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 .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
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.
In this instance “a first means for translation”, “a second means for translation”, “means for controlled mutual approach/spacing of blades” in claim 1; “means for movement” in claim 2; and “optical means for continuous detection” in claim 5 are 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hellenbrand (US 10,322,505).
Regarding claim 1, Hellenbrand teaches an item manipulator for an automated storage unit, comprising a pincer-like grip device preset on a supporting plate, 10, for items, said pincer-like device comprising:
- two opposite longitudinal grip blades, 20a and 20b, of which one can move with respect to another, respectively a first blade and a second blade,
- first means for translation of said blades in a first direction which is parallel to a direction of extension of said blades, see column 3, lines 34-37,
- second means for translation in a second direction which is perpendicular to said first direction and lies on a plane that is parallel to a plane of arrangement of said plate, see column 3, lines 25-30,
- wherein said manipulator comprises means for controlled mutual approach/spacing of said blades, see column 1, line 58 through column 2, line 31.
Regarding claim 2, Hellenbrand teaches said first translation means are constituted by two mutually opposite lateral sliders, 62a and 62b, joined by a transverse element, 31, and designed to translate on corresponding lateral guides, 61a and 61b, said lateral guides being extended in a parallel manner on two opposite longitudinal sides of said plate, means for movement, 60, in said first direction being associated with one of said lateral guides.
Regarding claim 3, Hellenbrand teaches said second translation means are formed by a slider, 40b and 41b, to which said second blade and said means for the mutual approach/spacing of said blades are coupled, said slider being able to slide on a translation screw, 55 and 56, and a guide, 45b and 46b, said guide being transverse to said lateral guides, said translation screw being moved by an electric motor.
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) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellenbrand in view of Schmidt-Ellinger (US 2021/0229918).
Regarding claim 5, Hellenbrand does not teach the optical means, as claimed. Schmidt-Ellinger teaches an item manipulator comprising blades 20 and 2b and further comprising optical means, 73, for continuous detection of the alignment between said first blade and said second blade, see figures 7a through 7h.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the optical means of Schmidt-Ellinger with the item manipulator of Hellenbrand in order to achieve the preditable result of detecting the blades as they move across the supporting plate.
Regarding claim 6, Schmidt-Ellinger further teaches said optical means are two optical sensors, 73, arranged on said plate, see figure 2a.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellenbrand in view of Claretti (US 2018/0257241).
Regarding claim 7, Hellendbrand does not teach said first blade has a pressure sensor. Claretti et al. teaches an item manipulator including grip blades, 102, and pressure sensors, see paragraph 0039. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the pressure sensor of Claretti et al. with the grip blades of Hellenbrand in order to achieve the predictable result of sensing the pressure of the blades on an item to ensure a secure grip.
Regarding claim 8, Claretti et al. teaches said pressure sensor is a longitudinally extended transducer arranged on the surface of said first blade that is directed toward said second blade, see figures 1B and 2C.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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.
Regarding claim 4, item manipulators with grip blades that are mounted to pivot are well known in the art, see cited prior art to Hellenband and Claretti et al. and additional prior art cited on the PTO-892. Non of the prior art teach the mean for the controlled mutual approach/spacing of said blades extend from said slider and comprise: - an electric motor, - a screw, which is parallel to said translation screw and is moved by said motor, - a lead screw, which can slide on said screw and is integral with a block, - said block, a lever being hinged to said block, - said lever in turn being hinged to said slider by means of a shaft/pivot, - said shaft/pivot, with an axis of extension that is perpendicular to the plane of arrangement of said plate, said shaft/pivot being fixed to/integral with one end of said second blade and with said lever. The prior art teaches completely different mechanisms for controlling the spacing of the blades. Furthermore, it would not be obvious to modify the prior art to teach this combination of features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon are included to show the general state of the prior art and additional examples of item manipulators with blades similar to the applicant’s invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLIN S JOERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 (CST).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
5 January 2026