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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1 – 17) in the reply filed on January 12, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18 – 36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention group (Groups II and III), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 12, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“vacuum pressure adjustment system” recited in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The limitation “vacuum pressure adjustment system” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“system”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“for adjusting the high flow vacuum within the conduit path responsive to the sensor information”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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 – 17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “high flow vacuum” in the first paragraph of the body of the claim. Because “high flow” is a term of degree that is not expressly defined in the Specification, the metes and bounds of the limitation are indefinite. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “vacuum.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “a conduit path leading from the end-effector to the high flow vacuum source.” The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “a system for providing high flow vacuum control to an end-effector ...” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intend the limitation to positively require a ‘conduit path’ that connects to an ‘end-effector,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a system for providing high flow vacuum control and an end-effector ...,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘conduit path,’ such that the claim is directed only towards the ‘system.’ Secondly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the high flow vacuum source.” For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a conduit path configured to connect the end-effector to the vacuum source.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the vacuum source provides a vacuum pressure ...” Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “a system for providing high flow vacuum control ...” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intend the limitation to positively require the ‘vacuum source’ to provide a vacuum pressure, such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method for providing a vacuum pressure ...,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘vacuum source,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘system’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the vacuum source is configured to provide a vacuum pressure ...”
Claim 2 further recites the limitation “about 65,000 Pascals.” Because “about” is a term of degree which is not expressly defined in the Specification, the metes and bounds of the limitation are indefinite. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “65,000 Pascals.”
Claims 4, 5, and 6 each recite the limitation “the high flow vacuum source.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claims. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations as “the vacuum source.”
Claim 4 further recites the limitation “... a blower that is controlled to coast ...” Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “a system for providing high flow vacuum control ...” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intend the limitation to positively require the ‘blower’ to be to controlled to coast, such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method for providing a vacuum pressure ...,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘blower,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘system’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “... a blower that is configured to coast ...”
Claim 5 further recites the limitation “... a blower that is controlled to re-start ...” First, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the ‘blower’ to refer to, and further define, the ‘blower’ previously set forth in claim 4, or whether Applicant intends the ‘blower’ to set forth a second ‘blower’ which is separate and independent from the ‘blower’ previously set forth. Secondly, Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “a system for providing high flow vacuum control ...” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intend the limitation to positively require the ‘blower’ to be to controlled to re-start, such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method for providing a vacuum pressure ...,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘blower,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘system’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “... the blower is further configured to be controlled to re-start ...”
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the vacuum path.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the conduit path.”
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the packaging.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the sensor system.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘sensor system’ previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second ‘sensor system’ which is separate and independent from the ‘sensor system’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to the ‘sensor system’ previously set forth.
As explained above, the claim limitation “vacuum pressure adjustment system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Specification does not disclose sufficient structure of the limitation because one skilled in the art would not find proper basis for the limitation in the originally filed Specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Each of the limitations of claim 15 are previously recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As explained above, the limitation “vacuum pressure adjustment system” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As further explained above, the Specification fails to disclose sufficient structure of the limitation to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the limitation is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 13 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunkmann (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0255447).
As to claim 1, Dunkmann teaches a system for providing high flow vacuum control to an end-effector of a programmable motion device (abstract), said system comprising: a vacuum source for providing a vacuum (figure 2, element 28 being the ‘vacuum source’; paragraph 25); a conduit path configured to connect the end-effector to the vacuum source (figure 2, element 30 being the ‘conduit path’; paragraph 25); a sensor system for sensing a pressure of the end-effector and providing sensor information (figure 2, element 46 being the ‘sensor system’; paragraph 25); and a pneumatic control module including a vacuum pressure adjustment system for adjusting the vacuum within the conduit path responsive to the sensor information (figure 2, elements 44, 42, 40, and 38 being the ‘pneumatic control module’ and element 38 being the ‘vacuum pressure adjustment system’; paragraphs 25 and 28).
As to claim 2, Dunkmann teaches an embodiment in which the vacuum source is configured to provide a vacuum pressure of no more than 65,000 Pascals below atmospheric (paragraph 11).
As to claim 13, Dunkmann teaches that the end-effector includes a first vacuum cup (figure 2, left element 22 being the ‘first vacuum cup’; paragraph 25) and wherein the system further includes a plurality of additional vacuum cups that may be exchanged with the first vacuum cup by the system responsive to the sensor information (figure 2 right elements 22 being the ‘additional vacuum cups’; paragraph 25).
As to claim 14, Dunkmann teaches that the sensor information is associated with the first vacuum cup to determine whether any of the plurality of additional vacuum cups should be exchanged with the first vacuum cup by the system due to stress limitations on packaging of an object if grasped by the first vacuum cup (paragraph 25).
As to claim 15, the discussion of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
As to claims 16 and 17, the discussion of claim 13 is incorporated herein.
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.
Claim(s) 3 – 8 and 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wagner (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0120455).
As to claim 3, while Dunkmann teaches the system comprising a vacuum source for providing a vacuum, Dunkmann does not teach the maximum air flow rate provided by the vacuum source. Wagner teaches a system for providing high flow vacuum control to an end-effector (abstract), said system comprising: a vacuum source for providing a vacuum (figure 2, elements 30, 32, 36, and 38 being 36 being the ‘vacuum source’; paragraph 31), wherein the vacuum source provides a maximum air flow rate of 100 cubic feet per minute (figure 2, element 36; paragraphs 32 and 40). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the system of Dunkmann with the vacuum source of Wagner, which provides a maximum air flow rate of 100 cubic feet per minute, because Wagner teaches that such an air flow rate is sufficient to grip a given workpiece (paragraph 2), as desired by Dunkmann (paragraph 1).
As to claim 4, while Dunkmann teaches the system comprising a vacuum source for providing a vacuum, Dunkmann does not teach the vacuum source itself. Wagner teaches a system for providing high flow vacuum control to an end-effector (abstract), said system comprising: a vacuum source for providing a vacuum (figure 2, elements 30, 32, 36, and 38 being the ‘vacuum source’; paragraph 31), wherein the vacuum source comprises a blower (figure 2, element 36 being the ‘blower’; paragraph 31). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the vacuum source of Dunkmann with the vacuum source of Wagner, which comprises a blower, because Wagner teaches that such a vacuum source provides the benefit of creating sufficient vacuum so as to allow the end-effector to grip a workpiece (paragraphs 31 – 32 and 40), as desired by Wagner.
Examiner notes that when the system of Dunkmann is provided with the vacuum source of Wagner, the blower is configured to coast between grasping objects. This is because Dunkmann and Wagner each teach the vacuum source being controlled to turn on and off between grasping objects (Dunkmann, paragraphs 24 and 28; Wagner, paragraph 31).
As to claim 5, it is the position of the Examiner that the blower of Dunkmann in view of Wagner is configured to be controlled to re-start when coasting prior to grasping a new object. This is because Dunkmann and Wagner each teach the vacuum source being controlled to turn on and off between grasping objects (Dunkmann, paragraphs 24 and 28; Wagner, paragraph 31).
As to claim 6, while Dunkmann teaches the system comprising a vacuum source for providing a vacuum, Dunkmann does not teach the vacuum source itself. Wagner teaches a system for providing high flow vacuum control to an end-effector (abstract), said system comprising: a vacuum source for providing a vacuum (figure 2, elements 30, 32, 36, and 38 being the ‘vacuum source’; paragraph 31), wherein the vacuum source comprises a side-channel blower (figure 2, element 36 being the ‘blower’; paragraphs 31 and 4). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the vacuum source of Dunkmann with the vacuum source of Wagner, which comprises a blower, because Wagner teaches that such a vacuum source provides the benefit of creating sufficient vacuum so as to allow the end-effector to grip a workpiece (paragraphs 31 – 32 and 40), as desired by Wagner.
As to claim 7, while Dunkmann teaches the pneumatic control module including an adjustable valve in fluid communication with the conduit path (figure 2, element 44 being the ‘adjustable valve’; paragraph 25), Dunkmann does not teach the type of valve. Wagner teaches a system for providing high flow vacuum control to an end-effector (abstract), said system comprising: a vacuum source for providing a vacuum (figure 2, elements30, 32, 36, and 38 being the ‘vacuum source’; paragraph 31), wherein the vacuum source comprises a compressor and a blower (figure 2, element 30 being the ‘compressor’ and element 36 being the ‘blower’; paragraph 31); and a pneumatic control module for adjusting the vacuum that includes an adjustable valve (figure 2, element 34 being the ‘adjustable valve’; paragraph 31). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the vacuum source of Dunkmann with the vacuum source of Wagner, which comprises a compressor and a blower, because Wagner teaches that such a vacuum source provides the benefit of a high-flow rate/low vacuum pressure and low flow rate/high vacuum pressure modes (paragraphs 31 – 32), which allows for the system to grasp a wide variety of different workpieces (paragraphs 5 – 8).
Wagner further teaches that the adjustable valve is an analog adjustable valve (figure 2, element 34; paragraph 31). Examiner notes that this can be found because Wagner teaches the valve being a solenoid valve (figure 2, element 34; paragraph 31), which is known in the art to be a type of ‘analog adjustable valve.’ It would have been further obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the adjustable valve of Dunkmann as a solenoid valve, as taught by Wagner, because Wagner teaches that a solenoid valve provides the benefit of adjusting the amount of vacuum pressure in the system by venting or blowing off the vacuum in the system (paragraph 31).
As to claim 8, Wagner further teaches the analog adjustable valve being coupled to a source of air at atmospheric pressure (figure 2, element 34; paragraph 31).
As to claim 10, while Dunkmann teaches the pneumatic control module including an adjustable valve in fluid communication with the conduit path (figure 2, element 44 being the ‘adjustable valve’; paragraph 25), Dunkmann does not teach the type of valve. Wagner teaches a system for providing high flow vacuum control to an end-effector (abstract), said system comprising: a vacuum source for providing a vacuum (figure 2, elements30, 32, 36, and 38 being the ‘vacuum source’; paragraph 31), wherein the vacuum source comprises a compressor and a blower (figure 2, element 30 being the ‘compressor’ and element 36 being the ‘blower’; paragraph 31); and a pneumatic control module for adjusting the vacuum that includes an adjustable valve (figure 2, element 34 being the ‘adjustable valve’; paragraph 31). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the vacuum source of Dunkmann with the vacuum source of Wagner, which comprises a compressor and a blower, because Wagner teaches that such a vacuum source provides the benefit of a high-flow rate/low vacuum pressure and low flow rate/high vacuum pressure modes (paragraphs 31 – 32), which allows for the system to grasp a wide variety of different workpieces (paragraphs 5 – 8).
Wagner further teaches that the compressor and blower of the vacuum source have variable speeds (figure 2, elements 30 and 36; paragraph 32). This can be found because Wagner expressly teaches the blower creating a vacuum pressure of up to 25,000 Pascals and an air flow rate of up to 5 cubic feet per minute and the compressor creates an air flow rate of up to 100 cubic feet per minute (figure 2, elements 30 and 36; paragraph 32). Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the art to provide a variable motor, such as a variable-speed compressor or variable blower, with a variable frequency power source, so as to provide the benefit of controlling the amount of power created by the variable motor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to couple the vacuum source of Dunkmann in view of Wagner to a variable frequency power source, so as to control the amount of vacuum pressure and air flow rate of the blower and compressor, as desired by Wagner.
As to claim 11, Examiner takes further notice that it is known in the art to provide the variable frequency power source to comprise a variable frequency drive and a multi-phase power source, so as to provide the benefit of controlling the amount of power created by the variable motor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the variable frequency power source made obvious by Dunkmann in view of Wagner as variable frequency drive and multi-phase power source, so as to control the amount of vacuum pressure and air flow rate of the blower and compressor, as desired by Wagner.
As to claim 12, the discussion of claims 7 and 10 are incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lilliston (U.S. Patent Number 11,091,355).
As to claim 7, while Dunkmann teaches the pneumatic control module including an adjustable valve in fluid communication with the conduit path (figure 2, element 44 being the ‘adjustable valve’; paragraph 25), Dunkmann does not teach the type of valve. Lilliston teaches a system for providing high flow vacuum control to an end-effector (abstract), said system comprising: a vacuum source for providing a vacuum (column 2, lines 42 – 49); and a pneumatic control module for adjusting the vacuum (column 2, lines 50 – 60), wherein the pneumatic control module includes an adjustable valve (figure 10, element 310 being the ‘adjustable valve’; column 2, lines 50 – 55). Lilliston further teaches the adjustable valve being a butterfly valve (figure 10, element 310; column 2, lines 50 – 50), which Applicant’s Specification teaches is a type of analog adjustable valve (paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the adjustable valve of Dunkmann as a butterfly valve, as taught by Lilliston, because Lilliston teaches that a butterfly valve provides the benefit of adjusting the amount of vacuum pressure in the system (column 2, lines 50 – 60), as desired by Dunkmann.
As to claim 9, the discussion of claim 7 is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726