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. DKPA 202070428, filed on 6/29/2020.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 13, 30, 31, 32, 33. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 240. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 1, line 23, "setting them of in a second work station" should read "setting them in a second work station".
On page 1, line 25, "are may be very complex" should read "may be very complex".
On page 3, line 15, "matching portion of workpiece" should read "matching portion of the workpiece".
On page 3, line 17, "workpiece in press fit" should read "workpiece in a press fit".
On page 3, line 23, "lifted of the worktable" should read "lifted off the worktable".
On page 4, line 4, "pliable material of the body of the body of the front piece" should read "pliable material of the body of the front piece".
On page 4, lines 13-14, "may be very easily be adapted" should read "may be very easily adapted".
On page 4, line 26, "at least corresponds to" should read "corresponds to at least".
On page 5, line 27, "a relevant portions" should read "a relevant portion".
On page 6, line 11, "formed through base" should read "formed through the base".
On page 7, line 18, "formed through base" should read "formed through the base".
On page 7, line 24, "In a second aspect of the objects of the disclosure may be achieved" should read "A second aspect of the objects of the disclosure may be achieved".
On page 8, line 28, "the method further comprising" should read "the method further comprises".
On page 9, line 14, "forming, in a in a resilient, pliable material" should read "forming, in a resilient, pliable material".
On page 10, lines 22-23, "which may be very easily be adapted" should read "which may be very easily adapted".
On page 12, line 2, "a relevant portions" should read "a relevant portion".
On page 12, line 17, "formed through base" should read "formed through the base".
On page 24, line 12, the two chosen surfaces are incorrectly labelled as 151 and 152.
On page 28, lines 9 and 10, the stud-shaped connector and the bead-shaped connector are incorrectly labelled as 210' and 110".
On page 28, line 24, "held between thee sidewalls" should read "held between the sidewalls".
On page 29, lines 11-12, "on a wo sets of first and second protruding flanges" should read "on a two sets of first and second protruding flanges".
On page 31, lines 18-19, "improve the distribution of the vacuum better to provide a suction to workpieces' should read "improve the distribution of the vacuum to provide a better suction to workpieces".
On page 31, line 21, a comma is needed after "described above".
On page 31, line 24, "of a at least a portion of the workpiece" should read "of at least a portion of the workpiece".
On page 32, line 12, a closing parenthesis is needed after "depression 60".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 17, "in a in a resilient, pliable material" should read "in a resilient, pliable material". 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, 4, 5, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bosboom et al (U.S. Patent No. 10493638).
Regarding claim 1, Bosboom et al teaches a picking device (10) for picking workpieces having a predetermined shape form a worktable surface (Abstract), the picking device comprising:
A collector arm (14) having a first end (16) and a second end (12) (Column 4, lines 23-26, 31-33; Fig. 1, elements 12, 14, 16),
A collector head (24) provided at the end of the collector arm (12) (Column 4, lines 43-45, 62-65; Fig. 1, element 24; Fig. 1, element 24),
The collector arm (14) being configured for moving the collector head (24) relative to the worktable surface, and aligning the collector head (24) relative to the workpiece when the workpiece is located on the worktable surface (Abstract; column 4, lines 1-22), wherein the collector head (24) comprises:
A base (132) connecting to the second end (12) of the collector arm (14) and having a distal surface (Column 4, lines 62-65; column 5, lines 3-5; Fig. 2, element 132), and
A front piece (110) arranged distalmost on the base (132) of the collector head (24) (Column 4, lines 62-65; Fig 2, element 110),
Wherein the front piece (110) comprises a body formed in a resilient, pliable material (Column 5, lines 12-20), the body comprising:
A proximal surface at a proximal end of the body (110) and configured to the distal surface of the base (132) (Fig. 2, elements 110, 132);
A distalmost surface formed at an opposite, distal end of the body (110) parallel to the proximal surface (Fig. 2, element 110),
A depression (602) extending in the proximal direction from the distalmost surface, the depression having a bottom surface and one or more sidewalls extending between the bottom surface and the distalmost surface wherein the depression (602) has a contour shaped to mate at least a portion of the shape of the workpiece (Column 5, lines 9-12; Fig. 6, elements 110, 602),
Such that when the contour of the depression (602) is aligned with the mating part of the shape of the workpiece on the worktable surface, and when the collector head (110) is pressed over the workpiece, at least the mating portion of the workpiece is received in the depression (602), and such that the one or more sidewalls squeezes on surfaces of the workpiece to hold the workpiece in place between the sidewalls of the depression (602), when the collector head (110) is lifted from the worktable surface (Column 4, lines 1-22; Column 5, lines 11-15). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
653
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bosboom et al teaches each of said sidewalls of the front piece (110) has a portion which extends perpendicularly relative to the distalmost surface (Fig. 6, element 110).
Regarding claim 4, Bosboom et al teaches a bottom of the depression (602) is distal relative to the proximal surface of the front piece (110) (Fig. 6, element 602, 110). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
653
868
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Bosboom et al teaches the sidewalls of the depression (601) are mutually facing, where a common longitudinal axis (Z) is defined along the mutually facing sidewalls, and where the depression (602) has a first end and a second end in the direction of the longitudinal axis (Fig. 6, elements 601, Z). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
653
868
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Bosboom et al teaches a method of picking workpieces having a predetermined shape from a worktable surface, using a picking device (10) (Abstract) comprising:
A collector arm (14) having a first end (16) and a second end (12) (Column 4, lines 23-26, 31-33; Fig. 1, elements 12, 14, 16); and
A collector head (24) provided at the end of the collector arm (12) (Column 4, lines 43-45, 62-65; Fig. 1, element 24; Fig. 1, element 24),
Wherein the collector arm (14) is configured for moving the collector head (24) relative to the worktable surface, and aligning the collector head (24) relative to the workpiece when the workpiece is located on the worktable surface (Abstract; column 4, lines 1-22), wherein the collector head (24) comprises:
A base (132) connecting to the second end (12) of the collector arm (14) and having a distal surface (Column 4, lines 62-65; column 5, lines 3-5; Fig. 2, element 132), and
A front piece (110) arranged distalmost on the base (132) of the collector head (24) (Column 4, lines 62-65; Fig 2, element 110),
Wherein the front piece (110) comprises a body formed in a resilient, pliable material (Column 5, lines 12-20), the body comprising:
A proximal surface at a proximal end of the body (110) and configured for connecting to the distal surface (Fig. 2, elements 110, 132); and
A distalmost surface formed at an opposite, distal end of the body (110) parallel to the proximal surface (Fig. 2, element 110); and
A depression (602) extending in the proximal direction from the distalmost surface, the depression having a bottom surface and one or more sidewalls extending between the bottom surface and the distalmost surface, (Column 5, lines 9-12; Fig. 6, elements 110, 602),
Wherein the depression (602) has a contour shaped to mate at least a portion of the shape of the workpiece (Column 4, lines 1-22; column 5, lines 11-15),
Wherein the method comprises: placing the collector head (110) over a workpiece such that the sidewalls (602) of the depression are aligned with the mating portion of the shape of the workpiece (Column 1, lines 61-67; column 2, lines 1-13);
Pressing the collector head (110) over at least the mating portion of the workpiece such that at least the mating portion of the workpiece is received in the depression (602) and the sidewalls are deformed to squeeze on surfaces of the workpiece (Column 5, lines 12-16);
Lifting the collector head (110) with the workpiece held in place between the sidewalls (Column 6, lines 3-9).
Regarding claim 14, Bosboom et al teaches applying a vacuum to the depression (602) to suck the workpiece into contact with the depression (602) (Column 6, lines 3-9).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Defranceski (DE 102017115738).
Regarding claim 16, Defranceski teaches a method of manufacturing front piece for a collector head (1) for a picking device for picking workpieces having a predetermined shape from a worktable surface, the method comprising:
Determining a shape of at least a portion of the workpieces (Page 3, paragraph 4),
Determining a shape of a distal surface of a base of the collector head (1) of the picking device (Page 3, paragraph 3);
Forming, in a resilient, pliable material, a body (3) of the front piece such that the body (3) comprises (Page 3, paragraph 3):
A proximal surface (5) at a proximal end of the body (3) and configured for connecting to the distalmost surface of the base (Page 3, paragraph 11; Fig. 1, elements 3, 5);
A distalmost surface (19) formed at an opposite, distal end of the body (3) and parallel to the proximal surface (5) (Fig. 1, elements 3, 19);
A depression extending in the proximal direction from the distalmost surface (19), the depression having a bottom surface and one or more sidewalls (11) extending between the bottom surface and the distalmost surface (19) (Fig. 1, elements 11, 19),
Such that the depression is dimensioned to allow a deformation of at least the sidewalls (11) of the depression when a collector head (1) is aligned with and pressed over the workpiece, and to the effect that the workpiece may be held by the sidewalls (11) of the depression when the collector head (1) is lifted (Page 3, paragraphs 3, 4; Page 4, paragraph 7; Fig. 1, elements 1, 8, 11). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image4.png
365
605
media_image4.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 (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) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosboom et al in view of Van de Vegte et al (EP 3185667).
Regarding claim 3, Bosboom et al fails to teach a depression corresponding to at least half the thickness of the workpiece. Van de Vegte et al teaches a picking device (3) where a depth of the depression from a rim between the distalmost surface and the sidewall of the depression to a bottom surface of the depression at least corresponds to one-half of a thickness of the workpiece (12) at a location between said two surfaces of the workpiece (12) facing away from each other (Column 5, lines 1-47; Fig. 1, elements 3, 12, 30; Fig. 3A-3D, elements 31, 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Van de Vegte et al to facilitate the creation of a suction cup depression that will maximize the contact surface area of the suction cup as taught by Van de Vegte et al (Column 4, lines 40-42).
Regarding claim 8, Bosboom et al fails to teach a front piece made of silicone. Van de Vegte et al teaches a picking device (3) where the resilient, pliable material of the front piece (31) is a silicone (Column 5, lines 48-49; Column 6, lines 5, 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Van de Vegte et al to facilitate the creation of a suction cup made of silicone that is able to form an efficient seal with the workpiece as taught by Van de Vegte et al (Column 5, lines 49-52).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosboom et al in view of Polido et al (US 10611037).
Regarding claim 6, Bosboom et al fails to teach a support surface. Polido et al teaches a picking device (10) with a support surface (40) that is provided in extension of the first and/or second end of the depression in the direction of the longitudinal axis, and wherein said support surface (40) extends in a plane parallel to said bottom surface of the depression (Fig. 3A, elements 20, 40). 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 teachings of Polido et al to facilitate the creation of a support surface that aid the picking device in targeting and lifting the intended item as taught by Polido et al (Column 2, lines 24-33).
PNG
media_image5.png
611
309
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Bosboom et al fails to teach a support surface with a contour. Polido et al teaches a picking device (10) with a support surface (40) that is contoured to correspond to a contour of a second portion of the workpiece (409) to be picked (Fig. 3C-3D, elements 20, 40, 209).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Polido et al to facilitate the creation of a support surface that can conform to the shape of an item as taught by Polido et al (Column 2, lines 33-36).
Claim(s) 9, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosboom et al in view of Zanella et al (US 20190366559).
Regarding claim 9, Bosboom et al fails to teach an intermediary part. Zanella et al teaches a picking device with a collector head (1) that comprises an intermediary part (4) and wherein a first end of the intermediary part (4) is connected to the distal end of the base (6) and wherein a second end of the intermediary part (4) connects to the proximal end of the front piece (2) (Fig. 2, elements 2, 4, 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Zanella et al to facilitate the creation of an intermediary part that can reduce deformation of the workpiece as taught by Zanella et al (Paragraph 0060, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 10, Bosboom et al fails to teach a vacuum port formed through the base. Zanella et al teaches a picking device with a collector head (1) comprising: a vacuum port (S1) formed through the base (6) and connectable to a vacuum pump (Paragraph 0032, lines 1-2, 5-10; Fig. 3, elements 1, 6, S1); and
A suction inlet (8) formed through the bottom surface of the depression, the suction inlet (8) communicating with the vacuum port (S1) of the base (6) (Paragraph 0032, lines 1-10; Fig. 2, elements 6, 8, S1; Fig. 3, elements 6, 8, S1). 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 teachings of Zanella et al to facilitate the creation of a vacuum port that can create a suction force and couple the suction cup to the workpiece as taught by Zanella et al (Paragraph 0059, lines 1-5).
PNG
media_image6.png
689
886
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Bosboom et al fails to teach a vacuum distributing basin. Zanella et al teaches a picking device with a vacuum distributing basin that is formed in the bottom surface of the depression and into the body of the front piece (2), and wherein the suction inlet (8) is formed in the vacuum distributing basin (Fig. 2, elements 2, 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Zanella et al to facilitate the creation of a vacuum distributing basin that will improve contact between the suction cup and the workpiece and reduce shifting as taught by Zanella et al (Paragraph 0052, lines 5-10).
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosboom et al in view of Payton et al (WO 2020072813).
Regarding claim 12, Bosboom et al fails to teach a picking device that can deliver a jet of pressurized gas. Peyton et al teaches a picking device (300) configured for delivering a jet of pressurized gas through the bottom surface of the front piece (302) (Paragraph 0134, lines 9-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Payton et al to facilitate the creation of a jet of pressurized gas delivered through the bottom surface of the front piece which keeps the vacuum lines clean as taught by Payton et al (Paragraph 0116, lines 31-32).
Regarding claim 15, Bosboom et al fails to teach a method of releasing the workpiece using pressurized gas. Payton et al teaches a picking device (300) with a method of moving said collector arm (306) to move the collector head (302) with the workpiece to a second position, and releasing the workpiece from the depression by a jet of pressurized gas delivered to the depression from a source of pressurized gas through the collector head (302) (Paragraph 0131, lines 25-27; Paragraph 0134, lines 9-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Payton et al to facilitate the creation of a jet of pressurized gas for releasing workpieces, which keeps the vacuum lines clean as taught by Payton et al (Paragraph 0116, lines 31-32).
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654