DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s filing on 04/18/2023.
Claims 1-21 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/18/2023 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 10-11, 13-15, and 18 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.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “so that the contact surface can adapt” renders claim 10 vague and indefinite because the feature is not definitively disclosed. The term “can adapt” implies the contact surface may or may not adapt to the container. For examining purposes, the phase is interpreted as “so that the contact surface adapts to”.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “A system comprising a device according to claim 1, at least one container and/or packaging material and/or one nest” renders claim 11 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is included in in the system. It is unclear if the container, packaging material, and nest is part of the comprising phrase. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “A system comprising: a device according to claim 1; and at least one container and/or packaging material and/or one nest”.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “with the polymer film or the polymer coating” renders claim 13 vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Prior to the quoted phrase, there is no disclosure of a polymer coating. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “with the polymer film or the polymer surface”.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “The method according to claim 13, wherein a device according to claim 1 is used” renders claim 15 vague and indefinite because claims containing both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus are considered indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). [MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)]
Claims 14 and 18 are dependent of claim 13 and include all the same limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 6, 9-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Autumn et al. (7,785,422) in view of reference Weber-Hovendahl et al. (10,239,061).
Regarding claim 1, Autumn et al. disclose a device for handling containers (22) and/or packaging material inside a clean room (col 7 ln 36), the device comprising a gripper (27) having at least one tool (30),
wherein the tool (30) has a contact surface configured to contact at least one container (22) and/or packaging material in a planar region; and
wherein an adhesive-structured polymer film is arranged at least partially on the contact surface or the contact surface has an adhesive-structured polymer surface (col 9 ln 50),
wherein the polymer film or the polymer surface (col 9 ln 50) is designed such that the contacted container (22) and/or packaging material adheres to the polymer film or to the polymer surface as a result of van der Waals interaction.
(Figure 1 and Column 7 lines 4-9, 31-45, Column 9 lines 50-51)
However, Autumn et al. do not disclose the polymer film or surface is H202-resistant and/or autoclavable.
Weber-Hovendahl et al. disclose a polymer film made of nonslip autoclavable silicone. (Column 4 lines 33-39)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the polymer film of Autumn et al. by incorporating the autoclavable characteristic as taught by Weber-Hovendahl et al., since such a modification would allow the polymer film to be sterilized, thereby making the overall device more desirable.
Regarding claim 2, Autumn et al. modified by Weber-Hovendahl et al. disclose the polymer film or the polymer surface is made of silicone. (Autumn et al. – Column 3 lines 25-28, Column 9 lines 61-63)
Regarding claim 6, Autumn et al. disclose the tool is has a long and narrow shape. (Figure 1) Therefore, Autumn et al. modified by Weber-Hovendahl et al. is interpreted to disclose the tool is pin-like, wherein the contact surface is arranged at one end of the pin-like tool.
Regarding claim 9, Autumn et al. modified by Weber-Hovendahl et al. disclose the tool (Autumn et al. – 30) is configured to simultaneously contact a plurality of containers (Autumn et al. – 22) and/or packaging materials, wherein each contacted container (Autumn et al. – 22) and/or packaging material is contacted with the contact surface of the tool (Autumn et al. – 30). (Autumn et al. – Column 14 lines 60-65)
Regarding claim 10, Autumn et al. modified by Weber-Hovendahl et al. disclose the contact surface is arranged on a flexible and/or deformable portion of the tool (Autumn et al. – 30), so that the contact surface adapts to a contour of the container (Autumn et al. – 22) and/or packaging material by pressing. (Autumn et al. – Column 14 lines 8-10)
Regarding claim 11, Autumn et al. modified by Weber-Hovendahl et al. disclose a system comprising: a device according claim 1; and at least one container (Autumn et al. – 22), wherein the contact surface is configured to be complementary to the container (Autumn et al. – 22) so that the contact surface can lie flat against the container (Autumn et al. – 22). (Autumn et al. – Figure 1 and Column 10 lines 62-63)
Regarding claim 12, Autumn et al. modified by Weber-Hovendahl et al. disclose a clean room having a device according to claim 1. (Autumn et al. – Figure 1 and Column 7 lines 35-41)
Regarding claim 13, Autumn et al. disclose a method for handling containers (22) inside a clean room (col 7 ln 36), wherein the method comprising the steps of:
providing a contact surface for contacting a container (22) and/or packaging material,
wherein an adhesive-structured polymer film is arranged at least partially on the contact surface or the contact surface has an adhesive-structured polymer surface (col 9 ln 50),
wherein the polymer film or the polymer surface is configured such that the contacted container adheres to the polymer film or to the polymer surface as a result of van der Waals interaction;
pressing the contact surface with the polymer film or the polymer surface (col 9 ln 50) onto the container (22) and/or packaging material,
wherein the pressing is carried out with a predetermined pressure and for a predetermined time period;
handling the container (22) and/or packaging material adhering to the polymer film or the polymer surface (col 9 ln 50) as a result of van der Waals forces.
(Figure 1 and Column 7 lines 4-9, 31-45, Column 9 lines 50-51)
However, Autumn et al. do not disclose the polymer film or surface is H202-resistant and/or autoclavable.
Weber-Hovendahl et al. disclose a polymer film made of nonslip autoclavable silicone. (Column 4 lines 33-39)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the polymer film of Autumn et al. by incorporating the autoclavable characteristic as taught by Weber-Hovendahl et al., since such a modification would allow the polymer film to be sterilized, thereby making the overall device more desirable.
Regarding claim 15, Autumn et al. modified by Weber-Hovendahl et al. disclose the method is conducted by the device disclosed in claim 1. (Autumn et al. – Figure 1 and Column 7 lines 4-9, 31-45, Column 9 lines 50-51) (Weber-Hovendahl et al. – Column 4 lines 33-39)
Regarding claim 16, Autumn et al. modified by Weber-Hovendahl et al. disclose the adhesive-structured polymer surface is a polymer coating. (Autumn et al. – Column 9 lines 50-51)
Regarding claim 17, Autumn et al. modified by Weber-Hovendahl et al. disclose the polymer surface is a polymer coating. (Autumn et al. – Column 9 lines 50-51)
Regarding claim 18, Autumn et al. modified by Weber-Hovendahl et al. disclose the adhesive-structured polymer surface is a polymer coating. (Autumn et al. – Column 9 lines 50-51)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Autumn et al. (7,785,422) in view of reference Weber-Hovendahl et al. (10,239,061) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Johansen et al. (2020/0283179).
Regarding claim 3, Autumn et al. modified by Weber-Hovendahl et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the tool is replaceable.
Johansen et al. disclose a gripper (130) comprising a gripper head (160) with a gripping surface (165), wherein the gripping surface is replaceable. (Page 3 paragraph 37)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the gripper of Autumn et al. by incorporating the replaceable tool as taught by Johansen et al., since page 3 paragraph 37 of Johansen et al. states such a modification would allow for quick changes of the gripper.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Autumn et al. (7,785,422) in view of reference Weber-Hovendahl et al. (10,239,061) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Polido et al. (11,207,786).
Regarding claim 5, Autumn et al. modified by Weber-Hovendahl et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose resilient element.
Polido et al. disclose a gripper (110) comprising springs (154, 164, 174). (Figure 6, 7 and Column 6 lines 4-13)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the gripper of Autumn et al. by incorporating the springs as taught by Polido et al., since column 7 lines 9-10 of Polido et al. states such a modification would allow the gripper to better conform to the shape of the container.
Regarding claim 19, Autumn et al. modified by Weber-Hovendahl et al. and Polido et al. disclose the at least one resilient element is a spring. (Polido et al. – Column 6 lines 4-13)
Claims 7-8 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Autumn et al. (7,785,422) in view of reference Weber-Hovendahl et al. (10,239,061) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Narita et al. (2022/0219338).
Regarding claim 7, Autumn et al. modified by Weber-Hovendahl et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the contact surface is planar.
Narita et al. disclose a gripper (102) comprising a contact surface (212), wherein the contact surface (212) has a planar shape, circular shape, or a semi-cylindrical shape. (Figure 20A, 20B, 21A and Page 7 paragraph 164, 166)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the contact surface of Autumn et al. by incorporating the different shapes as taught by Narita et al., since page 7 paragraph 162 of Narita et al. states such a modification would allow for better contact between the contact surface and the container.
Regarding claim 8, Autumn et al. modified by Weber-Hovendahl et al. and Narita et al. disclose the contact surface is semi-cylindrical. (Narita et al. – Figure 21A)
Regarding claim 20, Autumn et al. modified by Weber-Hovendahl et al. and Narita et al. disclose the contact surface is circular. (Narita et al. – Figure 20A)
Regarding claim 21, Autumn et al. modified by Weber-Hovendahl et al. and Narita et al. disclose the contact surface is semi-cylindrical. (Narita et al. – Figure 21A)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Autumn et al. (7,785,422) in view of reference Weber-Hovendahl et al. (10,239,061) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of reference Bechini et al. (2019/0315004).
Regarding claim 14, Autumn et al. modified by Weber-Hovendahl et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose positioning the container in a nest.
Bechini et al. disclose a method comprising the steps of: using a gripper (1, 2) to remove a container (70) from a nest (8); and using the gripper (1, 2) to position the container (70) in a different nest (8). (Figure 2A, 2B and Page 4 paragraph 71)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified page 2 paragraph 17 of Bechini et al. states such a modification would easier transfer of containers into/out of the clean room.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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, Thanh Truong can be reached on (571) 272-4472. 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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 September 26, 2025
/ANNA K KINSAUL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731