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 .
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stannek (US 4,858,974) in view of Curhan et al. (US 11,738,893 B2) and Sugito et al. (US 6,256,868 B1).
Claim 1: Stannek discloses a workpiece installation system, that includes and a pickup device (as depicted in Figure 10 for picking up the workpiece, the pickup device includes a pair of clamping claws (13 of Figure 1) and a holding device (21 of Figure 1), the clamping claws gripping the workpiece from a left side and a right side of the workpiece (33 of Figures 5), the holding device holding the workpiece at a predetermined position to prevent movement of the workpiece when the work piece is gripped by the clamping claws (as depicted in Figures 3-5; Col. 3, Lines 17-48).
While Stannek discloses a portion of the limitations recited in claim 1, Stannek fails to disclose that the workpiece is an elastic clip that is loaded on a tray, and that the holding device is a claw.
However, Curhan et al. teaches a pickup device that includes two sets of claws (130,132 of Figure 4a) wherein one set of claws 132 is used to initially grips a workpiece and lifts the workpiece prior to the other set of claws 130 grips the workpiece (Figures 7A – 11A and 32B-32F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a jaw for the suction device of Stannek because it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known prior art element for another to achieve predictable results (MPEP 2143(B)). In this instant case the predictable results would be that the device of Stannek would be equipped with the clamping jaws 13 and second set of jaws that would lift the workpiece instead of the suction device.
While Stannek as modified above by Curhan et al. discloses a portion of the limitations recited in claim 1, Stannek/Curhan et al. fails to disclose that the workpiece is an elastic clip and that the elastic clip is loaded on a tray.
However, Sugito et al. teaches that it is known in the art to provide workpieces (615 of Figure 1) in trays (69 of Figure 1) and to pick them up and move them using a gripping device (11 of Figure 1)
Therefore, it would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Stannek such that the workpiece was provided on a tray. This modification would have been advantageous because the workpiece would be organized and contained in the tray such that it would be more easily presented to the pickup device.
While Stannek as modified by Curhan et al. and Sugito et al. disclose a portion of the limitations recited in claim 1, Stannek/Curhan et al./Sugito et al. fail to disclose that the workpiece is an elastic clip.
However, this limitation has been treated as merely the intended use of the pickup device. Since the apparatus of Stannek/Curhan et al./Sugito et al. is capable of performing the recited intended use of picking up an elastic clip from a tray, the device of Stannek/Curhan et al./Sugito et al. meets the limitations of the claim. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to an old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 2: Stannek further discloses that the pickup device includes an installation block (12 of Figure 1) formed with an installation slot (slot in which 17 is located) and an elastic member (17 of Figure 2) arranged in the installation slot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L VAUGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5704. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JASON L VAUGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726