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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 8, 2023 and May 2, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al (US 2022/0314461 A1) in view of JOULIN (US 2021/0331331 A1).
As to claim 1, Song et al discloses a suction pad (200), as illustrated in Figures 1-26, comprising a body (120), and a sponge member (soft grip head 101) (see paragraph [0098]), wherein the sponge member includes a plurality of cavities (113) configured to open toward a workpiece (10) (see Figure 6b), a stopper (115a) having a tubular shape (a first diameter D1 which is substantially same as a width of an inner cross-section of the suction cell 113 – see paragraph [0088]) and attached to the body is disposed in each of the cavities of the sponge member, a suction passage (interior area of the first diameter D1 and second diameter D2 of 115a) formed in the stopper communicates via connecting line (130) with a negative pressure chamber (140) (see paragraphs [0098] and [0102] and Figure 5) formed in the body, and a height of the stopper is set to a dimension that prevents the sponge member from being compressed to a maximum compression amount and allows the sponge member to be compressed until the sponge member exhibits airtightness (see paragraphs [0088] – [0090] and Figure 6B).
However, Song et al discusses that the sponge member is a sponge or a porous structure (see paragraph [0016]), but does not disclose that it is made of a material having a semi-open and semi-closed cell structure.
JOULIN teaches a foam body (1) for a suction gripper head (see paragraph [0039]) having a foam with a cellular structure (with cells that may be closed, semi-open, open . . . ) (see paragraph [0245]).
Thus, the manner of enhancing a particular device (sponge member) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in JOULIN. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art suction pad of Song et al and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that specifying the material of the foam to have a cellular structure (with cells that may be closed, semi-open, open) for the suction pad of Song et al in order to absorb energy while reducing the severity of impact from contacting the workpiece.
With claim 2, Song et al discloses the claimed invention except for the height of the stopper to be about 13 % to 35 % of a length of each of the cavities of the sponge member. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to specify that the height of the stopper is about 13 % to 35 % of a length of each of the cavities of the sponge member, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With claim 3, the stopper has a predetermined elasticity (see paragraph [0089]).
With claim 4, Song et al discloses the stopper having a first diameter (D1) (interpreted to be the inner diameter) and a second diameter (D2) (interpreted to be the outer diameter) (see paragraph [0089]), except for the outer diameter of the stopper to be about 80 % to 90 % of the inner diameter of each of the cavities of the sponge member. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to specify the outer diameter of the stopper to be about 80 % to 90 % of the inner diameter of each of the cavities of the sponge member, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wood, Rosfelder, Linkbom, Claassen, and Wagner are cited as being relevant art, because each prior art discloses a suction pad comprising a body, a sponge member, and a suction passage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 am - 3:30 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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
STEPHEN VU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/STEPHEN A VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights