vertical direction (Para 0024). Therefore, the device of Tanaka is configurable into a retracted state in which the contact portion lies a second, smaller distance from the carrier plane (200, Para 0024). The bellow tube (4) is fluidly coupled to a suction device (103) via an opening in the below and a respective conduit (104) and biased in an extended state.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Katsuyama with a plurality of bellow actuators retractable and extendable in a vertical direction in fluid communication with a suction device as taught by Tanaka which is advantageous for automatic height compensation for quickly adapting to materials of various thicknesses and maintaining enhanced stability to prevent dropping the attached material.
Regarding claim 37, Katsuyama teaches a carrier having a plurality of actuators, but does not teach the actuator includes a bellow with a flexible cup as a contact portion and a restrictor at a base of the flexible cup that is arranged to restrict air passage into the bellows relative to a suction applied to an interior of the bellows.
Li teaches a flexible cup (30) having a suction passage (40). The device of Li is connectable to a suction device. The flexible cup is a contact portion and has a restrictor (50,74) at the base of the flexible cup that is (capable of being) arranged to restrict air passage relative to suction applied into the interior of the chuck (10). Li teaches the concept of a pressure difference creating suction via a flexible cup (Pg. 2, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Katsuyama with a flexible cup and restrictor arrangement as taught by Li to provide suction on a non-smooth surface to improve the flexible cup bear load (Pg. 2, lines 17-18). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating a flexible cup in an arrangement with the bellows would restrict air passage into the bellows relative to the suction applied to the interior.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14, 23-28, and 41-42 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Katsuyama teaches method of removing a target removable sheet part from a sheet using a remover comprising a carrier having a plurality of actuators. Katsuyama teaches moving the actuators relative to the sheet to engage the target removable sheet part. Once the actuators have adhered to the product, the controller raises the carrier and the pressers still continue holding the product that is not being removed. Katsuyama does not teach performing an assisting operation with the at least one actuator prior to the step of moving the remover away from the sheet.
The allowable subject matter is commensurate with Figure 7a. A combination of the prior art would have relied on hindsight reasoning.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724