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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2021-174380, filed on 10/26/2021.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0005, line 2, "capable of favorably sucking even an object…" should be reworded as "capable of favorably sucking an object…".
in paragraph 0013, line 2, "suction pad capable of favorably sucking: even an object…" should be reworded as "suction pad capable of favorably sucking an object…".
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, 3, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bosboom et al (U.S. Patent No. 9975255).
Regarding claim 1, Bosboom et al teaches a suction pad (30) for sucking and holding an object (Abstract; Fig. 2, element 30), the suction pad (30) comprising:
A pad main body that is made from an elastically deformable member (62) and has a held base end portion (22) (Column 4, lines 41-45; Fig. 7, elements 22, 62);
A hollow that is formed inside the pad main body (62) so as to extend from a base end side to a tip end side (Fig. 7, elements 62); and
A suction hole (52) that is configured to communicate with the hollow and is open to a tip end portion of the pad main body, wherein an opening diameter of the suction hole (52) is smaller than an inner diameter of the hollow (Fig. 2, element 52). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
398
477
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bosboom et al teaches the tip end portion (52) of the pad main body is elastically deformable (Column 4, lines 41-45).
Regarding claim 3, Bosboom et al teaches the tip portion (52) of the pad main body is thinner than the held base end portion (22) (Fig. 7, elements 52, 22).
Regarding claim 4, Bosboom et al teaches that the elastically deformable member (62) includes a sponge (Column 4, lines 41-45).
Regarding claim 6, Bosboom et al teaches that the pad main body includes, at the tip end portion (52), a tapered portion in which an inner diameter of the hollow decreases from the base end side (22) toward the tip side (52) (Fig. 7, elements 22, 52).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosboom et al in view of Young et al (WO 2020261013).
Bosboom et al fails to teach a sponge with open cells and closed cells. Young et al teaches the pad main body includes the tip end portion made from a sponge (330) having open cells and the held base end portion made from a sponge (330) having closed cells (Page 4, lines 3-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Young et al to facilitate the creation of a sponge, with open and closed cells, that is permeable and easily deformable as taught by Young et al.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosboom et al in view of Yamamuro (WO 2016056115 A1).
Basboom et al fails to teach a thin tapered portion. Yamamuro teaches a tapered portion (162) that is thinner on the tip side than on the base side (Paragraph 19, lines 5-8; Fig. 3, element 126). Additional features 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 Yamamuro to facilitate the creation of a thin tapered portion that is easily deformable as taught by Yamamuro.
PNG
media_image2.png
662
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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