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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the elastic member is spring,” recited in claim 6; and “a lubricating gasket” recited in claims 8-9; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17 is indefinite and vague. Which element constitutes “a moving mechanism?” In so far the claim is understood as any element providing a movement meets the limitations of the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 114193491.
Regarding claims 1 and 13-14, CN ‘491 discloses a gripper which is applied to a clamping device (see figure 1) comprising: two gripper arms 3 which used to be connected with a driving mechanism (i.e., 1 which is a robot end connection that drives and moves 2-3 and a quick change connector using end of 1, claim 15) of the clamping device, and a gripper finger (near 33) with an elastic pad (i.e., rubber rods 333, which is elastic and abutted to the gripper arm and moved by springs 37 up to eight elastic pads, claims 2, 5-6, and 18-20) which is floatably connected to the gripper arm 3, the gripper finger having a clamp surface (i.e., surface of 33 and 333), the gripper arm 3 being driven by the driving mechanism to move so as to drive the gripper finger to clamp or release an object to be clamped, and two connecting member (i.e., each 3 able to move along 2 which is a moving mechanism, see figure 1, claim 16-17), see figures 1-7.
Regarding claims 4 and 11-12, CN ‘491 discloses a first connecting part (see drawing below) connected to the gripper arm and the clamping surface being at a surface of a second connecting part (see drawing below), and a third connecting part (see drawing below), and a fourth connecting part (see drawing below).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
580
media_image1.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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 3, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 114193491.
Regarding claim 3, as stated above, CN ‘491 discloses a rubber material as an elastic material, but does not explicitly explain what kind of rubber material is being used.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a foamed silicone pad, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (i.e., applicant did not invent a foamed silicone pad) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 7, as stated above, CN ‘491 shows the first connecting part is connected to the gripper arm by a pin shaft 36 rather than a step screw (see drawing above).
It would have been obvious use a step screw as another fastening means rather than a pin shaft in the apparatus of CN ‘491, because any of these elements would function in a substantially equivalent manner in the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 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.
The claims 8-10 are patentable over the prior art of record because the teachings of the references taken as a whole do not show or render obvious the combination set forth in claims 8-10, including every structural element recited in the claim.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest the elements of the device as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the device in the manner required by the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-6947. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 9 P.M or Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
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).
SK
6/10/26
/SANG K KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights