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 § 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, 3-5, 7-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278) (see PTO-892) in view of McCord (3,656,794) (see PTO-892).
RE claim 1, CHO (US 2016/0096278) discloses a suction device (see Figs. 1-11), comprising a main body (1) capable being connected to a robot manipulator, and a resilient and flexible elongated suction cup being made of rubber or urethan material (see paragraph [003] and Figs. 1, 7, 10, and 11) having a connecting end (11) and an opposing suction end (12), wherein the connecting end is configured for releasable connection to the main body and wherein the suction end is capable of engaging a waste item or an object; wherein the main body comprises a main connector for connection to a suction system and wherein the suction head further comprises a suction channel (see Figs. 1, 7, 10, and 11) extending through the main connector, the main body and the suction cup; and wherein the suction cup comprises a plurality of corrugations (32) (see Figs. 1, 7, 10, and 11) capable of providing moveability of the
suction end with respect to the main body in a lateral X direction, a lateral Y direction, and in a longitudinal Z direction of the suction cup.
CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278), as presented above, does not specifically show an outer diameter of each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations decreases in a direction from the connecting end toward the suction end. However, Figs. 1-6 of McCord (3,656,794) teach a suction cup having an outer diameter of each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations decreases in a direction from the connecting end toward the suction end. 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 an outer diameter of each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations decreases in a direction from the connecting end toward the suction end of CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278), as taught by McCord (3,656,794) to pick up and grasp smaller items to a user.
[AltContent: textbox (An inwardly protruding circumferential flange (RE claim 7))] Exhibit A
[AltContent: textbox (Each projection having a hook portion)][AltContent: textbox (A plurality of apertures )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RE claim 3, CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278) discloses that the body is being made of being made of rubber or urethan material (see paragraph [003]) providing a resilient and flexible sleeve portion.
RE claims 4 and 5, CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278) shows the suction cup connecting portion (See Exhibit A) comprises a plurality of projections, and wherein the sleeve portion comprises a plurality of apertures each of which is arranged to receive a corresponding projection of the plurality of projections wherein each projection of the plurality of projections comprises a hook portion for engagement with a corresponding edge portion of an aperture of the plurality of apertures.
RE claim 7, CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278) (as shown in Exhibit A) shows an inwardly protruding circumferential flange.
RE claims 8 and 9, Fig. 4 of CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278) also teaches a mesh filter (27) having a concave shape (see paragraphs [0028] and [0037]) arranged in the suction channel for filtering suction air flowing therethrough when the suction head is in use wherein the mesh member is arranged in the main body.
RE claim 10, CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278) shows a removable mesh (26) (see paragraph [0037]), but does not specifically show the mesh member is arranged in the suction end of the suction cup. However, 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 in the suction end of the suction cup of CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278) to prevent the debris from entering into the vacuum cup.
RE claim 14, the suction cup of CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278) is a unitary piece made of elastomeric material or a rubber material (see paragraph [003]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278) and McCord (3,656,794) (see PTO-892) and further in view of Livingston Jr. et al. (9,651,084) (see PTO-892).
The modified CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278), as presented above, does not specifically show one or more projecting tabs on the sleeve. However, Figs. 6 and 9 of Livingston Jr. et al. (9,651,084) having projecting tabs (65, 65) on the sleeve of the body. 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 projecting tabs on the sleeve (10) of CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278) as taught by Livingston Jr. et al. (9,651,084) to provide as a means to hold or control the body.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278) and McCord (3,656,794) (see PTO-892) and further in view of Holt (4,442,003) (see PTO-892).
The modified CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278), as presented above, does not specifically show the mesh member is a hemispherical mesh member with an apex. However, Fig. 2 of Holt (4,442,003) teaches the mesh filter (54) having a hemispherical shape with an apex. 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 hemispherical shape mesh filter on the vacuum cup of CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278) as taught by Holt (4,442,003) to prevent and remove due to the protrusion or the apex and protecting the cleanliness of the inner vacuum suction cup.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278) and McCord (3,656,794) (see PTO-892) and further in view of Strong et al. (US 2015/0205288) (See PTO-892).
The modified CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278), as presented above, show providing a main body of the suction head, providing a vacuum at the suction end for grabbing an object or item, lifting the object, but does not specifically show lowering the main body of the suction head in a vertical direction with respect to a conveyor surface until the suction end of the suction cup engages a waste item on the conveyor surface. However, Fig. 1 of Strong et al. (US 2015/0205288) shows a conveyor (140) to transport an object (P) and the vacuum cups (132) to lowering the main body of the suction head in a vertical direction with respect to a conveyor surface and engages a waste item. 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 an object or waste object on a conveyor surface of Strong et al. (US 2015/0205288) to provide by lowering the main body of the suction head of CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278), in a vertical direction with respect to a conveyor surface and engages a waste item.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015) (see PTO-892) in view of McCord (3,656,794) (see PTO-892).
RE claim 1, Martin et al. (US 2020/0048015) discloses a suction device (see Figs. 1-3B), comprising a main body (120) being made of a rubber material (See paragraph [0038]) capable being connected to a robot manipulator, and a resilient and flexible elongated suction cup (see Fig 2-2B) having a connecting end and an opposing suction end, wherein the connecting end is configured for releasable connection to the main body and wherein the suction end is capable of engaging a waste item or an object; wherein the main body comprises a main connector for connection to a suction system and wherein the suction head further comprises a suction channel (see Fig. 2A) extending through the main connector, the main body and the suction cup; and wherein the suction cup comprises a plurality of corrugations (Fig. 2A) capable of providing moveability of the suction end with respect to the main body in a lateral X direction, a lateral Y direction, and in a longitudinal Z direction of the suction cup.
Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015), as presented above, does not specifically show an outer diameter of each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations decreases in a direction from the connecting end toward the suction end. However, Figs. 1-6 of McCord (3,656,794) teach a suction cup having an outer diameter of each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations decreases in a direction from the connecting end toward the suction end. 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 an outer diameter of each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations decreases in a direction from the connecting end toward the suction end of Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015) as taught by McCord (3,656,794) to pick up and grasp smaller items to a user.
RE claims 4 and 5, Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015) shows the suction cup connecting portion comprises a plurality of projections (see 204 of Fig. 2 or 131 of Fig. 2A), and wherein the sleeve portion comprises a plurality of apertures (apertures where projections (204) connect or apertures to receive projections (131, 131) (See Fig. 2A) wherein each of which is arranged to receive a corresponding projection of the plurality of projections having a hook at the end.
RE claim 7, Fig. 2A of Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015) teaches an outer threads on the member (130) and the connecting end of the suction cup (4) comprises an inner threads having an inward protruding circumferential flange for air tight engagement with the cup connecting portion.
RE claims 8-10, Figs. 2A and 2C of Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015) also teach a mesh filter (110) having a concave substantially shape arranged in the suction channel at the suction end (see Fig. 2C) for filtering suction air flowing therethrough when the suction head is in use wherein the mesh member is arranged in the main body.
RE claim 14, the suction cup of Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015) is a unitary piece made of elastomeric material or a rubber material (See paragraph [0038])
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015) and McCord (3,656,794) (see PTO-892) and further in view of Livingston Jr. et al. (9,651,084).
Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015), as presented above, does not specifically show one or more projecting tabs on the sleeve. However, Figs. 6 and 9 of Livingston Jr. et al. (9,651,084) having projecting tabs (65, 65) on the sleeve of the body. 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 projecting tabs on the sleeve (10) of Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015) as taught by Livingston Jr. et al. (9,651,084) to provide as a means to hold or control the body.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015) and McCord (3,656,794) (see PTO-892) and further in view of Holt (4,442,003).
Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015, as presented above, does not specifically show the mesh member is a hemispherical mesh member with an apex. However, Fig. 2 of Holt (4,442,003) teaches the mesh filter (54) having a hemispherical shape with an apex. 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 hemispherical shape mesh filter on the vacuum cup of Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015) as taught by Holt (4,442,003) to prevent and remove due to the protrusion or the apex and protecting the cleanliness of the inner vacuum suction cup.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015) and McCord (3,656,794) (see PTO-892) and further in view of Strong et al. (US 2015/0205288).
Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015), as presented above, show providing a main body of the suction head, providing a vacuum at the suction end for grabbing an object or item, lifting the object, but does not specifically show lowering the main body of the suction head in a vertical direction with respect to a conveyor surface until the suction end of the suction cup engages a waste item on the conveyor surface. However, Fig. 1 of Strong et al. (US 2015/0205288) shows a conveyor (140) to transport an object (P) and the vacuum cups (132) to lowering the main body of the suction head in a vertical direction with respect to a conveyor surface and engages a waste item. 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 an object or waste object on a conveyor surface of Strong et al. (US 2015/0205288) to provide by lowering the main body of the suction head of Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015) in a vertical direction with respect to a conveyor surface and engages a waste item.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the drawing objection, applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the drawing objection being made has been withdrawn.
With respect to the claims rejection being made in a non-final office action, mailed April 15, 2026, however, applicant's arguments filed July 6, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Amended Claim 1
Applicant canceled claim 2 and the structural limitation of “wherein an outer diameter of each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations decreases in a direction from the connecting end toward the suction end” is being incorporated into an independent claim 1. As the result, the claims rejections under 35 USC § 102 has been changed to 35 USC Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103 as presented above.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278) in view of McCord (3,656,794).
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015) in view of McCord (3,656,794).
CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278) in view of McCord (3,656,794)
Applicant argues that CHO fails to disclose at least "an outer diameter of each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations decreases in a direction from the connecting end toward the suction end" as recited by claim 1 as amended,” (see page 5) and continue to reason that “McCord does not disclose or teach a suction cup with corrugations configured to provide moveability in a lateral X direction and a lateral Y direction as recited by claim 1. To the contrary, McCord is specifically designed to prevent lateral movement. McCord identifies as a problem that "the eggs are subject to lateral or swinging movement" and seeks to solve this problem. McCord's "upper bell includes a plurality of circumferentially spaced, longitudinally extending stiffening ribs." McCord, claim 2. These stiffening ribs provide radial stability and cause the eggs to be carried with great stability, which is the opposite of the lateral moveability required by claim 1.
Moreover, McCord shows in fig. 5 a collapsed cup carrying an egg. McCord explains that in this position, the egg is "rigidly held until the vacuum is released", see column 2 lines 47-53. This also confirms that McCord is specifically designed to prevent lateral movement.” (see Pages 6 and 7).
The Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments.
Claim 1 recites
A suction head for a waste sorting system, comprising
a main body configured for connection to a robot manipulator, and a resilient and flexible elongated suction cup having a connecting end and an opposing suction end, wherein the connecting end is configured for releasable connection to the main body and wherein the suction end is configured to engage a waste item;
wherein the main body comprises a main connector for connection to a suction system and
wherein the suction head further comprises a suction channel extending through the main connector, the main body and the suction cup; and
wherein the suction cup comprises a plurality of corrugations configured to provide moveability of the suction end with respect to the main body in a lateral X direction, a lateral Y direction, and in a longitudinal Z direction of the suction cup, and
wherein an outer diameter of each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations decreases in a direction from the connecting end toward the suction end.
CHO (US 2016/0096278)
CHO (US 2016/0096278) discloses a suction device (see Figs. 1-11), comprising a main body (1) capable being connected to a robot manipulator, and a resilient and flexible elongated suction cup being made of rubber or urethan material (see paragraph [003] and Figs. 1, 7, 10, and 11) having a connecting end (11) and an opposing suction end (12), wherein the connecting end is configured for releasable connection to the main body and wherein the suction end is capable of engaging a waste item or an object; wherein the main body comprises a main connector for connection to a suction system and wherein the suction head further comprises a suction channel (see Figs. 1, 7, 10, and 11) extending through the main connector, the main body and the suction cup; and wherein the suction cup comprises a plurality of corrugations (32) (see Figs. 1, 7, 10, and 11) capable of providing moveability of the suction end with respect to the main body in a lateral X direction, a lateral Y direction, and in a longitudinal Z direction of the suction cup.
CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278), as presented above, does not specifically show an outer diameter of each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations decreases in a direction from the connecting end toward the suction end.
McCord Suction Cup (3,656,794)
In response to applicant's argument that “McCord is specifically designed to prevent lateral movement. McCord identifies as a problem that "the eggs are subject to lateral or swinging movement" and seeks to solve this problem. McCord's "upper bell includes a plurality of circumferentially spaced, longitudinally extending stiffening ribs." McCord, claim 2. These stiffening ribs provide radial stability and cause the eggs to be carried with great stability, which is the opposite of the lateral moveability required by claim 1. Moreover, McCord shows in fig. 5 a collapsed cup carrying an egg. McCord explains that in this position, the egg is "rigidly held until the vacuum is released", the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Figs. 1-6 of McCord (3,656,794) teach a suction cup having an outer diameter of each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations decreases in a direction from the connecting end toward the suction end.
Figs. 1, 2, 5, and 6 of McCord’s suction cup (3,656,794) (see Exhibit B for illustration purpose) shows a (downwardly) tapered shape suction cup to provide a concentrated and intensified pressure due to the smaller contact surface. To those skilled in the mechanical engineers acknowledge that smaller (in diameter) contact (or suction) surface provides more suction pressure in contrast with a larger (in diameter) contact (or suction) surface provides less suction pressure.
[AltContent: textbox (An inwardly protruding circumferential flange (RE claim 7))] Exhibit A
[AltContent: textbox (Each projection having a hook portion)][AltContent: textbox (A plurality of apertures )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Exhibit B
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Obviousness of “the Shape of a Tapered Suction Cup”
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 tapered shape suction cup (where an outer diameter of each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations decreases in a direction from the connecting end toward the suction end), instead of the same diameter of the suction cup, of CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278), as taught by McCord (3,656,794) to firmly pickup and grasp smaller items or to provide more powerful suction force to the grasped object.
It is pointed out that the modification of CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278) is just simply to provide a tapered shape suction cup where an outer diameter of each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations decreases in a direction from the connecting end to the suction end, not to replace the suction cup of CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015) in view of McCord (3,656,794)
Applicant also briefly argues that “Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015), similar to CHO’s suction device (US 2016/0096278), fails to disclose “an outer diameter of each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations decreases in a direction from the connecting end toward the suction end" as recited by claim 1 as amended,” (see page 6).
Similar to the Examiner’s reasoning, Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015), as presented above, does not specifically show an outer diameter of each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations decreases in a direction from the connecting end toward the suction end. However, Figs. 1-6 of McCord (3,656,794) teach a suction cup having an outer diameter of each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations decreases in a direction from the connecting end toward the suction end.
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 an outer diameter of each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations decreases in a direction from the connecting end toward the suction end of Martin et al. suction device (US 2020/0048015) as taught by McCord (3,656,794) to pick up and grasp smaller items to a user.
Applicant fails to argue other depending claims in detail.
Therefore, claims 1 and 3-15 remains rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL T CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-69226922. 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, Robert Hodge, can be reached on (571) 272-7097 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 3654
