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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on Nov 11, 2022, was filed and the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
It appears that the provided Figures 1-13 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
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.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boyd et al. (6,938,519).
Boyd et al. (6,938,519) discloses a gripping apparatus (see Figs. 1-6) comprising: a gripping portion (46, 50) (see Fig. 2) capable of gripping a tubular or a utility pole (38); and a roller (54) Exhibit A of Fig. 3) having a cylindrical shape, the roller being capable of contacting the tubular or the utility pole at an inner side of the gripping portion, the roller being capable of rotating the tubular or the utility pole with a longitudinal direction serving as an axis due to rotation of the roller. Exhibit A
[AltContent: textbox (Tubular gripping rollers (54, 54))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McArthur (4,652,195).
McArthur (4,652,195) discloses a gripping apparatus (see Figs. 1-9) comprising: a gripping portion (168, 170) (see Fig. 2) capable of gripping a tubular or a utility pole (24); and a roller (184, 184) (see Fig. 2) having a cylindrical shape, the roller being capable of contacting the tubular (24) or the utility pole at an inner side of the gripping portion, the roller being capable of rotating the tubular or the utility pole with a longitudinal direction serving as an axis due to rotation of the roller.
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 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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd et al. gripping apparatus (6,938,519) in view of More (US 2020/0088711).
Boyd et al. gripping apparatus (6,938,519), as presented above, does not specifically show a sensor being configured to capture a target object on a ground surface to detect that the side surface of the utility pole. However, More (US 2020/0088711) teaches an optical distance sensor (104) (RE claim 2) including a laser light source and one or more optical sensors and to receive a reflection of laser light and the structure (112) providing emit sonar signal (RE claim 3) parallel to the shaft (106) (see paragraph [0051 and [0064). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an optical distance sensor (104) including a laser light source and one or more optical sensors and to receive a reflection of laser light and the structure on the Boyd et al. gripping apparatus (6,938,519) as taught by More (US 2020/0088711) to detect the position of the desired structure and the grasped object to a user.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd et al. gripping apparatus (6,938,519) in view of the Japanese Publication (JPH 281892) (see IDS).
Boyd et al. gripping apparatus (6,938,519), as presented above, a gripping apparatus (see Figs. 1-6) comprising: a gripping portion (46, 50) (see Fig. 2) capable of gripping a tubular or a utility pole (38); and a roller (54) Exhibit A of Fig. 3) having a cylindrical shape, the roller being capable of contacting the tubular or the utility pole at an inner side of the gripping portion, the roller being capable of rotating the tubular or the utility pole with a longitudinal direction serving as an axis due to rotation of the roller, but does not specifically indicate a method of gripping a utility pole. However, Figs. 1, 3, and 5 of the Japanese Publication (JPH 281892) shows a plurality of utility pole (E) grasped by a machine gripper (23). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an utility pole, instead of a tubular, on the grippers of Boyd et al. gripping apparatus (6,938,519) as taught by the Japanese Publication (JPH 281892) to grasp and position at the desired location to a user. It is pointed to those skilled in the skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to grip a pole, bring rollers (54, 54) and rotate the pole to a longitudinal position to a user.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd et al. gripping apparatus (6,938,519) and the Japanese Publication (JPH 281892) (see IDS) and further in view of More (US 2020/0088711).
The modified Boyd et al. gripping apparatus (6,938,519), as presented above, does not specifically show capturing a target object on a ground surface and detecting that the side surface of the utility pole and a sound or an optical signal is generated. However, More (US 2020/0088711) teaches an optical distance sensor (104) (RE claim 5) including a laser light source and one or more optical sensors and to receive a reflection of laser light and the structure (112) providing emit sonar signal (RE claim 6) parallel to the shaft (106) (see paragraph [0051 and [0064). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an optical distance sensor (104) including a laser light source and one or more optical sensors and to receive a reflection of laser light and the structure on the Boyd et al. gripping apparatus (6,938,519) as taught by More (US 2020/0088711) to detect the position of the desired structure and the grasped object to a user.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McArthur (4,652,195) in view of More (US 2020/0088711).
McArthur (4,652,195), as presented above, does not specifically show a sensor being configured to capture a target object on a ground surface to detect that the side surface of the utility pole. However, More (US 2020/0088711) teaches an optical distance sensor (104) (RE claim 2) including a laser light source and one or more optical sensors and to receive a reflection of laser light and the structure (112) providing emit sonar signal (RE claim 3) parallel to the shaft (106) (see paragraph [0051 and [0064). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an optical distance sensor (104) including a laser light source and one or more optical sensors and to receive a reflection of laser light and the structure on the McArthur (4,652,195) as taught by More (US 2020/0088711) to detect the position of the desired structure and the grasped object to a user.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McArthur’s gripping apparatus (4,652,195) in view of the Japanese Publication (JPH 281892) (see IDS).
McArthur’s gripping apparatus (4,652,195), as presented above, discloses a gripping apparatus (see Figs. 1-9) comprising: a gripping portion (168, 170) (see Fig. 2) capable of gripping a tubular or a utility pole (24); and a roller (184, 184) (see Fig. 2) having a cylindrical shape, the roller being capable of contacting the tubular (24) or the utility pole at an inner side of the gripping portion, the roller being capable of rotating the tubular or the utility pole with a longitudinal direction serving as an axis due to rotation of the roller,
but does not specifically indicate a method of gripping a utility pole. However, Figs. 1, 3, and 5 of the Japanese Publication (JPH 281892) shows a plurality of utility pole (E) grasped by a machine gripper (23). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an utility pole, instead of a tubular, on the grippers of McArthur’s gripping apparatus (4,652,195) as taught by the Japanese Publication (JPH 281892) to grasp and position at the desired location to a user. It is pointed to those skilled in the skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to grip a pole, bring rollers (184, 184) and rotate the pole to a longitudinal position to a user.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McArthur’s gripping apparatus (4,652,195) and the Japanese Publication (JPH 281892) (see IDS) and further in view of More (US 2020/0088711).
The modified McArthur’s gripping apparatus (4,652,195), as presented above, does not specifically show capturing a target object on a ground surface and detecting that the side surface of the utility pole and a sound or an optical signal is generated. However, More (US 2020/0088711) teaches an optical distance sensor (104) (RE claim 5) including a laser light source and one or more optical sensors and to receive a reflection of laser light and the structure (112) providing emit sonar signal (RE claim 6) parallel to the shaft (106) (see paragraph [0051 and [0064). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an optical distance sensor (104) including a laser light source and one or more optical sensors and to receive a reflection of laser light and the structure on the McArthur’s gripping apparatus (4,652,195) as taught by More (US 2020/0088711) to detect the position of the desired structure and the grasped object to a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL T CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6922. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Gene Crawford can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL T CHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651