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
Applicant's amendment filed on 12/11/25 is acknowledged.
The applicant has overcome the rejection to claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 13-17, 19, and 20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) by amending claims 1 and 16. The rejection of claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 13-17, 19, and 20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) is withdrawn.
The applicant has overcome the rejection to claim 5 under 35 USC 103 by amending claim 1. The rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 103 is withdrawn.
The applicant has overcome the objection to claim 6 by amending claim 6. The objection to claim 6 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “switching mechanism” in claims 15 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neumann (3,804,397). Neumann discloses (claims 1 and 16) a gripping system (Figs. 1 and 2) for grabbing and releasing an object 10 using a robotic arm (positioning device 16,18, Abstract, Fig. 1), the gripping system with a base frame 46,76 for operably engaging the robotic arm 16,18, wherein the base frame 46,76 comprises a pneumatic source connector (not shown between rear port 122 and line 124, col. 5, lines 22-24, Fig. 2), an extendable member 48 configured to extend and retract relative to the base frame 46,76, the extendable member 48 having a sidewall (not numbered), an extendable member opening 72 in the sidewall, a distal end and a proximal end, the extendable member further having an extended position and a retracted position defining a range of motion therebetween (col 5, lines 30-51), a compensator sleeve (cylinder 40 and rear cap member 46, Fig. 2) coupled to the base frame 46,76 and surrounding the extendable member 48, the compensator sleeve 40,46 having a compensator sleeve opening (interior of cylinder 40 and rear port 122) in a sidewall of the compensator sleeve 40,46, wherein the extendable member 48 is configured to translate linearly relative to the compensator sleeve 40,46 and the extendable member opening 72 is in fluid communication with the compensator sleeve opening 122, a vacuum cup 102 coupled to the distal end of the extendable member 48, the vacuum cup 102 configured for operably engaging a surface of an object 10 and forming a pneumatic seal on the surface, and a pneumatic pathway (air passages 106, central passage of rod 48, hole/passage 72, interior of cylinder 40 and rear port 122, Fig. 2) extending from the vacuum cup 102 to the pneumatic source connector, wherein the pneumatic pathway (106,48,72,122) passes through the extendable member 48 (via hole/passage 72) such that the vacuum cup 102 remains in pneumatic communication with the pneumatic source connector throughout the range of motion of the extendable member 48.
Regarding claim 6, Neumann discloses that the extendable member comprises an elongate pneumatic chamber (central passage of rod 48)that extends from the elongate extendable member opening to the vacuum cup (col. 5, lines 57-59), and wherein the pneumatic pathway comprises the compensator sleeve opening in fluid communication with the pneumatic source connector, the extendable member opening 72 in fluid communication with the compensator sleeve opening, the elongate pneumatic chamber in fluid communication with the extendable member opening 72, and the vacuum cup 102 in fluid communication with the elongate pneumatic chamber (col. 5, lines 20-22 and 57-61).
Regarding claim 7, Neumann discloses that the compensator sleeve opening is an elongate opening that maintains communication with the extendable member opening 72 throughout the range of motion of the extendable member (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Neumann discloses a plurality of vacuum cups 102 (Fig. 1) and a respective plurality of extendable members 48, wherein each one of the vacuum cups 102 is coupled to a distal end of a respective one of the extendable members 48.
Regarding claim 17, Neumann discloses a plurality of extendable members 48 a respective plurality of vacuum cups 102, and a respective plurality of compensator sleeves (Figs 1 and 2).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann, as applied to claim 1 above. Neumann discloses all of the claimed subject matter except for an inner diameter of the compensator sleeve being no more than 0.1 mm larger than an outer diameter of the extendable member.
Since the applicant has not disclosed that having an inner diameter no more than 0.1 mm larger solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that a larger diameter being required to encompass the extendable member and it appears that the compensator sleeve of Neumann would perform equally well with an inner diameter no more than 0.1 mm larger than an outer diameter of the extendable member as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of engineering expedience to further modify the compensator sleeve of Neumann to have an inner diameter no more than 0.1 mm larger than an outer diameter of the extendable member as claimed for the purposes of sealing opposing chambers while allowing extension and retraction of the extendable member.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann, as applied to claim 6 above. Neumann discloses all of the claimed subject matter except that the extendable member opening is an elongate opening that maintains the fluid communication with the compensator sleeve opening throughout the range of motion of the extendable member.
Since the applicant has not disclosed that having an elongate opening in fluid communication throughout the range of motion solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that fluid communication is maintained throughout the range of motion and it appears that the elongate opening of Neumann would perform equally well in fluid communication throughout the range of motion as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of engineering expedience to further modify the extendable member opening of Neumann to be elongate and maintain fluid communication throughout the range of motion as claimed for the purposes of providing smooth retraction and extension of the extendable member.
Prior Art
Prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure for showing other gripping systems with vacuum cups for grabbing and releasing objects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 9-12, 14, 15, 18-20 are 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. The improvements comprise (claim 2) a plurality of vacuum cups, each vacuum cup in pneumatic communication with the pneumatic source connector through the pneumatic pathway that passes through the extendable member, (claim 9) a biasing member biasing the extendable member in the extended position wherein the biasing member is operably secured to the compensator sleeve and the extendable member, (claim 11) a respective plurality of compensator sleeve openings in a sidewall of the compensator sleeve, wherein the extendable member comprises a respective plurality of extendable member openings in a sidewall of the extendable member, each one of the extendable member openings being in fluid communication with one of the compensator sleeve openings, (claim 14) a vacuum distribution block having a respective plurality of vacuum zones, wherein each one of the vacuum zones is in fluid communication with one of the pneumatic source connectors, (claim 15) that the plurality of vacuum cups are divided into two or more zones, and wherein the system further comprises a switching mechanism configured to activate or deactivate each one of the zones, (claim 18) the plurality of compensator sleeves are fixedly attached to the vacuum distribution block, (claim 19) a plurality of pneumatic source connectors in fluid communication with a respective plurality of groups of vacuum cups, (claim 20) a plurality of groups of vacuum cups in fluid communication with a switching mechanism, wherein the switching mechanism is configured to block the pneumatic pathway to one or more selected groups of vacuum cups.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Lazo whose telephone number is (571) 272-4818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Nathaniel Wiehe, can be reached on (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for this Group 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 E LAZO/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3745
March 2, 2026