DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
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.
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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 and having a defined shape with an initial volume (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 an air pressure sensor 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).
Wagner further teaches the suction cup being a bellows (figure 4, element 60 being the ‘suction cup’ and ‘bellows’; paragraph 35) and pressing the bellows against the against a workpiece, so as to form a seal between the bellows and the workpiece (figure 4, element 62 being the ‘workpiece’; paragraph 35). Examiner notes that bellows are known in the art to become compressed when pressed against an object, such that a shape of the bellows becomes deformed and the initial volume of the bellows becomes reduced. Therefore, it is the position of the Examiner that, when the bellows is pressed against the workpiece, a seal is formed between the bellows and the workpiece, and the initial volume of the bellows is reduced, the air pressure within the bellows will increase. This position is supported by the teachings of the Specification, which states that when the volume of the suction device is decreased, the air pressure within the suction device is increased (paragraphs 44 – 55). It is further the position of the Examiner that when the bellows is pressed against the workpiece, as taught by Wagner, and the air pressure within the bellows is increased, the pressure sensor of Tanaka will detect this increased air pressure (paragraphs 36 – 38 and 41), and the controller will turn on the vacuum supply in response to the detected increased air pressure within the bellows above the specified threshold, as taught by 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 mounted on a robot arm (figure 4, element 64 being the ‘robot arm’; paragraph 35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 7 – 9, that Wagner does not teach measuring an air pressure within a suction device. Examiner recognizes this and notes that Tanaka teaches a self-sealing suction device system (abstract), comprising: a suction device (figure 1, element 18 being the ‘suction device’; paragraph 22); and a pressure sensor in communication with the suction device (figure 1, element 8a being the ‘pressure sensor’; paragraph 36). It is the position of the Examiner that 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 an air pressure sensor or an 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights