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 1/23/2023 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.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites “a second attachment point connected to the other of the housing or the distal end of the shaft by way of one or more springs.” It is understood that “a second attachment point” is connected to “the other of the housing.” However, the recitation of “a second attachment point” is connected to “the shaft by way of one or more springs” is confusing and not clearly understood as to how “a second attachment point” is connected to “the shaft by way of one or more springs” It appears that the provided Figs. 3, 4,6, and 8 show a housing (1) and a shaft (4) wherein “a second attachment point” is connected to the other of the housing (1), instead of the shaft (4) (See Fig. 6), by means of a spring (3).
Claims 2-16 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 1-3, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pessina et al. (4,750,132).
RE claims 1 and 2, Pessina et al. (4,750,132) discloses a linear gripping apparatus (See Figs. 1-16), comprising: a housing (see 5, 104, 105, 110, and 111 of Fig. 2 (See Exhibit A); or (50, 52, 56, 57) of Fig. 12) (See Exhibit B); a shaft (112, 113, 114, and 115 of Fig. 2); having a proximate end attached to the housing and a distal end which moves relative to the housing; a first attachment point (See Figs. 2, 12, and 13) on one of the housing or the distal end of the shaft; a second attachment point (See Figs. 2, 12, and 13), which is the opposite side of the shaft, being connected to the other of the housing or the distal end of the shaft, and a motor (see 69 of Fig. 12) (see Col. 6, lines 33-46) operatively engaged with the shaft to drive the movement of the shaft wherein the distal end of the shaft moves reciprocatingly relative to the housing (RE claim 2). It is pointed out Fig. 12 shows a motor (69) (see Col. 6, lines 38-46) to move the shaft (62 and 59) whereas a double acting actuator cylinder (63) and a fluid pressure actuator with an actuating rod wherein the actuating cylinders are inherently provided with a biased spring to counter the pressure.
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Exhibit B
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
RE claim 3, Pessina et al. linear gripping apparatus (4,750,132) discloses the shaft (62) is attached to the housing by way of a nut and a spindle, and wherein the spindle (not shown ) (see Col. 6, lines 38-51) is rotated by the motor to cause the reciprocating movement of the shaft.
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 1-9 and 14-16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pessina et al. linear gripping apparatus (4,750,132) in view of Meadow (5,934,865).
RE claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, Pessina et al. linear gripping apparatus (4,750,132), as presented above, meets all the structural elements as recited. If Pessina et al. linear gripping apparatus (4,750,132), as best understood, does not specifically show a second attachment point being connected to the other of the housing or the distal end of the shaft by way of one or more springs, Figs. 1-7 of Meadow (5,934,865) teaches an electrical actuator (61), a shaft (55), and a spring (57) being attached to the distal end of the shaft (55) to response to signal from the detector and to urge the latch out of the spindle (see Claim 1). 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 a biased spring at one end of the shaft of Pessina et al. linear gripping apparatus (4,750,132) as taught by Meadow (5,934,865) to provide a signal to the actuator (61) to move (see from Col. 3, line 62, to Col. 4, line 7).
RE claim 4, Pessina et al. linear gripping apparatus (4,750,132) appears to show both grippers are movable. However, Figs. 1-7 of Meadow (5,934,865) teaches actuator to move one gripper away or toward the other stationary gripper. 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 a stationary gripper on the Pessina et al. linear gripping apparatus (4,750,132) as taught by Meadow (5,934,865) to provide a steady apparatus to a user.
RE claims 5 and 6, Figs. 2, 12, and 13 of Pessina et al. linear gripping apparatus (4,750,132) show a rail and a plate.
RE claims 14-16, Pessina et al. linear gripping apparatus (4,750,132) does not specifically show the motor is configured to produce a signal in response to the compression of the one or more springs and trigger the shut off of the motor, wherein the motor is a servo motor and the signal is an increase in power consumption of the motor when moving the shaft and compressing the one or more springs, relative to the power consumption of the motor when moving the shaft without compressing the one or more springs wherein the increase in power consumption of the motor varies depending on the compression distance of the one or more springs. However, Figs. 1-7 of Meadow (5,934,865) teaches an electrical actuator (61), a shaft (55), and a spring (57) being attached to the distal end of the shaft (55) to response to signal from the detector and to urge the latch out of the spindle (see Claim 1). 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 a biased spring at one end of the shaft of Pessina et al. linear gripping apparatus (4,750,132) as taught by Meadow (5,934,865) to provide a signal to the actuator (61) to move (see from Col. 3, line 62, to Col. 4, line 7).
Claims 10, 12, and 13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pessina et al. linear gripping apparatus (4,750,132) and Meadow (5,934,865) and further in view of Conway et al. (5,332,275).
RE claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, Pessina et al. linear gripping apparatus (4,750,132), as presented above, does not specifically show at least one or more limit switch to detect the distance. However, Figs. 2-8 of Conway et al. (5,332,275) teaches a servo or step motor (445) (See Fig. 4), limit switches (414 and 419) (Fig. 2) wherein a controller (903) control a servo motor for movement. 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 at least one or more limit switches on the Pessina et al. linear gripping apparatus (4,750,132) as taught by Conway et al. (5,332,275) to provide a status of the gripping operation to a user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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