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 § 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.
Claims 1 - 10 are 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.
Regarding claims 1 - 4 and 7 - 10, the phrase "sheet-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 5 and 6 are also rejected due to their dependency to claim 4.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner, III (US 2014/0287641) in view of Kim et al (WO 2018/129272).
With regards to claims 1, 11 and 12, Steiner discloses a method of handling an aerogel sheet by way of a frame (paragraphs 129 and 130). Steiner fails to explicitly disclose that the aerogel sheet is handled by an electroadhesive gripper assembly.
Kim discloses an apparatus for manipulating an object (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Steiner, comprising an electroadhesive gripper (paragraph 30), the method of operating comprises:
Moving the electroadhesive gripper assembly so as to position the contact facing alongside the substrate at a separation distance from the aerogel sheet (paragraph 80 and 81)
Activating the electroadhesive gripper assembly so as to introduce electrostatic forces that holds the substrate alongside the contact facing (paragraph 82)
Moving the electroadhesive gripper assembly together with the substrate so as to position it on another substrate (paragraph 82)
Deactivating the electroadhesive gripper assembly to reduce or eliminate the electrostatic forces (paragraph 82)
Moving the electroadhesive gripper assembly so as to separate the contact facing from the substrate and leave it on the other substrate (paragraph 82)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Kim’s electroadhesive gripper assembly and method of operation in Steiner’s method. The rationale being that, as stated by Kim, it provides a method of handling objects of different brittleness with high precision and less complicated controls (paragraphs 3 and 4).
With regards to claims 2 and 14, the teachings of Steiner, III and Kim are presented above. Additionally, Kim teaches that the contact facing comprises a material having a compression modulus that is equal to or lower than a compression modulus of the aerogel sheet (paragraph 34).
With regards to claims 3 and 15, the teachings of Steiner, III and Kim are presented above. Additionally, Kim teaches that the contact facing comprises a material having a hardness that is equal to or lower than a hardness of the aerogel sheet (paragraph 34).
With regards to claim 4 and 16, the teachings of Steiner, III and Kim are presented above. Additionally, Kim and Steiner teaches that the contact facing comprises a first aerogel material and the aerogel sheet comprises a second aerogel material (Kim: paragraph 40, claim 9; Steiner, III: Abstract, paragraph 48).
With regards to claims 5, 6, 17 and 18, the teachings of Steiner, III and Kim are presented above. Additionally, Kim and Steiner teaches that the first aerogel material and the second aerogel material can either have the same composition as well as different compositions such that the first aerogel material is softer than the second aerogel material (Kim: paragraph 40, claim 9; Steiner, III: Abstract, paragraph 48).
With regards to claim 7 and 19, the teachings of Steiner, III and Kim are presented above. Additionally, Kim teaches that the contact facing is a sheet contact facing (paragraph 30).
With regards to claims 8 and 20, the teachings of Steiner, III and Kim are presented above. Additionally, Kim teaches that moving the electroadhesive assembly so as to position the contact facing alongside the aerogel sheet results in the contact facing contacting an entirety of a top surface of the aerogel surface (paragraph 82).
With regards to claim 9, the teachings of Steiner, III and Kim are presented above. Additionally, Kim teaches that moving the electroadhesive gripper assembly together with the aerogel sheet so as to position the aerogel sheet on the substrate includes pressing the aerogel sheet forcibly against the substrate (paragraph 81).
With regards to claim 10, the teachings of Steiner, III and Kim are presented above. Additionally, Kim teaches that moving the electroadhesive gripper assembly together with the aerogel sheet so as to position the aerogel sheet on the substrate includes pressing the aerogel sheet forcibly against the substrate with a pressure in the range of 0.1 kPa to 100 kPa (paragraph 81).
With regards to claim 13, the teachings of Steiner, III and Kim are presented above. Additionally, Kim teaches that the separation distance between 0.5 mm and 5 mm (as seen in Figures 9A – 9D).
With regards to claim 21, the teachings of Steiner, III and Kim are presented above. Additionally, Kim teaches that positioning the electroadhesive gripper assembly to provide the contact facing at the separation distance includes holding the contact facing stationary from some time such that the activating the electrostatic gripper assembly so as to introduce electrostatic forces that move the aerogel sheet toward the contact facing includes the aerogel sheet moving relative to the contact facing so as to traverse the serration distance (as seen in Figures 9A- 9D).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHEL RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)270-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/JOSHEL RIVERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746