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 9/15/22 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1, 10-14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Albin et al. (8,414,043).
RE claims 1, 17, and 20, Albin et al. (8,414,043) discloses an apparatus (10) (see Figs. 1-9) comprising: a first gripping component (62) (see Figs. 1, 2, and 9) comprising a first proximal region and a first distal region, wherein the first proximal region comprises a first rigid geometry (see Exhibit A) being capable of receiving a handle of a tool, and wherein the first distal region comprises a first shape-adaptive finger (66); and a second gripping component (64) comprising a second proximal region and a second distal region, wherein the second proximal region comprises a second rigid geometry (see Exhibit A) being capable of receiving a handle of a tool, and wherein the second distal region comprises a second shape adaptive finger (68), wherein the first distal region of the first gripping component is separated by a clearance (see Exhibit A) from the second distal region of the second gripping component when the first rigid geometry and the second rigid geometry are grasping the handle of the tool, and wherein, in an absence of the handle of the tool, the first proximal region of the first gripping component and the second proximal region of the second gripping component enable a pinch grip (see Exhibit A) between the first shape-adaptive finger of the first gripping component and the second shape-adaptive finger of the second gripping component.
Exhibit A
[AltContent: textbox (A pinch grip)][AltContent: textbox (Clearance)][AltContent: textbox (Clearance )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RE claim 17, Albin et al. Gripper (8,414,043), as presented above, discloses actuating the first and second gripping component (see Col. 3, lines 37-47; and Col. 4, lines 14-31) and having in an absence of the handle of the tool, the first proximal region of the first gripping component and the second proximal region of the second gripping component enable a pinch grip (see Exhibit A) between the first shape-adaptive finger of the first gripping component and the second shape-adaptive finger of the second gripping component.
RE claims 10 and 11, Albin et al. Gripper (8,414,04310) shows the first shape-adaptive finger is a first underactuated finger and wherein the second shape-adaptive finger is a second underactuated finger wherein the first underactuated finger comprises a first deformable gripping surface or pad (62, 68) (see Col. 3, lines 37-47) and wherein the second underactuated finger comprises a second deformable gripping surface or pad (62, 68) (see Col. 3, lines 37-47).
RE claim 12, Fig. 2 of Albin et al. Gripper (8,414,043) shows the first deformable gripping surface and the second deformable gripping surface each comprises a respective plurality of members coupled together end-to-end to create a respective elongated gripping surface.
RE claim 13, Figs. 2 and 3 of Albin et al. Gripper (8,414,043) discloses the first shape-adaptive finger is capable of being to be interchanged with a first interchangeable shape-adaptive finger and the second shape-adaptive finger is capable of being to be interchanged with a second interchangeable shape-adaptive finger since the fingers are provided and attached to by fasteners.
RE claim 14, Figs. 2 and 3 of Albin et al. Gripper (8,414,043) also shows that the first rigid geometry of the first gripping component and the second rigid geometry of the second gripping component are configured to be spaced apart when grasping the handle of the tool.
RE claim 16, Figs. 2 and 3 of Albin et al. Gripper (8,414,043) also provide the handle of the tool has a non-circular cross section, and wherein the first rigid geometry and the second rigid geometry are configured to receive the non-circular cross sectional shape of the handle of the tool such that the handle of the tool is prevented from rotating in a yaw direction.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brucher (4,810,019).
RE claims 1, 17, and 20, Brucher (4,810,019) discloses an apparatus (see Fig. 1) comprising: a first gripping component (9, 4, 11) comprising a first proximal region and a first distal region, wherein the first proximal region comprises a first rigid geometry (see Fig. 1) being capable of receiving a handle of a tool, and wherein the first distal region comprises a first shape-adaptive finger (66); and a second gripping component (9, 4, 11) comprising a second proximal region and a second distal region, wherein the second proximal region comprises a second rigid geometry (see Fig. 1) being capable of receiving a handle of a tool, and wherein the second distal region comprises a second shape adaptive finger, wherein the first distal region of the first gripping component is separated by a clearance (see Fig.) from the second distal region of the second gripping component when the first rigid geometry and the second rigid geometry are grasping the handle of the tool, and wherein, in an absence of the handle of the tool, the first proximal region of the first gripping component and the second proximal region of the second gripping component enable a pinch grip (13, 13) (see Fig.) between the first shape-adaptive finger of the first gripping component and the second shape-adaptive finger of the second gripping component.
RE claim 9, Fig. 1 of Brucher’s gripper (4,810,019) shows the first rigid geometry of the first proximal region of the first gripping component comprises a semi-cylinder, and wherein the second rigid geometry of the second proximal region of the second gripping component comprises a semi- cylinder.
RE claim 17, Fig. 1 of Brucher’s gripper (4,810,019), as presented above, discloses actuating the first and second gripping component (see Col. 1, lines 56-68) and having in an absence of the handle of the tool, the first proximal region of the first gripping component and the second proximal region of the second gripping component enable a pinch grip between the first shape-adaptive finger of the first gripping component and the second shape-adaptive finger of the second gripping component.
RE claim 10, Fig. 1 of Brucher’s gripper (4,810,019) shows the first shape-adaptive finger is a first underactuated finger and wherein the second shape-adaptive finger is a second underactuated finger.
RE claim 13, Fig. 1 of Brucher’s gripper (4,810,019) discloses the first shape-adaptive finger is capable of being to be interchanged with a first interchangeable shape-adaptive finger and the second shape-adaptive finger is capable of being to be interchanged with a second interchangeable shape-adaptive finger since the fingers are provided and attached to by fasteners.
RE claim 14, Fig. 1 of Brucher’s gripper (4,810,019) also shows that the first rigid geometry of the first gripping component and the second rigid geometry of the second gripping component are configured to be spaced apart when grasping the handle of the tool.
RE claim 16, Fig. 1 of Brucher’s gripper (4,810,019) also provide the handle of the tool has a non-circular cross section, and wherein the first rigid geometry and the second rigid geometry are capable of receiving the non-circular cross sectional shape of the handle of the tool such that the handle of the tool is prevented from rotating in a yaw direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 15, 16, 18, and 19 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.
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
Specification
The title of the invention (“Articulated Clutch”) is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 12-14 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
There is no antecedent basis for “the second gripping portion” as recited in claims 12, 13, and 14. Note that the claims 12 and 13 depend on claim 10, but claim 10 recites only “a first ripping portion.”
Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MacKay Sim (8,172,289) (See IDS).
MacKay Sim (8,172,289) discloses a lifting clutch device for lifting a concrete component, the clutch (see Exhibit A) comprising: a toroidal connector (115) (see Fig. 4A); a latch (115) movable relative to the toroidal connector from a disengaged condition to an engaged condition (See Figs. 4A-4C); and a coupler (101) configured to couple the toroidal connector to a lifting apparatus, wherein the coupler is articulated.
RE claim 7, Fig, 4B of MacKay Sim (8,172,289) teaches the latch (115) is a circular latch (117) passing through an inner circular passage (see Fig. 4C) of the toroidal connector.
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacKay Sim (8,172,289) (see IDS) in view of Manney et al. (3,373,560).
MacKay Sim (8,172,289), as presented above, shows a lifting clutch device for lifting a concrete component, the clutch (see Exhibit A) comprising: a toroidal connector (115) (see Fig. 4A); a latch (115) movable relative to the toroidal connector from a disengaged condition to an engaged condition (See Figs. 4A-4C); and a coupler (101) configured to couple the toroidal connector to a lifting apparatus, wherein the coupler is articulated,
but does not specifically teach the coupler includes a first part and a second part pivotal relative to the first part about a pin, the first part including a first circular arc and the second part including a second circular arc, and wherein the pin is located such that a longitudinal axis of the pin is perpendicular to a line connecting a center of the first arc to a center of the second arc.
However, Figs. 1-8 of Manney et al. (3,373,560) teaches the coupler configured to couple the toroidal connector (141) to a lifting apparatus, wherein the coupler includes a first part (10) and a second part (12) pivotal relative to the first part about a pin (26), the first part including a first circular arc and the second part (see Exhibit B) including a second circular arc, and wherein the pin is located such that a longitudinal axis of the pin is perpendicular to a line connecting a center of the first arc to a center of the second arc.
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
or replace the single lifting shackle (102) of MacKay Sim (8,172,289) with the pivotal coupler (10 and 12) of Manney et al. (3,373,560) to provide flexibility and pivotal movement to a user.
Exhibit B
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
RE claims 5 and 6, MacKay Sim (8,172,289) shows that the second loop (10) is capable of directing fitment of a lifting chain while also enabling direct fitment of a lifting hook and the coupler includes an elongated pin (26) (see Figs, 1 and 2) extending about a longitudinal axis of which the second part is pivotal relative to the first part.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacKay Sim (8,172,289) (see IDS) and Manney et al. (3,373,560) and further in view of Lawley (7,562,919).
The modified MacKay Sim (8,172,289), as presented above, shows that the first loop and the second loop appears to be the same size,
but does not specifically show that
the first loop is a different size to the second loop or the first loop is smaller than the second loop.
However, Fig. 2 of Lawley (7,562,919) teaches a plurality of loops (30) having different sizes for lifting.
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
different size on the first and second loop on the MacKay Sim (8,172,289) as taught by
Lawley (7,562,919) to provide flexibility and more room to fit the application 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