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 .
Claim Status
This Office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 2/11/2026. Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20 are currently pending. No claims have been amended. The cancelation of claim 21 is acknowledged. Claims 2 and 14 have been previously canceled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/11/2026 has been entered.
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 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nambu (WO 2019/159793 A1) in view of Liessem (DE 19859595 A1) and Girtman (US 2015/0308466 A1). Note that for convenience citations to the written description of Liessem refer to the attached translation.
Regarding claim 15, Nambu discloses a vacuum-assisted product-handling method comprising: moving one or more unpackaged products (P – Fig. 1) on a carrier (2 – Fig. 1) into a contact position (21 – Fig. 1 and pg. 3, third full paragraph); attaching an unpackaged product of the one or more unpackaged products in the contact position to one or more arrays of suction devices (15, 16 – Fig. 2) on a vacuum tool (the assembly of 11 and 14 – Fig. 1) that is connected to a mechanical arm of an actuation unit (pg. 2, second to last full paragraph and pg. 3 second full paragraph); wherein the vacuum tool comprises the one or more arrays of suction devices (15, 16 – Fig. 2), the one or more arrays of suction devices comprises one or more suction devices (each individual suction member of 15 and 16 – Fig. 2), and a vacuum manifold (from the bifurcation between 12 and 13 to the lower end of 14 as seen in Fig. 2) comprising one or more suction orifices (at the interface between the conduits and 15, 16; although not expressly disclosed, there must necessarily be at least on orifice to allow the vacuum from 13 to reach 15 and 16 – Fig. 2), wherein each suction device of the one or more suction devices is connected to a suction orifice of the one or more suction orifices through a connector (although not expressly disclosed, there must necessarily be a connector to allow the 15 and 16 to be connected to 14 – Fig. 2) of the respective suction device, wherein the connector of the suction device and the suction orifice define a suction conduit (again, although not expressly discloses there must necessarily be a suction conduit defined by the connector and the suction orifice to allow 15 and 16 to receive the vacuum 13) having a length and a diameter (a round conduit necessarily has a length and a diameter), wherein the one or more arrays of suction devices are connected to a single vacuum source (13 – Fig. 2); lifting the unpackaged products off the carrier with the actuation unit (see Fig. 2); and detaching the unpackaged products from each suction device of the one or more suction devices into a receiving container (see Fig. 2).
However, Nambu does not disclose the ratio of the length of the suction conduit to the diameter of the suction conduit.
In this case, the ratio of the length of the suction conduit to the diameter of the suction conduit is a result effective variable because the length of the suction conduit and the diameter of the suction conduit are each result effective variables. The length of the suction conduit is a result effective variable because it must be sized to the rest of the machine and the diameter of the suction conduit is a result effective variable because the diameter impacts the suction pressure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have designed the suction conduit such that the ratio of the length of the suction conduit to the diameter of the suction conduit is any workable value including greater than or about 2:1 since it has been held that when the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed range.
However, Nambu does not disclose a fraction of the suction devices remain unattached.
Liessem teaches an array of gripping devices (the assembly of 22 – Fig. 2 and 5 – Fig. 8) on a tool (4 – Fig. 2) that is connected to a mechanical arm (8 – Fig. 2) of an actuation unit (6 – Fig. 2), wherein a fraction of the gripping devices remain unattached to products when the products are attached to the gripping devices (see Fig. 3, 22 is unattached when gripping 3) in order to provide a tool that reliably handles both sheet and products.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have modified Nambu such that the vacuum tool includes gripping devices for gripping a sheet (22 – Fig. 2, Liessem) as taught by Liessem in order to allow the vacuum tool to reliably handle both sheets and unpackaged products, thereby improving the applicability of capability of the vacuum tool.
However, Nambu, as modified by Liessem, does not teach that at least one of the suction devices extends a different length than another of the suction devices.
Girtman teaches an array of suction devices (302 – Fig. 3) on a vacuum tool (142 – Fig. 1) that is connected to a mechanical arm (140 – Fig. 1) of an actuation unit, wherein, in a step of attaching products to the array of suction devices, at least one of the suction devices attached to the products extends a different length between the vacuum tool and the products than at least one other of the suction devices attached to the products (see Fig. 11) in order to allow products of different heights or at different distances with respect to the vacuum tool to be simultaneously grabbed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Nambu and Liessem such that during the attaching of the unpackaged products to the suction devices, at least one of the suction devices attached to the unpackaged products extends a different length between the vacuum tool and the unpackaged products than at least one other of the suction devices attached to the unpackaged products as taught by Girtman in order to prevent height variations in the products from impacting the reliability of the method.
However, Nambu, as modified by Liessem and Girtman, does not expressly teach that detaching the unpackaged product from the suction devices comprises switching a fluid coupling of each array of the one or more arrays with a valve.
Girtman further discloses the specifics of an individual suction device (300 – Fig. 9 and associated elements including 126), wherein a product is detached from the suction device by switching a fluid coupling of the suction device with a valve (520 – Fig. 9 and para. 0041). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Girtman, would have recognized that each individual suction device of Nambu may be implemented using the structure of the suction device of Girtman since they both are used for using a vacuum to hold an item.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have used the structure of a suction device of Girtman for the suction devices of Nambu since Nambu is silent with regard to the specific structure and Girtman teaches a known solution.
Nambu, as modified by Liessem and Girtman, further teaches:
Claim 16, each suction device of the one or more suction devices (15, 16 – Fig. 2, Nambu as modified by Liessem and Girtman) attached to the unpackaged products have an equal pressure difference between an interior of the suction device and an exterior of the suction device (since the suction devices are connected to the same source, they have the same pressure difference).
Claim 17, greater than or about five suction devices (15, 16 – Fig. 2, Nambu as modified by Liessem and Girtman) are attached to each unpackaged product of the one or more unpackaged products when the one or more unpackaged products are lifted off the carrier (although it is not clear from Nambu exactly how many suction devices are attached to one package, since Fig. 8 shows 3 suction devices and Fig. 9 shows 3 suction devices after 11 and 14 have been rotated, it is clear that there are at least 6 suction devices attaching to each of the unpackaged products).
Claim 20, essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 15.
However, Nambu, as modified by Liessem and Girtman, does not expressly teach the unpackaged products each comprise a slab of cheese having a weight greater than or about 5 lbs.
It this case, the examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have moved slabs of cheese weighing greater than or about 5 lbs instead of egg packages since slabs of cheese and egg packages are analogous products that are picked up and packaged in a similar manner.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nambu (WO 2019/159793 A1) in view of Liessem (DE 19859595 A1), Girtman (US 2015/0308466 A1), and Groenhoff (NL 9201150 A). Note that for convenience citations to the written description of Groenhoff refer to the attached translation.
Regarding claim 18, Nambu, as modified by Liessem and Girtman, teaches essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 17.
However, Nambu, as modified by Liessem and Girtman, does not teach the step of detaching a sheet of packing material onto the unpackaged products.
Groenhoff teaches a vacuum-assisted product-handling method comprising the step of detaching a sheet of packing material from a vacuum tool onto products in a receiving container before the placing of additional products in the receiving container (abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this step provides the advantage of reducing wear between the products.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Nambu, as already modified by Liessem and Girtman, to include the step of detaching sheet packing material as suggested by Groenhoff in order to reduce wear between two layers of unpackaged products.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-13 are allowed.
Claim 19 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 15, applicant argues that including a valve would destroy the invention of Nambu since Nambu requires holding release units and there is no motivation to remove the release units.
However, it is not clear why the release units would need to be removed. A valve can be positioned downstream of the release units and function as intended. Therefore, applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
3/18/2026