DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are pending as submitted on 09/25/23.
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 1-6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 1, the phrase “close contact” constitutes relative terminology which is not further explained in the application (“close” is unnecessary). Examiner recommends claiming the device in terms of what it is (i.e. structure) rather than what it might be intended to do (to glass, et cetera). The claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and should be reviewed for any grammatical and idiomatic errors (e.g. claim 1, superfluous language like “that corresponds to an opposite side of the first glass panel in the form of covering a predetermined region of the second glass panel”, grammatically improper phrases like “to straightly move”, or claim 2, “elongated from an outside”, “with the inside and the outside…sealed”, claim 3 “in accordance to”, et cetera). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koyama, JP 2000-195426 (translation provided).
With regard to claims 1-2, Koyama teaches a vacuum cup with a pumping member & pipe member (10) disposed through the cup, as well as a stroke member (18) & gripping member (12) disposed through the cup which is configured to move up and down to place a sealing cap onto a vent in the usual manner, as well as various interior bonding/heating members (6/7/8/9/11/14/15) for said cap which are connected to heat sources outside the cup (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 1-7]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al., KR 10-1963247 (translation provided).
Park teaches a vacuum cup with a pumping member & pipe member (1800) disposed through the cup, as well as a stroke member (1400) & gripping member (1200) disposed through the cup which is configured to move up and down to place a sealing cap onto a vent in the usual manner, as well as a bonding/heating member (1300) for said cap (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 1-19]).
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 of this title, 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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., KR 10-1963247 (translation provided).
With regard to claim 2, Park also teaches a heating member as noted above, and while it does not expressly disclose whether such a member extends through the wall of the cup, presumably the source of the heat – i.e. “external power source (not shown)” – is understood to extend through the cup (as with previously cited Koyama, for example) or such a design would have been a prima facie obvious variant which would not otherwise materially affect the function of said heating member.
With regard to claim 3, Park also teaches a vacuum cup pressure gauge (1850), and while the exemplary gauge is not depicted on the exhaust pipe itself, and is silent as to whether this explicitly ‘displays’ the gauged values (i.e. to a user), rearranging the location of said part onto the pipe while serving its same function would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)C), and rearranging any such gauged readout which is ‘displayed’ to the vacuum control unit to say, the gauge itself, would have been similarly obvious.
With regard to claim 4, while Park does not expressly disclose a vent on the vacuum pipe, some element is depicted on the pipe (e.g. Figure 3), and gauges, valves & vents are commonplace elements of such pipes, which would be prima facie obvious to include in order to predictably modify pressure (if not already implicitly present).
With regard to claim 5, as the prior art device is considered capable of moving such a cap, the claim is considered to be met; it is recommended that Applicants claim the structure of their device based on what it is, rather than what it might be intended to do or materials worked upon (see MPEP 2114/2115).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., KR 10-1963247 (translation provided) in view of Choi et al., KR 10-2015-0024731.
While Park does not expressly disclose whether its cap gripper is an electromagnet, this was a common species of gripper in this art, as shown for example by Choi (abstract, [FIGS. 1-13]), and it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Choi with those of Park, in order to yield a vacuum cup cap gripper with a known alternative gripping means useful with metal caps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BLADES whose telephone number is (571)270-7661. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PST.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/JOHN BLADES/
Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745