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 .
Response to Argument
Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and amended claim 7 such that it is now in independent form whereby they now both recite that “the body part comprises a frame shaped member having an opening, a plurality of through holes provided in the frame-shaped member, and the work is adsorbed onto the body part in conformity to the tree-dimensional shape of the recess or the protrusion provided in the body part by the adsorption part sucking gas through the through holes.”
Claims 4 and 8 cancelled where the limitations from these previously dependent claims are incorporated into claims 1 and 7 while claims 9 and 10 previously dependent on claim 8 are amended to be dependent on claim 1. Claims 31-33 are also cancelled.
Applicant argues that the previous reference used in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Kunio (CN 1 625 909 A) IDS 12/18/2023 with machine translation, fails to disclose the plurality of through holes provided in the frame-shaped member as recited in claims 1 and 7 and, therefore, amended claim 1 is no longer anticipated by Kunio. Moreover, Kunio does not teach or suggest providing through holes, through which the absorption part sucks gas, in the frame shaped member, which precludes that the work is adsorbed onto the body part in conformity to the three-dimensional shape of the recess or the protrusion provided in the body part by the adsorption part sucking gas through the through holes (Applicant arguments/remarks 01/28/2026 pp. 5-6).
Additionally, Engel (DE 20 2006 017 295 U1) IDS 12/18/2023 with machine translation, used as the secondary reference in the rejection of claims 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103, does not teach or suggest that the body part comprises a frame-shaped member having an opening and also fails to disclose to provide through holes in the frame-shaped member (Applicant arguments/remarks 01/28/2026 p. 6).
The examiner counter-argues that the amendments whereby the dependent claims previously rejected under § 103, which are now incorporated into claim 1 and incorporated into the now independent claim 7, do not change the previous rejections under § 103 due to their incorporation from canceled claims into previous claims rejected under § 102(a)(1). While the grounds of rejection are changed (from § 102 to § 103) because of these amendments, the rejections still stand because the examiner considers that they were determined using the broadest reasonable interpretation in relation to the scope of these claims, as before.
In particular, the work holding mechanism (apparatus), under broadest reasonable interpretation, which in independent claims 1 and 7 recites:
“the body part comprises a frame shaped member having an opening, a plurality of through holes provided in the frame-shaped member, and the work is adsorbed onto the body part in conformity to the tree-dimensional shape of the recess or the protrusion provided in the body part by the adsorption part sucking gas through the through holes.”
Is determined by the examiner to be met by the combination of Kunio and Engel as to the structural features as recited above, by providing the limitations of a frame-shaped member (Kunio) and a plurality of through/suction holes (Engel). See below for detailed discussion.
New grounds of rejection are provided as necessitated by these amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities. Note underlined words: Claim 7 recites "the three-dimensional shape of the recess of the protrusion” on line 5. This should be written as "the three-dimensional shape of the recess or the protrusion" to be consistent with this same limitation as recited in claim 1, lines 10-11. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "The work holding mechanism according to claim 4" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because this claim is dependent on cancelled claim 4 and the “frame-shaped member” was previously a limitation of that claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this claim to be dependent on claim 1 where there is an antecedent basis for “the frame-shaped member”
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) 1-3, 5-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunio (CN 1 525 909 A) IDS 12/18/2023 with machine translation in view of Engel (DE 20 2006 017 295 U1) IDS 12/18/2023 with machine translation, both of record.
Regarding Claim 1, Kunio discloses a work holding mechanism for holding a work in a work molding system that molds the work (Figs.1, 2 6 paragraphs [0002] [0058] heat forming mechanism – 30 for preforming the patterned film – 4 to form a formed film – 5, preforming mold – 22), the mechanism comprising:
a body part having a three-dimensional shape comprising at least a recess or a protrusion (Figs 3, 6 paragraph [0058] heating head -32 includes a head base – 36, extrusion portion – 37 which corresponds to the formed part and is in an arc shape or a square shape; heating portion – 38 protrudes from the inner side formed by the extrusion portion- 37); and
an adsorption part for holding the work by adsorbing the work onto the body part in conformity to the three-dimensional shape of the recess or the protrusion provided in the body part (Fig. 3 paragraph [0061] adsorption head – 55 and the film – 5 is adsorbed and formed by the suction of the adsorption pump – 56 where the adsorption head – 55 is formed in a three-dimensional manner corresponding to the three-dimensional shape of the formed film – 5), wherein,
the body part comprises a frame-shaped member having an opening (Fig. 6 paragraph [0058] extrusion portion – 37 corresponds to the formed part is in an arc or square shape and from the figure is a frame-like element).
However, Kunio does not disclose a plurality of through holes are provided in the frame-shaped member and that the work is adsorbed onto the body part in conformity to the three-dimensional shape of the recess or the protrusion in the body part by the adsorption part sucking gas through the through holes.
Engel discloses a work holding mechanism for holding work in a work molding system that molds the work (abs, paragraph [0001] gripping device – 1 for a handling implement of an injection molding machine consisting of a base structure – 2 with suction devices – 4 for receiving films).
Engel further discloses that the body part comprises a plurality of suction holes (Fig. 1 paragraph [0021] gripping device – 1 base body – 2 suction cups – 4) where the work is adsorbed onto the body part in conformity to the three-dimensional shape of the recess or the protrusion provided in the body part by the adsorption part sucking gas through the suction holes
where Engel discloses that there can be a plurality of suction holes as clearly shown cross-sectionally in Fig. 2. This plurality of these suction holes also adsorb the work onto the body part in conformity to the three-dimension shape of the recess or the protrusion in the body part by the adsorption part sucking gas through the through holes (Figs. 1, 2 paragraphs [0022] –[0023]on the top side of the suction cups – 4 there are support surfaces on which the film – 9 rests where a negative pressure is created through the channel of a suction device – 4 where the originally flat film is picked up and pre-formed into a slightly curved shape by the curved shape of the gripping device – 1).
It would have been obvious to have combined Engel with Kunio because it is advantageous to have an adsorption part with a plurality of suction holes (suction cups) which can be through holes, because these can be arranged in such a way that they directly touch the plastic body whereby the influence of vacuum merely means a certain pressure difference that is sufficient to pick up the film and it is easy for the specialist to dimension the vacuum accordingly (paragraph [0012]).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kunio and Engels disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Kunio further discloses that the body part has a configuration in which a base member and an elastic member formed of an elastic material are layered (Fig. 6 paragraph [0058] film demolding device – 35 of the heating head – 32 includes a head base – 36, an extrusion portion – 37 corresponding to the formed part in an arc or a square shape and a heating portion – 38 and an elastic layer – 39), and
the elastic member comes into contact with the work when the work is adsorbed, by the adsorption part, in conformity to the three-dimensional shape of the body part (Fig. 1, 2, 6 elastic layer – 39 independently attached to the surfaces of the head base – 36 and extrusion portion – 37; by pressing the extrusion portion – 37, the elastic layer – 39 is deformed and thickened).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kunio and Engels disclose all the limitations of claim 2 and Kunio further discloses that the elastic material is a silicone resin (Fig. 3, 6 paragraph [0059] elastic layer – 39 can be made of heat-resistant silicone rubber).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kunio and Engels disclose all the limitations of claim 1 (see the § 112(b) rejection above) and Kunio further discloses a holding assist member for assisting holding of the work by the frame-shaped member, the holding assist member being provided inside the opening of the frame-shaped member (Figs. 6(a)-(c) paragraphs [0031] [0063] first pump – 31 evacuates the air, and the patterned film – 4 is vacuum-formed as shown in Fig 6(b) then the cam – 41 rotates to push the extrusion portion – 37 toward the preform die – 22).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kunio and Engel disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Engel further discloses an adsorption part which is a generic gripping device having a plurality of bristles forming a brush like adsorption surface (paragraph [0004]). If the adsorption part (gripping device) is designed in the form of a “brush”, the film is picked up by the gripping device by applying a negative pressure to the suction devices by a targeted vacuum (paragraphs [0005] [0012]).
Regarding Claim 7, Kunio discloses a work holding mechanism for holding a work in a work molding system that molds the work (Figs.1, 2 6 paragraphs [0002] [0058] heat forming mechanism – 30 for preforming the patterned film – 4 to form a formed film – 5, preforming mold – 22), the mechanism comprising:
a body part having a three-dimensional shape comprising at least a recess or a protrusion (Figs 3, 6 paragraph [0058] heating head -32 includes a head base – 36, extrusion portion – 37 which corresponds to the formed part and is in an arc shape or a square shape; heating portion – 38 protrudes from the inner side formed by the extrusion portion- 37); and
an adsorption part for holding the work by adsorbing the work onto the body part in conformity to the three-dimensional shape of the recess or the protrusion provided in the body part (Fig. 3 paragraph [0061] adsorption head – 55 and the film – 5 is adsorbed and formed by the suction of the adsorption pump – 56 where the adsorption head – 55 is formed in a three-dimensional manner corresponding to the three-dimensional shape of the formed film – 5).
However, Kunio does not disclose that the body part comprises a sponge having a plurality of suction holes and that the work is adsorbed onto the body part in conformity to the three-dimensional shape of the recess or the protrusion in the body part by the adsorption part sucking gas through the suction holes.
Engel discloses a work holding mechanism for holding work in a work molding system that molds the work (abs, paragraph [0001] gripping device – 1 for a handling implement of an injection molding machine consisting of a base structure – 2 with suction devices – 4 for receiving films).
Engel further discloses that the body part comprises a plurality of suction holes (Fig. 1 paragraph [0021] gripping device – 1 base body – 2 suction cups – 4) where the work is adsorbed onto the body part in conformity to the three-dimensional shape of the recess or the protrusion provided in the body part by the adsorption part sucking gas through the suction holes
where Engel discloses that there can be a plurality of suction holes as clearly shown cross-sectionally in Fig. 2. This plurality of these suction holes also adsorb the work onto the body part in conformity to the three-dimension shape of the recess or the protrusion in the body part by the adsorption part sucking gas through the suction holes (Figs. 1, 2 paragraphs [0022] –[0023]on the top side of the suction cups – 4 there are support surfaces on which the film – 9 rests where a negative pressure is created through the channel of a suction device – 4 where the originally flat film is picked up and pre-formed into a slightly curved shape by the curved shape of the gripping device – 1).
It would have been obvious to have combined Engel with Kunio because it is advantageous to have an adsorption part with a plurality of suction holes (suction cups) which can be through holes, because these can be arranged in such a way that they directly touch the plastic body whereby the influence of vacuum merely means a certain pressure difference that is sufficient to pick up the film and it is easy for the specialist to dimension the vacuum accordingly (paragraph [0012]).
However, while Engel discloses a plurality of suction holes, Engel does not disclose that the body part comprises a sponge which has a plurality of suction holes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a sponge having a plurality of suction holes, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to use a sponge as a porous material for the purpose of providing a certain elasticity in order not to damage the work being held in the work holding mechanism similar to the bristles of Engel (paragraph [0021]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, the combination of Kunio and Engel disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but do not explicitly disclose that each of the through holes is a slit or that each as a circular shape, an elliptic shape, or a polygonal shape.
However, it is clearly shown in Figs. 1 and 2 of Engel that the suction/through holes (Figs. 1, 2 paragraph [0022] suction cups – 4), are in a circular shape.
Additionally, while it is not shown or otherwise indicated that each of the through holes is a slit, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of a slit to provide more uniformity to the surface of the adsorption part (gripping device) and is advantageous for handleability (paragraph [0012]).
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 WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights