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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi (JP 2017189850).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches an electronic device assembly apparatus comprising (Abstract):
a gripping device (15) that grips a leading end of a flexible flat cable (30) (Page 2, paragraphs 4, 5; Page 3, paragraph 3; Fig. 2, element 15; Fig. 5a, elements 15, 30);
a robot arm (1) that moves the gripping device (15) relative to a circuit board (40) to which the leading end of the cable (30) is to be connected (Page 3, paragraphs 2, 3; Fig. 7, elements 30, 40, 40a); and
a robot controller (2) that controls operations of the gripping device (15) and the robot arm (1) (Page 2, paragraph 5; Fig. 1, element 2),
wherein the gripping device (15), while gripping the cable (30), swings freely in an arc shape or moves freely in a width direction of the cable (30) in an in-plane direction of one surface of the cable (30) (Page 4, paragraph 2), and
the gripping device (15) includes:
at least one of a suction device (12) that holds the cable (30) by sucking the surface of the cable (30) and gripping claws (5) that hold the cable (30) by sandwiching the cable (30) in the width direction (Page 2, paragraph 7; Page 3, paragraphs 1, 2; Fig. 2, elements 5, 12);
a first plate (11b) that includes at least one of the suction device (12) and the gripping claws (5) (Page 3, paragraph 3; Fig. 5a, elements 11b, 12);
a second plate (11) that supports the first plate (11b) in such a manner that the first plate (11b) is swingable in an arc in the direction along the surface of the cable (30) (Page 3, paragraph 2; Fig. 5a, elements 11, 11b); and
a base (4) that supports the second plate (11) in such a manner that the second plate (11) is movable in the width direction of the cable (30) (Page 3, paragraph 2; Fig. 2, elements 4, 11).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Pollmann et al (US 20220088781).
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi teaches the gripping device further includes:
a first spring that is attached to the second plate (11) and biases the first plate (11b) toward an initial position (Page 3, paragraph 3). However, Hayashi does not disclose a second spring.
Pollmann et al teaches a cable connection device including a second spring (44) that is attached to the base (46) and biases the second plate (43) toward an initial position (Paragraph 0178, lines 1-13; Paragraph 0179, lines 1-5; Fig. 6a, elements 44, 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Pollmann et al in Hayashi in order to facilitate the creation of a second spring that can aid the gripper in maintaining contact with the cable as taught by Pollmann et al (Paragraph 0035, lines 7-9; Paragraph 0178, lines 9-13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm.
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 at 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 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.
/SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights