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 § 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 20 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. In particular, claim 20 recites the limitation “said operating device” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hömens et al (DE 102020128380).
Regarding claim 1, Hömens et al teaches an operating device for a tube lifter that comprises an end effector (2) and a lifting tube (A) having a tube interior, the lifting tube (A) being able to be shortened by applying a vacuum to the tube interior and being able to be extended again by ventilating the tube interior (Page 1, paragraph 1; Page 2, paragraph 5; Page 4, paragraph 8; Fig. 2, elements A, 2), the operating device comprising:
a lifting port for fluidic connection to the tube interior of the lifting tube (A) (Page 4, paragraph 9; annotated figure);
an end effector coupling for coupling the end effector (2) to the operating device (Page 4, paragraph 9; annotated figure);
a valve device (4) for controlling fluidic connections (Page 5, paragraph 4; Fig. 3, element 4); and
an operating mechanism (3) for actuating the valve device (Page 4, paragraph 9; Fig. 3, element 3), wherein
the valve device (4) comprising a ventilation valve (40) for ventilating the lifting tube port (Page 5, paragraph 4; Fig. 5, element 40), and
the ventilation valve (40) has a valve flap (41), which is adjustable between an open position and a closed position, in the open position a flow path from the lifting tube port to the surroundings being released and in the closed position this flow path being closed, the operating mechanism (3) comprising a first operating element (31) and a second operating element (33), the first and the second operating element (31, 33) being mechanically coupled to the valve flap (41) in such a way that by actuating the first and/or the second operating element (31, 33) an opening angle of the valve flap (41) is adjustable (Page 5, paragraph 4; Fig. 4, elements 4, 31, 33).
Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
416
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hömens et al teaches the first and the second operating element (31, 33) are mechanically coupled to the valve flap (41) in such a way that, by actuating the first operating element (31), the valve flap (41) can be transferred into the closed position and by actuating the second operating element (33) the valve flap (41) can be transferred into the open position (Page 5, paragraph 4; Page 6, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 3, Hömens et al teaches the first and the second operating element (31, 33) are arranged on the operating device (3) manually adjustably, translationally displaceably, wherein the first and the second operating elements (31, 33) are mechanically coupled to the valve flap (41) via a transmission device (32, 310, 321) in such a way that an adjusting movement of the first operating element (31) and/or an adjusting movement of the second operating element (33) is transferred into an opening or closing movement of the valve flap (41) (Page 5, paragraphs 2, 3; Fig. 2, elements 31, 32, 33; Fig. 5, element 321).
Regarding claim 4, Hömens et al teaches the first operating element (31), the second operating element (33) and/or the transmission device (32, 310, 321), and/or the valve flap (41) are designed to be self-locking, dragging, in such a way that the valve flap (41) remains in a set configuration (Page 4, paragraph 5; Page 5, paragraph 4; Fig. 4, elements 31, 32, 33, 310; Fig. 5, elements 32, 321).
Regarding claim 7, Hömens et al teaches the first and the second operating elements (31, 33) can assume, alternately, an actuating position and a non-actuating position, wherein the valve flap (41) is in the closed position in the actuating position of the first operating element (31), and wherein the valve flap (41) is in the open position, in the actuating position of the second operating element (33) (Page 5, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 8, Hömens et al teaches the first and the second operating element (31, 33), via the valve flap (41), are mechanically forcibly coupled in such a way that, when the first operating element (31) is transferred in the direction of the actuating position, the second operating element (33) is automatically transferred in the direction of the non-actuating position, and vice versa (Page 5, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 11, Hömens et al teaches the operating device comprises an operating handle (30), that can be grasped by one hand, wherein the first and the second operating element (31, 33) are arranged on the operating handle (30), in such a way that the first operating element (31) can be actuated with a first finger of a hand, the index finger, and in such a way that the second operating element (33) can be actuated with a second finger of the hand, the middle finger (Page 4, paragraph 9; Page 5, paragraphs 1, 2; Fig. 3, elements 31, 33).
Regarding claim 12, Hömens et al teaches the end effector coupling comprises a suction port for fluidic connection to the end effector (2), being a suction gripping device, wherein the lifting tube port and the suction port are fluidically connected to one another via a fluid guide (5) (Page 4, paragraph 9; Page 5, paragraph 4; Fig. 3, elements 2, 5; annotated figure).
PNG
media_image2.png
541
369
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Hömens et al teaches a tube lifter comprising said operating device (Page 4, paragraph 9; Fig. 3, element 3).
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) 5, 6, 13, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hömens et al in view of Bolle et al (US 479219).
Regarding claim 5, Hömens et al fails to teach a valve flap that pivots. Bolle et al teaches a vacuum lift assembly wherein the valve flap (16) is held on the operating device (10) so as to be pivotable about a pivot axis, arranged centrally in relation to the valve flap (16) (Column 3, lines 62-67; Fig. 3, elements 10, 16).
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 Bolle et al in Hömens et al to facilitate the creation of a pivotable valve flap that can vent the vacuum cavity as taught by Bolle et al (Column 2, lines 13-22).
Regarding claim 6, Hömens et al teaches the first operating element (31) is coupled to the valve flap (41) via a first connecting element (321), wherein the second operating element (33) is coupled to the valve flap (41) via a second connecting element (32), wherein the first and the second connecting element (321, 32) engage on the valve flap (41) at portions of the valve flap (41) opposite the pivot axis (Page 5, paragraphs 2, 3; Fig. 2, elements 31, 32, 33; Fig. 5, elements 32, 321).
Regarding claim 13, Hömens et al fails to teach a valve device with a shut-off valve. Bolle et al teaches a vacuum lift assembly wherein the valve device (16) additionally has a shut-off valve (16b) for blocking or releasing a flow path (14) between the lifting tube port (20d) and the suction port (18a), wherein the shut-off valve (16b) has a shut-off member (32) which can assume a release position and a blocking position, wherein in the release position the flow path (14g) between the lifting tube port (20d) and the suction port (18a) is released and in the blocking position the flow path (14g) between the lifting tube port (20d) and the suction port (18a) is blocked (Column 4, lines 43-46; Column 5, lines 15-22; Fig. 1, elements 14g, 16, 16b, 18a, 20a, 32).
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 Bolle et al in Hömens et al to facilitate the creation of a shut-off valve that can create a seal for the suction cup to lift the desired object as taught by Bolle et al (Column 4, lines 67-68; Column 5, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 14, Hömens et al discloses the claimed invention except for a shut-off valve. Bolle et al teaches a vacuum lift assembly with a shut-off valve (16b) having a shut-off member (32) that can transition between open and closed positions. (Column 4, lines 43-46; Column 5, lines 15-22; Fig. 1, elements 16b, 32).
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 Bolle et al in Hömens et al to facilitate the creation of a shut-off valve, that operates separately from the ventilation valve, and can create a seal within the vacuum cavity as taught by Bolle et al (Column 1, lines 48-58).
Regarding claim 15, Hömens et al fails to teach an opening angle for a shut-off valve. Bolle et al teaches a vacuum lift assembly wherein the shut-off member (32) is designed as a shut-off flap, wherein the shut-off flap is mechanically coupled to the first or the second operating element in such a way that an opening angle of the shut-off flap is adjustable by actuating the first or second operating element, the shut-off flap is adjustable between the blocking position and the release position (Column 4, lines 43-46, 51-57, 67-68; Column 5, line 1; Fig. 1, elements 16, 32).
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 Bolle et al in Hömens et al to facilitate the creation of a shut-off valve with a shut-off member that can operate at a desired lift level as taught by Bolle et al (Column 2, lines 13-22).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hömens et al in view of Holmlund.
Regarding claim 9, Hömens et al discloses the claimed invention except for a neutral position. Holmlund teaches a vacuum lifting device wherein the operating element (16) between its respective non-actuating position and its respective actuating positions passes through a respective neutral position (Page 1, paragraph 3; Page 2, paragraph 1; Page 4, paragraph 6; Fig. 2, element 16, 26).
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 Holmlund in Hömens et al to facilitate the creation of a neutral position that can aid the control system in providing an appropriate suction force as taught by Holmlund (Page 3, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 10, Hömens et al teaches the operating device has a housing, wherein the first and the second operating element (31, 33) are held on the housing translationally, in such a way that the operating elements (31, 33) are pushed into the housing at least in portions in their respective actuating positions relative to the neutral position and in their non-actuating position protrude from the housing relative to the neutral position at least in portions (Page 5, paragraph 3; Fig. 3, elements 31, 33; annotated figure).
PNG
media_image3.png
701
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 16, 17, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hömens et al in view of Bolle et al in further view of Rickhardsson (US 20170203444).
Regarding claim 16, Hömens et al in combination with Bolle et al fails to teach a closing member. Rickhardsson teaches a vacuum device wherein the shut-off valve additionally comprises:
a shut-off valve ventilation port (6) for ventilating the fluid guide (7) between the lifting tube port and the suction port (Paragraph 0028, lines 5-8; Fig. 2, elements 6, 7), and
a closing member (4a) for blocking or releasing the shut-off valve ventilation port (6), wherein the closing member (4a) can assume a closed position and a ventilation position, wherein the shut-off valve ventilation port (6) is shut off in the closed position and is released in the ventilation position (Paragraph 0031, lines 1-8; Paragraph 0032, lines 1-7; Paragraph 0033, lines 1-6; Fig. 2, elements 4a, 6; Fig. 3, elements 4a, 6).
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 Rickhardsson in combination with Hömens et al and Bolle et al to facilitate the creation of a closing member that prevents air leakage as taught by RIckhardsson (Paragraph 0038, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 17, Hömens et al in combination with Bolle et al discloses the claimed invention except for a closing member. Rickhardsson teaches a vacuum device wherein the closing member is mechanically forcibly coupled to the device, and is movable between a ventilation position and a closed position (Paragraph 0031, lines 1-8; Paragraph 0032, lines 1-7; Paragraph 0033, lines 1-6; Paragraph 0034, lines 1-9; Fig. 2, elements 4a, 6, 7; Fig. 3, elements 4, 6, 12; Fig. 4, elements 4, 12).
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 Rickhardsson in combination with Hömens et al and Bolle et al to facilitate the creation of a closing member that can create an efficient seal as taught by RIckhardsson (Paragraph 0010, lines 1-9; 0038, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 18, Hömens et al in combination with Bolle et al discloses the claimed invention except for a closing member. Rickhardsson teaches a vacuum device wherein the closing member (4) is designed as a ventilation flap, wherein the shut-off flap and the ventilation flap (4) are held on the operating device so as to be pivotable about a common pivot axis (Paragraph 0034, lines 1-9; Fig. 4, elements 4, 12; Fig. 2, element 4a; Fig. 3, element 4a).
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 Rickhardsson in combination with Hömens et al and Bolle et al to facilitate the creation of a closing member that conserves energy as taught by RIckhardsson (Paragraph 0016, lines 1-5; Paragraph 0041, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 19, Hömens et al in combination with Bolle et al teaches a valve flap and a shut-off member coupled to the operating mechanism, and first and second operating elements to move the valve flap and shut-off member between opened and closed positions. These references do not teach a closing member. Rickhardsson teaches a vacuum device with a closing member (4a), coupled to the operating device (3), that can move between opened and closed positions (Paragraph 0031, lines 1-8; Paragraph 0032, lines 1-7; Paragraph 0033, lines 1-6; Fig. 2, elements 4a, 6, 7; Fig. 3, elements 41, 6).
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 Rickhardsson in combination with Hömens et al and Bolle et al to facilitate the creation of a closing member that aids in generating a vacuum as taught by RIckhardsson (Paragraph 0027, lines 5-10; Paragraph 0028, lines 8-12).
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