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 statements (IDS) submitted on 12/15/23 were 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 § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawamoto; Yukihiro (US-10562194).
RE claim 1, Kawamoto; Yukihiro (US-10562194) discloses an apparatus (see Figs. 1-13) for capable of removing objects (such as an ophthalmic lens (L) from a lens treatment container (50) for the accommodation of the ophthalmic lens (L) during a lens treatment process), the apparatus comprising: an exhaust air box (101) (see Fig. 2) (Exhibit A) comprising at least one inlet for allowing ambient air (see Fig. 2) to be drawn into the exhaust box; an outlet in fluid communication with the exhaust air box, the outlet capable of being connected to a source of negative pressure (121) (See Fig. 2); at least one tube (see Exhibit B) having a proximal end connected to the at least one inlet of the exhaust air box, and a distal end having a displaceable nozzle (50) (see Col. 5, lines 44-62); and an actuator (1) connected to the nozzle (50) for displacing the nozzle (50) from a standby position to an object removal position, and back to the standby position. Note that the provided gripper (40) (see Figs. 3-5B), which can be considered as an actuator connected to a nozzle (50) (see Figs. 5A and 5B) for move the position. Fig. 1 also shows an elevating mechanism (212) (See from Col. 4, line 61, to Col. 5, line 8), which also could be considered as an actuator connected to the nozzle (50) capable of displacing or moving the nozzle from a standby position to an object removal position.
Exhibit A
[AltContent: textbox (Outlet)][AltContent: textbox (Outlet)][AltContent: textbox (Outlet)][AltContent: textbox (Inlet)][AltContent: textbox (Inlet)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Nozzle (50))][AltContent: textbox (Actuator )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Also note that Exhibit B shows
Exhibit B
[AltContent: textbox (nozzle)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Inlet box)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Connecting tube (103))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sirvet; Enn (US 3,567,043).
RE claims 1 and 6, Sirvet; Enn (US 3,567,043) discloses an apparatus (see Figs. 1-8) for capable of removing objects (such as an ophthalmic lens (L) from a lens treatment container (50) for the accommodation of the ophthalmic lens (L) during a lens treatment process), the apparatus comprising: an exhaust air box (see Fig. 7) comprising at least one inlet for allowing ambient air (90) (see “Air” inlet) to be drawn into the exhaust box; an outlet via a fitting (75) (See Fig. 7) in fluid communication with the exhaust air box, the outlet capable of being connected to a source of negative pressure or a vacuum source (see Col. 4, lines 16-40); at least one tube (61, 61) having a proximal end connected to the at least one inlet of the exhaust air box, and a distal end having a displaceable nozzle (28) and an actuator (63, 27, 30, 15, 27, 43) (see Exhibit C) connected to the nozzle (25) for displacing the nozzle from a standby position to an object removal position, and back to the standby position.
RE claim 6, Sirvet; Enn (US 3,567,043) shows that one tube (61) is a flexible tube.
Exhibit C
[AltContent: textbox (Vacuum Chamber or housing or box)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Actuator Assembly )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamoto; Yukihiro (US-10562194) in view of Wigren et al. 10,059,533).
Kawamoto; Yukihiro (US-10562194), as presented above, does not specifically teach the exhaust air box further comprises a vacuum gauge arranged in fluid communication with an interior space. However, Wigren et al. 10,059,533) teaches a vacuum gauge (4) see Col. 4, lines 19-27). 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 vacuum gauge inside of the vacuum chamber (101) of Kawamoto; Yukihiro (US-10562194) as taught by Wigren et al. 10,059,533) to monitor the vacuum pressure inside the chamber or box.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sirvet; Enn (US 3,567,043) in view of Wigren et al. 10,059,533).
Sirvet; Enn (US 3,567,043), as presented above, does not specifically teach the exhaust air box further comprises a vacuum gauge arranged in fluid communication with an interior space. However, Wigren et al. 10,059,533) teaches a vacuum gauge (4) see Col. 4, lines 19-27). 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 vacuum gauge inside of the vacuum chamber (Sirvet; Enn (US 3,567,043) as taught by Wigren et al. 10,059,533) to monitor the vacuum pressure inside the chamber or box.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 7-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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, Robert Hodge, can be reached on (571) 272-2097. 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
Prosecution Insights