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
Claims 7 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species (Inventions II, III, and/or Species B), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 13, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I and Species A (claims 1 – 6) in the reply filed on February 13, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter between Inventions I – III and Species A and B are sufficiently related that a thorough search of any one Invention and Species would necessarily require a search of the remaining Inventions and Species, and there is thus no serious burden on the examiner to examine the entire set of claims together. This is not found persuasive because a prima facie showing of serious burden is different classifications. Such is the case here. The elected claims are classified in B25J 15/0658, while the non-elected claims are classified in B64D 1/22 and B25B 11/005. Having to perform three, non-overlapping searches would indeed be a burden on the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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:
“suction device” 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 “suction device” is being interpreted 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 (“device”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“suction” or ‘configured for suction’).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “suction device” will be interpreted so as to comprise a ‘suction cup,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 24), or an equivalent thereof.
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 6 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 6 recites “wherein the self-sealing suction device is incorporated into a robot arm.” Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards “a self-sealing suction device system.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the claim to positively require the ‘self-sealing suction device system’ to be incorporated into a ‘robotic arm,’ such that the claim is directed towards the combination of the ‘self-sealing suction device system’ and the ‘robotic arm,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘self-sealing suction device system,’ such that the claim is directed only towards the ‘self-sealing suction device system.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to recite functional language of the ‘self-sealing suction device system.’
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) 1 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0333866) in view of Tanaka (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0207808).
As to claim 1, Wagner teaches a self-sealing suction device system (abstract), comprising: a suction device comprising a suction cup (figures 2 and 4, elements 40 and 60 being the ‘suction device’ and ‘suction cup’; paragraphs 32 and 35); a sensor in communication with the section device (paragraphs 38 – 40); a vacuum supply in communication with the suction device (figure 2, element 36 being the ‘vacuum supply’; paragraph 32); a solenoid valve in communication with the suction device and the vacuum supply (figure 2, element 34 being the ‘solenoid valve’; paragraph 32); and a controller programmed to: turn on the vacuum supply responsive to the sensor detecting a specified level of air flow within the suction device, wherein the solenoid valve maintains the air flow within the suction device (figure 7b, elements 1014 – 1018; paragraphs 38 – 39); turn off the vacuum supply responsive to the sensor detecting a specified level of air flow within the suction device, wherein the solenoid valve maintains the air flow within the suction device (figure 7b, elements 1014 – 1018; paragraphs 38 – 39); and maneuver the solenoid valve to equilibrate the suction device with atmospheric pressure (figure 2, element 34; paragraph 32).
However, Wagner teaches that the sensor is an air flow sensor (paragraphs 38 – 40), such that the controller is programmed to detect an air flow in the suction device, rather than an air pressure. Tanaka teaches a self-sealing suction device system (abstract), comprising: a suction device (figure 1, element 18 being the ‘suction device’; paragraph 22); a pressure sensor in communication with the suction device (figure 1, element 8a being the ‘pressure sensor’; paragraph 36); a vacuum supply in communication with the suction device (figure 1, element 8d being the ‘vacuum supply’; paragraph 36); and a controller programmed to: turn on the vacuum supply responsive to the pressure sensor detecting air pressure within the suction device above a specified threshold; and turn off the vacuum supply responsive to the pressure sensor detecting a specified level of negative pressure within the suction device (figure 1, element 8c being the ‘controller’; paragraphs 36 – 38 and 41). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the air flow sensor of Wagner for the pressure sensor of Tanaka, because Wagner and Tanaka teaches that either a pressure or air flow sensor is configured to provide the benefit of detecting air pressure, including negative pressure, or air flow in the suction device so as to determine if the vacuum generated by the vacuum supply in the suction device is sufficient to lift a workpiece (Wagner, paragraphs 38 – 39; Tanaka, paragraphs 36 – 38 and 41).
As to claim 2, Wagner further teaches a second sensor that monitors for negative air flow through the self-sealing suction device system generated by the vacuum supply (paragraphs 38 – 39). Examiner notes that this can be found because Wagner teaches the use of multiple sensors (paragraph 39).
As to claim 3, Wagner further teaches a check valve that prevents backflow of positive air pressure into the self-sealing suction device system when the vacuum supply is turned off (figure 2, element 38 being the ‘chuck valve’; paragraphs 31 – 32).
As to claim 4, Wagner teaches that the solenoid valve isolates the suction device from atmospheric pressure when in a first position and vents the suction device to atmospheric pressure when in a second position (figure 2, element 34; paragraph 32).
As to claim 5, Wagner teaches that the controller maneuvers the solenoid valve to the second position after completion of a task (figure 2, element 34; paragraph 32).
As to claim 6, Wagner teaches that the self-sealing suction device system is configured to be incorporated into a robot arm (paragraphs 6 and 8).
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