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 .
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.
Claim 8 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “an elastic material having a hardness Shore A in the range of 30 to 90 at room temperature”, and the claim also recites “in particular silicone rubber, natural rubber or fluorinated rubber” which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claims is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 7, & 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of copending Application No. 18/597071 (hereinafter “reference application”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the only differences that the reference application includes additional structure such as a first and second valve, liquid reservoir, and a control unit. The limitations of claim 1 of the instant application are present in claim 1 of the reference application. The limitations of claim 7 of the instant application are present in claim 2 of the reference application. The limitations of claim 9 of the instant application are present in claims 3 & 4 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 111283716A) in view of Cleaveland (US Patent 4,026,591).
Regarding claim 1, the vacuum sucking disc holder of Zhu teaches
- a gripper shaft (6) having a longitudinal shaft axis and a fluid channel extending through the gripper shaft in the direction of the longitudinal shaft axis (Fig 1);
- a connector (Annotated Fig 1 below) arranged at the proximal end of the gripper shaft for connecting a flexible supply tube (1) and the proximal end of the gripper shaft such that the flexible supply tube is in fluid communication with the fluid channel of the gripper shaft in a fluid-tight manner, for the supply of vacuum or overpressure to the fluid channel (Fig 1);
- a support (3) movably accommodating the gripper shaft in a direction of the longitudinal shaft axis (Fig 1);
- a spring (4) mounted between the support and the gripper shaft , the spring biasing the gripper shaft distally away from the support in the direction of the longitudinal shaft axis (Fig 1; Pg 2 last body – Pg 3 body 1); and
- a gripper head (7) attached to the gripper shaft at a distal end portion of the gripper shaft, the gripper head having a further fluid channel extending through the gripper head along a longitudinal head axis coincident with the longitudinal shaft axis, the gripper head further having a suction opening which is centrally arranged in a distal end surface of the gripper head at a distal end of the further fluid channel, the suction opening being in fluid communication with the fluid channel of the gripper shaft by means of the further fluid channel
Zhu does not teach a pivot point. However, the contact lens handling tool of Cleaveland teaches the gripper head (60) is configured to be pivotable about a pivot portion (64) of the gripper head (60; Col. 2 ln 13-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the vacuum sucking disc holder of Zhu with the suction cup of Cleaveland to allow tilting to enable the cup portion to become perpendicular to the lens and adhere thereto (Col. 2 ln 13-17).
PNG
media_image1.png
617
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Cleaveland teaches the gripper head (60) has a gripping portion arranged at the distal end of the gripper head and a first conically shaped portion (Annotated Fig 3 below) tapering from a largest diameter of the gripping portion towards the pivot portion (64) which is cylindrical and has the smallest diameter of the gripper head, the cylindrical pivot portion being arranged proximal to the first conically shaped portion (Annotated Fig 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
528
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 3 as described above, Cleaveland teaches the gripper head (60) further has a second conically shaped portion (Annotated Fig 3 above) widening from a proximal end of the cylindrical pivot portion to a cylindrical mounting portion (62; Fig 3) of the gripper head having a diameter larger than the diameter of the cylindrical pivot portion, the cylindrical mounting portion being arranged at the proximal end of the second conically shaped portion of the gripper head (Annotated Fig 3 above).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 4 as described above, the combination does not teach measurements for the gripping portion, first conically shaped portion, pivot portion, second conically shaped portion, and mounting portion. However, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., (220 USPQ 777) held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform different than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct. The pivot portion of the gripper head of Cleaveland does not perform differently than the pivot portion of the claimed gripper head, therefore the dimensional limitations of claim 5 are not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 4 as described above, the combination does not teach diameters or length for the gripping portion, first conically shaped portion, pivot portion, second conically shaped portion, and mounting portion. However, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., (220 USPQ 777) held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform different than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct. The pivot portion of the gripper head of Cleaveland does not perform differently than the pivot portion of the claimed gripper head, therefore the dimensional limitations of claim 5 are not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Cleaveland teaches the gripper head is a rubber or rubber-like material. The combination does not teach the gripper head is made of an elastic material having a hardness Shore A in the range of 30 to 90 at room temperature, in particular silicone rubber, natural rubber or fluorinated rubber. However, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235). Cleaveland discloses that the gripper is made of a rubber or rubber-like material and is used to allow for limited tilting of the gripper head (Col. 2 ln 11-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to experiment with different materials and shore ranges to determine the optimal rubber-like material for the gripper head to permit limited tilting of the gripper while transferring contact lenses (Col. 2, ln 19-24).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu & Cleaveland in view of Louis (US Patent 5,649,727 A).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, the combination does not teach a plurality of recessed channels. However, the suction cup contact lens holding device of Louis teaches the gripper head further comprises a plurality of recessed channels (30; Fig 3) formed in the distal end surface of the gripper head (Fig 4), the recessed channels being connected to the centrally arranged suction opening and extending in a direction outwardly away from the centrally arranged suction opening (24; Fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the suction gripper combination with a plurality of recessed channels to apply vacuum over the whole of the channels so that the lens is drown over the whole surface to reduce distortion toward the suction opening (Col 4 ln 62 to Col 5 ln 9).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu & Cleaveland in view of Yan (CN 111618899 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, the combination does not teach a plug. However, the robot suction end effector of Yan teaches the gripper (6) further comprises a plug (10; Fig 2) attached to the distal end of the gripper shaft (4; Fig 1), with the gripper head releasably mounted to the plug (Fig 2; Pg 3 body 3), and wherein the plug comprises a plug channel extending through the plug along a longitudinal plug axis coincident with the longitudinal head axis (Annotated Fig 2), the plug channel being in fluid communication both with the fluid channel of the gripper shaft and with the further fluid channel extending through the gripper head (Annotated Fig 2; Pg 3 body 4). The addition of the plug of Yan to the combination of Zhu & Cleveland would align the plug channel extending through the plug along a longitudinal plug axis coincident with the longitudinal shaft axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the suction gripper combination with a plug to allow for easily swapable gripper heads.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu & Cleaveland in view of Stockhorst (US Patent 6502876 B1) & Cowles (US Patent 2,320,812 A).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Zhu teaches a hose connector which fits inside a female threaded portion of the gripper shaft. The suction gripper of Stockhorst includes a male threaded portion (Annotated Fig 1 below) attached at the proximal end of the gripper shaft (3; Fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to replace the female threaded connection of the gripper shaft of the suction cup gripper combination with a male threaded portion to decrease manufacturing cost and complexity.
PNG
media_image3.png
688
404
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The combination suction gripper does not teach a set sleeve, fitting sleeve, or locking screw. However, the tube coupling of Cowles teaches
-a set sleeve (7) threadingly accommodating a proximal end portion of the gripper shaft (4) at a distal end of the set sleeve (Fig 1);
- a fitting sleeve (12+19) arranged in the set sleeve proximal to the proximal end portion of the gripper shaft (4), the fitting sleeve having a sleeve channel extending through the fitting sleeve and being bounded by a sleeve channel wall (8), the flexible supply tube extending through the sleeve channel and being fittingly connected to the sleeve channel wall in a fluid-tight manner (Fig 2), with a distal end portion of the flexible supply tube extending beyond a distal end of the fitting sleeve (Fig 2); and
- a locking screw (16) threadingly received in a proximal end portion of the set sleeve proximal to the fitting sleeve (Fig 2), the locking screw having a screw channel extending therethrough (17), with the flexible supply tube extending through the screw channel and further through the sleeve channel of the fitting sleeve (Fig 2), the locking screw further having a distal abutment surface abutting against a proximal abutment surface of the fitting sleeve pressing the fitting sleeve towards a proximal end face of the gripper shaft (Fig 2), thus clamping the distal end portion of the flexible supply tube that extends beyond the distal end of the fitting sleeve between a distal abutment surface of the fitting sleeve and the proximal end face of the gripper shaft (Fig 2), thereby establishing a fluid-tight fluid communication between the flexible supply tube and the fluid channel of the gripper shaft (Col 1 ln 29-31).
The replacement of the combination hose connection with the coupling of Cowles would lead to the set sleeve (7) resting on the support of the combination suction gripper when the sleeve is fully tightened. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to replace the hose connection of the combination with the coupling of Cowles to prevent leaking at the joint responsively to forces such as vibration and temperature changes (Col 1 ln 29-43).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 2,490,686 A discloses a coupling for a flexible hose with a locking screw, fitting sleeve and set sleeve.
US Patent 10,182,938 B2 discloses a contact lens holder with a gripping head with two conical sections to allow for limited pivoting.
US Patent 2,523,874 A discloses a hose coupling device with a locking screw, fitting sleeve and set sleeve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RALPH D WILKINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6183. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4, M-Fr.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/RALPH D WILKINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights