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 .
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, 4, 7, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunkmann et al (EP 2926956).
Regarding claim 1, Dunkmann et al teaches a gripping device comprising (Abstract):
a coupler (20) configured to physically couple to a device moving member (10) (Page 4, paragraph 11; Page 5, paragraph 1; Fig. 1, elements 10, 28);
a first movable member (38) having a first object-facing surface (14) (Page 5, paragraph 2; Fig. 2, elements 14 38; Fig. 3, element 14);
a first actuator for actuating the first movable member (38) between a retracted position and an extended position (Page 4, paragraphs 1, 3; Page 5, paragraph 5); and
a first plurality of pins (34) fixed on the first object-facing surface (14) of the first movable member (38), each of the first plurality of pins (34) comprising an end configured to penetrate a surface of a gripped object when the first movable member (38) is in the extended position (Page 5, paragraph 5; Fig. 2, elements 14, 34, 38).
Regarding claim 2, Dunkmann et al teaches a second movable member (38) having a second object-facing surface (14) and a second plurality of pins (34) fixed on the second object-facing surface (14) of the second movable member (38), each of the second plurality of pins (34) comprising an end configured to penetrate a surface of the gripped object when the second movable member (38) is extended (Page 5, paragraphs 2, 5; Fig. 2, elements 34, 38; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
364
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Dunkmann et al teaches the first plurality of pins (34) and the second plurality of pins (34) are configured to penetrate the gripped object in different directions (Page 4, paragraph 1; Fig. 2, element 34).
Regarding claim 7, Dunkmann et al teaches one or more suction members (24) configured to apply a vacuum suction force to the gripped object (Page 4, paragraphs 9, 10; Page 6, paragraph 1; Fig. 3, element 24).
Regarding claim 9, Dunkmann et al teaches the first plurality of pins (34) is tilted relative to a direction not perpendicular to the first object-facing surface (14) of the first movable member (38) (Page 4, paragraph 1; Fig. 2, elements 14, 34, 38).
Regarding claim 11, Dunkmann et al teaches a body having a gripping surface (14) with a plurality of holes (36) thereon, and wherein each of the first plurality of pins (34) is configured to pass through a corresponding hole of the plurality of holes (36) when the first movable member (38) is in the extended position (Page 5, paragraph 5; Fig. 3, elements 14, 34, 36, 38).
Claim(s) 14, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (KR 20220120210).
Regarding claim 14, Lee et al teaches a method to grip an object using a gripping device, the method comprising:
moving a coupler (130) of the gripping device near the object to be gripped (Page 8, paragraph 6);
extending, using a first actuator (30), a first movable member (M1) of the gripping device from a retracted position to an extended position (Page 3, paragraph 9; Page 5, paragraph 9; Fig. 2, element M1; Fig. 3, element 30);
and penetrating, as the first movable member (M1) moves to the extended position, a surface of the object with ends of a first plurality of pins (40) fixed on a first object-facing surface (10) of the first movable member (M1) (Page 9, paragraphs 4-6; Fig. 3, elements 10, 40).
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al teaches moving, after penetrating the surface of the gripped object, the object to a target location by moving the gripping device with the coupler (130) (Page 9, paragraphs 3-5, 9-10).
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al teaches retracting, after moving the object to the target location, the first movable member (M1) from the extended position to the retracted position, the gripped object being released by the retracting of the first movable member (M1) from the extended position to the retracted position (Page 9, paragraphs 7, 9-10).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkmann et al in view of Saadat (DE 102013010437).
Regarding claim 3, Dunkmann et al fails to teach a change in angle between the first and second moving members. Saadat teaches a needle gripping device wherein the first movable member (11a) and the second movable member (11b) are coupled via a hinge (10), and an angle between the first movable member (11a) and the second movable member (11b) is adjustable via the hinge (10) (Page 4, paragraph 5; Fig. 7, elements 10, 11a, 11b).
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 Saadat in Dunkmann et al to facilitate the creation of a hinge that allows the moving members that can adjust to the required distance for each task as taught by Saadat (Page 2, paragraph 10; Page 3, paragraph 1).
Claim(s) 5, 10, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkmann.
Regarding claim 5, Dunkmann et al teaches that the gripped object is made of limp and/or layered materials (Page 1, paragraph 3). Dunkmann et al fails to teach a gripped object made of cardboard.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a gripped object using carboard since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 10, Dunkmann et al teaches each of the first plurality of pins (34) has an elongated portion and a leading portion having a sloped side surface (Page 4, paragraph 1; Fig. 2, element 34; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below. Dunkmann et al fails to teach the dimensions of the pin.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create a pin with a diameter between 0.1 mm and 12.5 mm, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to create a needle with these dimensions on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
PNG
media_image2.png
559
880
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Dunkmann et al teaches in the extended position, the first plurality of pins (34) protrudes from the gripping surface (14) of the body in a pre-determined length (Page 4, paragraph 1; Fig. 2, elements 14, 34). Dunkmann et al fails to teach the measurement of the length.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create a pin with a predetermined length between 0.1 mm and 25 mm, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to create a needle with these dimensions on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 13, Dunkmann et al teaches a plurality of pins (Page 4, paragraph 1; Fig. 2, element 34). Dunkmann et al fails to teach a hollow pin.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to create a hollow needle since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkmann et al in view of Batzar et al (WO 9912662).
Regarding claim 6, Dunkmann et al fails to teach arranging the pins in the form of an image. Batzar et al teaches an engraving device wherein the first plurality of pins (48) is deployed in a pattern representing an image, a logo, a text, and/or identifiable information (Page 8, paragraph 1; Fig. 8, element 48).
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 Batzar et al in Dunkmann et al to facilitate the creation of an arrangement of pins that can leave an imprint on objects with curved surfaces as taught by Batzar et al (Page 4, paragraph 4).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkmann et al in view of Lee et al (KR 20220120210).
Regarding claim 8, Dunkmann et al fails to teach an upper and lower plate for the first movable member. Lee et al teaches a needle gripping device wherein the first movable member (M1) comprises an upper plate (130) and a lower plate (110), the lower plate (110) coupled to the upper plate (130), at least one of the upper plate (130) and the lower plate (110) having one or more grooves (55) where a wide head of each of the first plurality of pins (40) is deployed (Page 2, paragraph 11; Page 3, paragraph 3, 7; Fig. 2, elements M1, 110, 130; Fig. 5, elements 40, 55).
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 Lee et al in Dunkin et al to facilitate the creation of grooves that hold the tip of the needle at a constant level as taught by Lee et al (Page 9, paragraph 3).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al in view of Batzar et al (WO 9912662).
Regarding claim 17, Lee et al fails to teach arranging the pins in the form of an image. Batzar et al teaches an engraving device wherein the first plurality of pins (48) is deployed in a pattern representing an image, a logo, a text, and/or identifiable information (Page 8, paragraph 1; Fig. 8, element 48).
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 Batzar et al in Dunkmann et al to facilitate the creation of an arrangement of pins that can leave an imprint on objects without damaging the surface of the object as taught by Batzar et al (Page 8, paragraph 1).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al in view of Dunkmann et al (EP 2926956).
Regarding claim 18, Lee et al fails to teach a vacuum suction device. Dunkmann et al teaches a method of using a gripping device which includes applying a vacuum suction force on the surface of the object with a suction member (24) (Page 4, paragraphs 9, 10; Page 6, paragraph 1; Fig. 3, element 24).
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 Dunkmann et al in Lee et al to facilitate the creation of a suction device that can prevent the gripped object from slipping when being transported as taught by Dunkmann et al (Page 2, paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 19, Lee et al fails to teach an oblique arrangement of pins. Dunkmann et al teaches a method of using a needle gripping device which includes a step of penetrating the surface of the object comprises obliquely thrusting the first plurality of pins (34) into the surface of the object (Page 4, paragraph 1; Page 5, paragraph 5; Fig. 2, element 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Dunkmann et al in Lee et al to facilitate the creation of an oblique arrangement of pins that can prevent the gripped object from slipping when being transported as taught by Dunkmann et al (Page 4, paragraph 1).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al in view of Saadat (DE 102013010437).
Regarding claim 20, Dunkmann et al fails to teach a change in angle between the first and second moving members. Saadat teaches a method of using a needle gripping device that includes adjusting, before a step of extending the first movable member (11a), an angle between the first movable member (11a) and a second movable member (11b) having a second plurality of pins (1) fixed on a second object-facing surface of the second movable member (11b), wherein the second movable member (11b) is connected to the first movable member (11a) (Page 4, paragraph 5; Fig. 7, elements 1, 10, 11a, 11b).
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 Saadat in Dunkmann et al to facilitate the creation of a moving members that can adjust to the required distance for each task as taught by Saadat (Page 2, paragraph 10; Page 3, paragraph 1).
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 7:00am to 4:30pm.
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, RGENE CRAWFORD can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights