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 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 103072822 A) in view of Yanagisawa (US 2020/0103463 A1).
Claim 1: Wang discloses a suction pad that includes a body (4); and a sponge member (1), wherein the body includes a negative pressure chamber (3), and a plurality of communication passages (26) configured to communicate with the negative pressure chamber, and the sponge member includes a plurality of cavities (14) configured to open toward a workpiece and communicate with the negative pressure chamber through the communication passages, a flow passage adjustment valve (22,28) configured to adjust a flow passage area is disposed in each of the communication passages, and when vacuum pressure is generated in the negative pressure chamber and a cavity among the plurality of cavities is not closed by the workpiece, a flow passage area of a communication passage among the communication passages that corresponds to the cavity that is not closed by the workpiece is adjusted to be decreased (as depicted in Fig 4, the flow area is shut off by the ball 22), but Wang fails to disclose that the the suction pad further comprises a pressure detection port configured to detect pressure in at least one cavity among the plurality of cavities.
However, Yanagisawa teaches that it is known in the art to provide a pressure detection port (port which is in communication with 43a-43d) configured to detect pressure in at least one cavity of a suction pick up device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yanagisawa with that of Wang in order to provide pressure detection ports in the sponge member of Wang because its prima facie to combine prior art elements by known methods in order to achieve predictable results (MPEP 2143(B)). In the instant case the predictable result would be the sponge member of Wang including pressure detection port. This modification would have been advantageous because it would provide a means for monitoring the vacuum level in the cavities of Wang.
Claim 2: As addressed above Wang provides a passage through the sponge member, and as modified by Yanagisawa to include the pressure detection port this passage is considered a detection passage.
Claim 5: Yanagisawa further teaches a plurality of pressure detection ports, and a pressure sensor (43a-4d) that is individually connected to each of the plurality of pressure detection ports.
Claim 6: Yanagisawa fails to explicitly teach that the pressure detection port is provided in plurality, and a common pressure sensor is connected to the plurality of pressure detection ports via check valves.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to integrate the pressure detection ports and senors, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983). Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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