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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0004, line 3, "while also stably transport" should read "while also stably transporting."
In paragraph 0020, line 4, "300 mm" should read "300mm".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 5, "earing rails" should read "bearing rails". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bonora et al (U.S. Patent No. 20190283244).
Regarding claim 1, Bonora et al teaches a variable swath end effector, comprising:
Two arms (240A, 240B), each for retaining a portion of a retained element (Paragraph 0053, lines 7-10);
Two pairs of bearing rails (225, 226), each pair being uniquely mechanically associated with a one of the two arms (240A, 240B), wherein a level of one pair of bearing rails (225) is staggered from a second level of the other pair of bearing rails (226) in a perpendicular axis, and wherein the staggered pairs of bearing rails (225, 226) are interleaved with each other (Paragraph 0059, lines 4-12; paragraph 0060, lines 5-13; Fig. 2a, element 225; Fig. 2b, element 226; Fig. 5a and 5b); and
A motor capable of driving a belt in mechanical association with each of the two arms (240A, 240B), wherein actuation of the motor drives the belt to synchronously move each of the two arms (240A, 240B) across a respective one of the pairs of bearing rails (225, 226) to vary the swath between the two arms (240A, 240B) (Paragraph 0052, lines 2-4; paragraph 0054, lines 1-4, 5-18).
Regarding claim 2, Bonora et al teaches a main housing (210, 215), encompassing the two pairs of bearing rails (225, 226), the motor and the drive belt (Paragraph 0054, lines 1-4, 15-18; Fig. 2b, elements 210, 215).
Regarding claim 11, Bonora et al teaches a back end (215) opposite the two arms (240A, 240B) (Paragraph 0051, lines 7-9; Fig. 2b, elements 215, 240A, 240B).
Regarding claim 12, Bonora et al teaches a back end (215) that comprises a network connection (Paragraph 0054, lines 15-18; paragraph 0144, lines 1-4, 13-15).
Regarding claim 13, the back end (215) comprises a control board (810) (Paragraph 0139, lines 1-5; Fig. 8, element 810).
Regarding claim 14, the synchronous movement is encoded (Paragraph 0056, lines 13-14; paragraph 0140, lines 1-8; Fig. 8, elements 810, 802, 808).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonora et al in view of O'Connor et al (US 10357833).
Bonora et al fails to teach a pneumatic line. O’Connor et al teaches the main housing (115) further comprises a feed through of a pneumatic line to each of the arms (Column 4, lines 6-10).
Bonora et al fails to teach a port. O’Connor et al teaches the connection of the pneumatic line to each of the arms comprises a port (150, 405) (Column 4, lines 6-10; Fig. 4A, elements 150, 405).
Bonora et al fails to teach an o-ring port. O’Connor et al teaches the port (150, 405) comprises an o-ring port (Fig. 4C, elements 150, 405).
Bonora et al fails to teach a vacuum port. O’Connor et al teaches the pneumatic line feeds at least one vacuum port (150, 405) on each arm (Column 4, lines 6-10).
Bonora et al fails to teach a Bernoulli cup. O’Connor et al teaches the pneumatic line feeds at least one Bernoulli cup (110) on each arm (Column 2, lines 1-7; Fig. 1B, elements 150, 110).
Bonora et al fails to teach a splice port. O’Connor et al teaches the port (150, 405) comprises a splice port (Fig. 4C, elements 150, 405).
Claim(s) 8, 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonora et al in view of Tang et al (US 10381257).
Bonora et al fails to teach an optical fiber line. Tang et al teaches a main housing (13, 14) further comprising a feed through of an optical fiber line to each of the arms (26) (Column 16, lines 38-42).
Bonora et al fails to teach a connection of the optical fiber line. Tang et al teaches a connection of the optical fiber line to each of the arms (26) comprises a port (Column 16, lines 38-42).
Bonora et al fails to teach a servo motor. Tang et al teaches the motor (8) is a servo-motor (Column 8, lines 24-29; Fig. 1, element 8).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonora et al in view of Hu et al (US 20170102993).
Bonora et al fails to teach encoding. Hu et al teaches encoding that is resistance-based (Paragraph 0029, lines 1-5; paragraph 0076, lines 1-7).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonora et al in view of Kamakura et al (EP 2733057).
Bonora et al fails to teach encoding. Kamakura et al teaches encoding that is absolute encoding (Paragraph 105).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonora et al in view of Knopf et al (US 20190387678).
Bonora et al fails to teach a pitch adjustment. Knopf et al teaches a pitch adjustment to adjust the pitch of at least one of the arms (130) (Paragraph 108, lines 1-8; Fig. 1B, elements 130, 170, 162).
Bonora et al fails to teach a pitch adjustment. Knopf et al teaches a pitch adjustment that comprises a cylinder (162) driven by a jack screw (170) (Paragraph 108, lines 1-8; Fig. 1B, elements 162, 170).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be allowable for disclosing a swath that varies between 50mm and 250mm. Within the disclosure for Knopf et al, it is shown that the arms can adjust to a maximum width of 50mm (Paragraph 113, lines 10-15). The arms are not able to adjust to a width of 250mm. As such, these measurements are considered unique to the disclosed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651