DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action for US Application 17/907,772 for a Device for Taking Hold of and Releasing an Object.
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 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 8 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “and/or”, which is indefinite, because it is not clear what is or is not covered by the claim limitation.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0097953 to Brugger et al. Regarding claim 7, Brugger et al. discloses an apparatus for taking hold of and releasing an object (see figures 1-5). The apparatus comprises an arm (18) configured to be actively guided to the object under at least one of manual control or machine control. There is a suction opening (38) arranged at a freely movably end of the arm for attaching the object by suction. There is a suction apparatus (34) communication with the suction opening for providing a vacuum at the suction opening for taking hold of the object. There is also a controllable switching valve (see paragraph 0038, lines 7-12) for adjusting the vacuum from the suction apparatus acting on the object.
Brugger et al. does not specifically disclose the valve as disposed at the suction opening. However, the particular placement of the switch does not modify the operation of the device and therefore is a design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.)
Regarding claim 8, the apparatus is configured to selectively take hold of objects that may be positionally unstable or that are encased in packaging without a rigid surface. Regarding claim 9, the suction opening is embodied in a suction cup with a rib-shape (see the perimeter of cup 34 in figure 5) on a side facing the object. Regarding claim 11, the suction apparatus is configured, with regard to a suction power thereof, for at least one of a bandwidth of anticipated surface inhomogeneities of the object or a bandwidth of anticipated weights of the object (inherently the apparatus would anticipate both to function properly).
Regarding claim 12, the suction apparatus is arranged immediately at the suction opening. Regarding claim 13, the suction apparatus is carried by the arm. Regarding claim 14, the arm is a robot arm (see paragraph 0025, lines 4-10).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0097953 to Brugger et al. in view of US 2022/0395987 to Hvass et al. Brugger et al. does not disclose the suction cup as formed with ribs that are configured, with regard to a deformability thereof, for at least one of a bandwidth of anticipated surface inhomogeneities of the object or a bandwidth of anticipated weights of the object. Hvass et al. provides teaching of providing suction cups (24) with ribs (see figures 11 and 12) that are configured, with regard to a deformability thereof, for at least one of a bandwidth of anticipated surface inhomogeneities of the object or a bandwidth of anticipated weights of the object (both are inherent for the device to function). Because both Brugger et al. and Hyass et al disclose suction cups for gripping objects, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to substitute one cup for the other to achieve the predictable result of a suction cup formed with ribs.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0097953 to Brugger et al. in view of US 2005/0226711 to Schnoor et al. Brugger et al. does not disclose optical detectors for enabling a control of the robot arm and the suction opening towards the object, and selectively, for transporting the object. Schnoor et al. provides a teaching for providing a robot arm (see figures 1 and 2) with optical detectors (4… sensors) for enabling control of the robot arm and suction devices (2.1), for transporting the object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided optical detectors for enabling control of the robot arm and the suction opening of Brugger et al. towards the object and, selectively, for transporting the object as taught by Schnoor et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provided an alternative to manually controlling the robot arm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0148677 to Tsutsui
US 2021/0069904 to Duan
US 2021/0213629 to Frey
US 2019/0344453 to Harter
US 2021/0053216 to Diankov
US 2024/0139973 to Oka
US 2020/0269429 to Chavez
US 2021/0053230 to Mizoguchi
US 2022/0331989 to Moreno US 12202128 to Colantonio
US 2008/0202602 to Flaim
The above prior art discloses various apparatus for taking hold of and releasing objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M MARSH whose telephone number is (571)272-6819. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9 am-7:30 pm.
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.
STEVEN M. MARSH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/STEVEN M MARSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632