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 0007, "These an additional features provided..." should read "These and additional features provided…".
In paragraph 0021, line 4, would suggest placing "108a, 108b" within parentheses.
In paragraph 0026, line 10, insert a comma after "interior 103".
In paragraph 0032, line 11, "the second valve 144 may positioned" should read "the second valve 144 may be positioned."
In paragraph 0032, line 13, "the second valve 144 may positioned" should read "the second valve 144 may be positioned."
In paragraph 0039, lines 9-10, "other porous and/or partially porous object" should read "other porous and/or partially porous objects".
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, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lo (U.S. Patent No. 9782901).
Regarding claim 1, Lo teaches a robotic arm (30) (Abstract; Column 1, lines 66-67, Column 2, lines 1-3), comprising:
An arm segment (Fig. 4, element 30); and
A suction tool provided at an end of the arm segment (30) (Column 2, lines 1-3), the suction tool comprising:
A suction mechanism (31, 32) (Column 2, lines 20-36);
A first pump (37) operable to provide a first suction force and a first flow rate to the suction mechanism (31, 32) (Column 4, line 41-44; Fig. 5, element 37);
A second pump (37) operable to provide a second suction force and a second flow rate to the suction mechanism (31,32) (Column 4, lines 47-52; Fig. 5, element 37); and
A connection member (34) placing the first pump (37) and the second pump (37) in fluid communication with the suction mechanism (31,32) (Column 3, lines 3-7; Fig. 5, elements 30, 31, 32, 34 and 37).
Additional details are provided in the figures below.
PNG
media_image1.png
712
974
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
734
569
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Lo teaches a first valve (38) positioned between the first pump (37) and the suction mechanism (31, 32), the first valve (38) being movable between an open position and a closed position (Column 3, lines 6-8, lines 19-25; Fig. 5, element 38).
Regarding claim 7, Lo teaches fluid communication between the first pump (37) and the suction mechanism (31, 32) is prevented when the first valve (38) is in the closed position (Column 3, lines 48-58).
Regarding claim 8, Lo teaches a second valve (38) operably coupled to the first pump (37), the second valve (38) being movable between an open position and a closed position (Column 3, lines 6-8, lines 19-25; Fig. 5, element 38).
Regarding claim 10, Lo teaches a pressure sensor (39) for detecting an internal pressure of the suction mechanism (31, 32) (Column 3, lines 10-11, lines 32-35; Fig. 5, element 39).
Regarding claim 13, Lo teaches a first valve (38) positioned between the pump (37) and the suction mechanism (31, 32), the first valve (38) being movable between the open position and the closed position (Column 3, lines 6-8, lines 19-25; Fig. 5, element 38).
Regarding claim 14, Lo teaches fluid communication between the first pump (37) and the suction mechanism (31, 32) is prevented when the first valve (38) is in the closed position (Column 3, lines 48-58).
Regarding claim 15, Lo teaches a second valve (38) operably coupled to the first pump (37), the second valve (38) being movable between the open position and the closed position (Column 3, lines 6-8, lines 19-25; Fig. 5, element 38).
Regarding claim 17, Lo teaches a method comprising:
Positioning a suction mechanism (31, 32) of a suction tool adjacent to an object (Column 3, lines 21-25);
Activating a first pump (37) generating a first flow rate and a first suction force within the suction mechanism (31, 32) and a second pump (37) generating a second flow rate and a second suction force within the suction mechanism (31, 32) (Column 3, lines 25-30);
Creating a seal between the suction mechanism (31, 32) and the object (Column 3, lines 39-48; column 4, lines 9-15; Fig. 6, elements 31, 32, card);
Detecting an internal pressure within the suction mechanism (31, 32) of the suction tool using a pressure sensor (39) (Column 3, lines 10-11; Fig. 5, element 39); and
Determining if the internal pressure is less than or equal to a first threshold pressure, equal to or greater than a second threshold pressure, or between the first threshold pressure and the second threshold pressure (Column 3, lines 32-35).
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) 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo in view of Kang (US 20200312700).
Lo fails to teach a first suction force and a second suction force. Kang teaches a first suction force provided by the first pump (226) which is different from the second suction force provided by the second pump (226) (Claim 2, Fig. 6, element 226). Additional details are provided in the figure below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Kang to facilitate the creation of a suction tool with two distinct suction forces as taught by Kang.
PNG
media_image3.png
728
1042
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lo fails to teach a second suction force that is greater than the first suction force. Kang teaches a second suction force provided by the second pump (226) which is greater than the first suction force provided by the first pump (226) (Claim 2; Fig. 6, elements 226). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Kang to facilitate the creation of a second suction force that is greater than the first suction force in order to optimize the pressure differential of the suction tool as taught by Kang.
Lo fails to teach a first flow rate and a second flow rate. Kang teaches a first flow rate provided by the first pump (226) which is different from the second flow rate provided by the second pump (226) (Paragraph 0019, lines 8-13; paragraph 0021, lines 5-9; paragraph 0023, lines 1-8, 11-13; Fig. 6, elements 226, 230, 236). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Kang to facilitate the creation of a suction tool with two distinct flow rates as taught by Kang.
Lo fails to teach a first flow rate that is greater than the second flow rate. Kang teaches a first flow rate provided by the first pump (226) which is greater than the second flow rate provided by the second pump (226) (Paragraph 0019, lines 8-13; Fig. 6, elements 226, 230, 236). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Kang to create a first flow rate that is greater than the second in order to optimize the flow rate of the suction tool as taught by Kang.
Lo fails to teach a suction tool with an electronic control unit. Kang teaches a suction tool (Fig. 4, element 200), comprising:
A suction mechanism (Paragraph 0016, lines 1-3, 6-9; Fig. 4, element 206);
A first pump (226) operable to provide a first suction force and a first flow rate to the suction mechanism (206) (Claim 2; Paragraph 0019, lines 8-13; paragraph 0023, lines 11-13; Fig. 4, element 226);
A second pump (226) operable to provide a second suction force and a second flow rate to the suction mechanism (206) (Claim 2; paragraph 0021, lines 5-9; paragraph 0023, lines 11-13; Fig. 4, element 226); and
An electronic control unit (240) that independently operates each of the first pump (226) and the second pump (226) based on a detected pressure within the suction mechanism (206) (Paragraph 0024, lines 1-4, 7-12; Fig. 4, element 240),
Wherein the second suction force is greater than the first suction force and the first flow rate is greater than the second flow rate (Claim 2; paragraph 0019, lines 8-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Kang to facilitate the creation of a suction mechanism that uses an electronic circuit to independently control two pumps as taught by Kang.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo in view of Tisserand et al (EP 3933302).
Lo fails to teach a temperature sensor. Tisserand et al teaches a temperature sensor (136) for monitoring a temperature of the first pump (106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Tisserand et al to facilitate the creation of a temperature sensor that will monitor the temperature of the first pump so as to prevent overheating as taught by Tisserand et al.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo in view of Birkenholz et al (US 20210308664).
Regarding claim 9, Lo fails to teach a first pump exposed to ambient air. Birkenholz et al teaches a first pump (1934) exposed to ambient air from an external environment when the second valve (1928) is in the open position (Paragraph 0015, lines 4-6, 17-19; Fig. 19, elements 1928, 1934). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Birkenholtz et al to facilitate the creation of a valve that exposes the first pump to ambient air in order to cool the first pump as taught by Birkenholtz et al.
Regarding claim 16, Lo fails to teach a first pump exposed to ambient air. Birkenholz et al teaches a first pump (1934) exposed to ambient air from an external environment when the second valve (1928) is in the open position (Paragraph 0015, lines 4-6, 17-19; Fig. 19, elements 1928, 1934). Don’t forget obviousness statement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Birkenholtz et al to facilitate the creation of a valve that exposes the first pump to ambient air in order to cool the first pump as taught by Birkenholtz et al.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo in view of Locke (WO 2021053465).
Lo fails to teach deactivating the first pump. Locke teaches deactivating the first pump (278) in response to determining that the internal pressure is less than or equal to the first threshold pressure (Paragraph 0093, lines 20-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Locke to facilitate the creation of a pump that deactivates once a pressure threshold is reached in order to maintain a strong seal as taught by Locke.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo in view of Sherrick et al (EP 3771576).
Lo fails to teach deactivating the second pump. Sherrick et al teaches deactivating the second pump (112) in response to determining that the internal pressure is equal to or greater than the second threshold pressure (Column 12, lines 55-58; Column 13, line 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Sherrick et al to facilitate the creation of a pump that deactivates once a pressure threshold is reached in order to strengthen the seal as taught by Sherrick et al.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo in view of Wei et al (CN 107975963).
Lo fails to teach deactivating the second pump and exposing the first pump to ambient air. Wei et al teaches deactivating the second pump (142) and exposing the first pump (141) to ambient air from an external environment in response to determining that the internal pressure is between the first threshold pressure and the second threshold pressure (Paragraph 55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Wei et al to facilitate the creation of a second pump that deactivates and exposes the first pump to ambient air in order to cool the first pump and create a stronger seal as taught by Wei et al.
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