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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (Claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 09/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a burdensome search exists between the distinct species of inventions. This is not found persuasive because the technical features between the species are different. The technical features of Species I includes a body having an annular shape modified by a joint projecting from a side of the body, an upper cover releasably coupled to a first surface of the body, a lower cover releasably coupled to a second surface of the body, and a through-hole extending through the body, the upper cover, and the lower cover, the through-hole having a truncated conical shape defined by a base at the second surface of the body and an apex at the first surface of the body; wherein the body comprises a pocket configured to receive an input of gas and an annular channel in fluid communication with the pocket; and wherein the annular channel is in fluid communication with a surface of the through-hole via a gap between the body and the lower cover, which are not present in the invention of Species II and III. The technical features of Species II and III include a carriage, an edge gripper coupled to a first face of the carriage; wherein the edge gripper comprises: an upper body comprising a top face having an access well configured to receive an input of gas, the well being in fluid communication with a gas storage located within an interior core of the upper body, and the gas storage being in fluid communication with a duct extending from the gas storage to a front face of the upper body; a lower body releasably coupled to the upper body at a bottom face opposite the top face, the lower body comprising a conduit having a first opening on a front face corresponding to the front face of the upper body, wherein the conduit extends through the lower body to a second opening adjacent to a rear face of the lower body opposite the front face; a guide attachment releasably coupled to the front face of the upper body, the guide attachment having a plurality of tines projecting downward from a guide body and curving toward a cross member positioned in proximity to the first opening of the conduit in the lower body; and a vent positioned between the front face of the upper body and the guide body of the guide attachment, the vent being in fluid communication with the duct in the upper body, which differs and are not present in the invention of Species I. The technical features of Species III further includes, a finger coupled to the first face of the carriage and wherein the finger comprises a top face having an access well for receiving an input of gas, the well being in fluid communication with a passage within an interior core of the finger, and the passage being in fluid communication with an outlet that can release the gas via a bottom face of the finger, the bottom face being opposite to the top face; and wherein the carriage comprises a first bracket for coupling the edge gripper to the first face of the carriage and a second bracket for coupling the finger to the first face of the carriage, which are absent Species I, and it would not be obvious to include the finger element features with the invention of Species I. Therefore, the different technical features between the species would cause a burdensome search strategy.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/18/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
In Claim 1, line 3, “an upper cover releasably coupled to a first surface of the body”. From the Figures, the upper cover appears to be integral with the body, therefore the upper cover does not seem to be releasably coupled to the body.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation "the interior annular surface" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho (US20140062112A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses an air gripper (100; Figure 5) configured to lift an object, comprising: a body (20) having an annular shape (Figure 3) modified by a joint (projection comprising inlet 14) projecting from a side of the body (20); an upper cover (10) releasably coupled to a first surface (top surface of body 20) of the body (20); a lower cover (30) releasably coupled to a second surface (bottom surface of body 20) of the body (20); and a through-hole (central hole between space 31 and passage 12) extending through the body (20), the upper cover (10), and the lower cover (30), the through-hole having a truncated conical shape (hole 21) defined by a base (bottom portion of hole 21 at the bottom surface of body 20) at the second surface of the body (20) and an apex (top portion of hole 21 at the top surface of body 20) at the first surface of the body (20); wherein the body (20) comprises a pocket (14, 22) configured to receive an input of gas (indicated by arrows) and an annular channel (space between plate 33 and suction pad 30) in fluid communication with the pocket (14, 22); and wherein the annular channel is in fluid communication with a surface of the through-hole via a gap (space indicated by 2 in the suction pad 30) between the body (20) and the lower cover (30).
Regarding claim 6, Cho discloses a spacer (top plate portion of pad 30 acts as a spacer) between the lower cover (plate 33 of pad 30) and the body (20).
Regarding claim 7, Cho discloses wherein the spacer (top plate portion of pad 30 acts as a spacer) has a thickness that defines the gap (space indicated by 2 in the top plate portion of pad 30) between the body (20) and the lower cover (plate 33 of pad 30).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho.
Regarding claims 2-3, Cho discloses the above air gripper and further teaches wherein the truncated conical shape of the through-hole defines an interior annular surface of the body (20; shape of hole 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air gripper of Cho to include wherein the interior annular surface being pitched at an angle in a range of 30-80 degrees from the base to the apex, and/or to include wherein the interior annular surface has a slope at an angle in a range of 40-60 degrees from the base to the apex, in order to improve suction operation of the gripper. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the experimental, optimum, or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Hukelmann (US20120032461A1).
Regarding claim 5, Cho discloses the above air gripper, but fails to teach wherein the lower cover comprises one or more crossbars extending over the through-hole from one side of the lower cover to an opposite side.
Hukelmann teaches a similar air gripper and further teaches wherein the lower cover (16; Figure 1) comprises one or more crossbars (grid 32) extending over the through-hole (2) from one side of the lower cover (16) to an opposite side. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air gripper of Cho to include the lower cover crossbars as taught by Hukelmann in order to reduce noise development during operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the entire combination of elements set forth including for disclosing wherein the pocket is centered between lateral edges of the joint.
Cho is the closest prior art and further teaches wherein the pocket (14, 22) is positioned at least partially within the joint, but fails to teach wherein the pocket is centered between lateral edges of the joint.
Claim 8 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the entire combination of elements set forth including for disclosing wherein a suction for lifting the object is created in the through-hole when the input of gas flows from the pocket through the annular channel, through the gap between the body and the lower cover, and to the interior annular surface of the body.
Cho is the closest prior art and further teaches wherein a suction for lifting the object is created in the through-hole, but fails to teach wherein a suction for lifting the object is created in the through-hole when the input of gas flows from the pocket through the annular channel, through the gap between the body and the lower cover, and to the interior annular surface of the body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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.
/HENRIX SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
