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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because line 4 is unclear. In particular, "has a scoop and a retention mechanism operably interfacing the scoop" is unclear. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, lines 5-6, "interior of the scope" should read "interior of the scoop”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wong (U.S. Patent No. 20160192811).
Regarding claim 1, Wong teaches a scooping system (Abstract), comprising:
a scoop (3) (Paragraph 0028, lines 4-6; Fig. 1, element 3); and
a retention system (23) comprising a retention rod (6), the retention system (23) being configured to operably interface with the scoop (3) to extend a distal end (5) of the retention rod (6) from a retracted position to an extended position that is within an interior of the scoop (3) (Paragraph 0028, lines 6-9; Fig. 1, elements 3, 5, 6, 23).
Regarding claim 2, Wong teaches the extension of the distal end (5) of the retention rod (6) from the retracted position to the extended position is along a longitudinal axis (A) of the retention rod (6) (Fig. 1, elements 5, 6, A).
Regarding claim 3, Wong teaches a stem (2), wherein the scoop (3) is positioned at a distal end of the stem (2), and wherein the retracted position lies along the stem (2) (Paragraph 0028, lines 4-6; Fig. 1, elements 2, 3).
Regarding claim 4, Wong teaches the stem (2) includes an exposed channel (14) that the retention rod (6) longitudinally reciprocates within (Paragraph 0037, lines 1-7; Fig. 2, elements 2, 14).
Regarding claim 5, Wong teaches the scoop (3) is open at one side with respect to a longitudinal axis (A) of the stem (2) (Paragraph 0030, lines 1-5; Fig. 1, elements 3, 18).
Regarding claim 8, Wong teaches the scoop (3) has a coplanar rim (Fig. 1, element 3; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
501
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Wong teaches when the distal end (5) of the retention rod (6) is at the extended position, the distal end (5) of the retention rod (6) extends more than a quarter of a total length, corresponding to a longitudinal axis of the retention rod (6), of the scoop (3) into the interior of the scoop (18) (Fig. 1, elements 3, 5, 6, 18; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
469
591
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Wong teaches the scoop (3) comprises a cylindrical midsection and a curved proximal section (annotated figure), and
wherein, when the distal end (5) of the retention rod (6) is at the extended position, the retention rod (6) extends across the cylindrical midsection along a longitudinal axis (A) of the retention rod (6) (Fig 1, elements 5, 6, A; Fig. 5, elements 5, 6). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
383
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Sacchi et al (IT MI20081360).
Regarding claim 6, Wong fails to teach a pneumatic cylinder. Sacchi et al teaches a gripping device wherein the retention system further comprises a pneumatic cylinder (61), adjacent to the stem, configured to reciprocate the retention rod (Page 10, paragraphs 7, 11; Fig. 8, element 61; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Sacchi et al in Wong to facilitate the creation of a pneumatic cylinder that can actuate the retention rod as taught by Sacchi et al (Page 10, paragraph 11).
PNG
media_image4.png
429
578
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Wong fails to teach a pneumatic cylinder. Sacchi et al teaches a gripping device wherein the pneumatic cylinder (61) has a base port for extending the distal end of the retention rod to the extension position and a rod port for retracting the distal end of the retention rod to the retracted position (annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Sacchi et al in Wong to facilitate the creation of a pneumatic cylinder that can move the retention rod along the axis of the gripper as taught by Sacchi et al (Page 10, paragraph 11).
PNG
media_image5.png
429
578
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Wong fails to teach a pneumatic cylinder. Sacchi et al teaches a gripping device with a pneumatic cylinder (61), wherein the rack is configured to be reciprocated by the pneumatic cylinder (Page 10, paragraphs 7, 11; Fig. 8, element 61; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Sacchi et al in Wong to facilitate the creation of a pneumatic cylinder that can actuate the rack as taught by Sacchi et al (Page 10, paragraph 11).
PNG
media_image4.png
429
578
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Wong fails to teach a pneumatic cylinder. Sacchi et al teaches a gripping device wherein the pneumatic cylinder (61) has a base port configured to extend the rack and a rod port configured to retract the rack (annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Sacchi et al in Wong to facilitate the creation of a pneumatic cylinder that can move the rack along the axis of the gripper as taught by Sacchi et al (Page 10, paragraph 11).
PNG
media_image5.png
429
578
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Meyers (US 2780183).
Regarding claim 11, Wong discloses the claimed invention except for a wiper. Meyers teaches a scoop with a wiper driveshaft (24) and a wiper blade (9) configured to, under rotational control of the wiper driveshaft (24), wipe an interior surface of the scoop (8) (Column 1, lines 43-48; Column 2, lines 1-4; Fig. 1, elements 8, 9, 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Meyers in Wong to facilitate the creation of a wiper that can dislodge the ice cream from the scoop as taught by Meyers (Column 1, lines 43-48).
Regarding claim 12, Wong discloses the claimed invention except for a wiper blade. Meyers teaches a scoop wherein a longitudinal axis of the retention rod is located further from a rim of the scoop (8) than a rotational axis of the wiper blade (9) (annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Meyers in Wong to facilitate the creation of a rotational axis that allows the wiper to move along the inner surface of the scoop as taught by Meyers (Column 1, lines 43-48).
PNG
media_image6.png
306
386
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Wong fails to teach a wiper driveshaft. Meyers teaches a scoop wherein the wiper driveshaft (24) is configured to turn by a toothed rack (36) that runs orthogonal to the wiper driveshaft (24) and interfaces a pinion (30) of the wiper driveshaft (24) (Column 2, lines 12-20; Fig. 1, elements 24, 30, 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Meyers in Wong to facilitate the creation of a wiper driveshaft that controls the movement of the wiper as taught by Meyers (Column 2, lines 12-15).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Meyers in further view of Panzeri (EP 3333815).
Regarding claim 13, Wong in view of Meyers discloses the claimed invention except for a controller. Panzeri teaches a scoop with a controller configured to control the wiper driveshaft to not turn when the retention rod is at the extended position (Paragraph 0059, lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Panzeri in combination with Wong and Meyers to facilitate the creation of a controller that can drive the movement of the wiper as taught by Panzeri (Paragraph 0059, lines 5-10).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Panzeri (EP 3333815).
Regarding claim 17, Wong discloses the claimed invention except for a controller. Panzeri teaches a scoop with a robotic arm (101) configured to manipulate the scoop (4) and the retention support based on control of a controller (Paragraph 0051, lines 1-5; Paragraph 0059, lines 5-10; Fig. 8, elements 4, 101); and
the controller configured to:
control the robotic arm (101) to maneuver the scoop (4) to collect material into the interior of the scope (4) (Paragraph 0051, lines 1-5; Paragraph 0054, lines Paragraph 0059, lines 5-10);
control the retention system to extend the distal end of the retention rod into the collected material to the extended position (Paragraph 0051, lines 5-15; Paragraph 0052, lines 1-15; Fig. 6, elements 101, 101b, 101c);
control the robotic arm (101) to maneuver the scoop (4), with the distal end of the retention rod extended into the collected material, to be positioned above a serving receptacle (30) (Paragraph 0054, lines 1-7; Fig. 9, elements 101, 4, 30); and
control the retention system to retract the distal end of the retention rod from the collected material to the retracted position (Paragraph 0051, lines 5-15; Paragraph 0052, lines 1-15; Fig. 6, elements 101, 101b, 101c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Panzeri in Wong to facilitate the creation of a controller that can drive and manage the movements of the scoop system as taught by Panzeri (Paragraph 0059, lines 5-10).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Panzeri and in further view of Meyers (US 2780183).
Regarding claim 18, Wong in view of Panzeri discloses the claimed invention except for a wiper. Meyers teaches a scoop with a wiper driveshaft (24) and a wiper blade (9) (Column 1, lines 43-48; Column 2, lines 1-4; Fig. 1, elements 8, 9, 24),
wherein a longitudinal axis of the retention rod is located further from a rim of the scoop (8) than a rotational axis of the wiper blade (9) (annotated figure),
wherein the wiper driveshaft (24) may rotate to cause the wiper blade (9) to wipe an interior surface of the scoop (8) to remove the collected material from the interior of the scoop (8) (Column 2, lines 12-20; Fig. 1, elements 24, 30, 36). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Meyers in combination with Wong and Panzeri to facilitate the creation of a wiper that can move along the inner surface of the scoop to dislodge the ice cream from the scoop as taught by Meyers (Column 1, lines 43-48).
PNG
media_image6.png
306
386
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm.
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
/SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights