DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 10/27/2025 and 04/29/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the phrase “vacuum grim mechanisms” appear to be a typographical error, and should likely be corrected to “vacuum grip mechanisms”.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “the capture spaced defined” should likely be corrected to “the capture space defined”.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “during operation of item transport system”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b)
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.
Claims 2-3, 4, and 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “during operation of the item transport mechanism”. The term “item transport mechanism” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites an “item transport system” and “vacuum grip mechanisms”. It is unclear whether the claim refers to the operation of the system as a whole or the individual vacuum grip mechanisms, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “the linear distance has a maximum value”. The term “the linear distance” lacks antecedent basis. While the phrase “a linear distance” is introduced in claim 2, claim 3 is written to depend directly on independent claim 1, which contains no reference to a linear distance. This renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites a capture space defined between an inner plate “below” the flexible tubes and an outer plate “above” the flexible tubes. The terms “above” and “below” are relative terms that lack a frame of reference. Because independent claim 1 does not establish a baselines spatial orientation for the system (e.g., with respect to gravity or a mounting surface), it is completely ambiguous what constitutes “above” and “below”. The system could be mounted sideways or upside-down. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “wherein a length of each flexible tube varies during operation of item transport system”. The term “length” in this context is ambiguous. It is unclear whether “length” refers to the actual, physical material length of the tube itself (which would require the tube to be constructed of an elastically stretchable material) or if it refers toa variable linear distance spanned between the ends of a fixed-length tube as it bends (as described in claim 2). This ambiguity leaves the scope of the claimed flexible tube unclear.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Siemens (DE 9012050).
Regarding claim 1, Siemens discloses an item transport system (Figures 1-4), comprising:
a non-circular continuous transport path (Figure 4 and described in ¶'s [0038] - [0039]);
a plurality of vacuum grip mechanisms (Figure 4, 205 - 209) mounted for movement around the non-circular continuous transport path (Shown in figure 4);
an air path system (Figure 4, 250-255) for providing an air path to each of the vacuum grim mechanisms (Figure 4, 207 - 209) enabling controlled application of vacuum to each of the vacuum grip mechanisms (Shown in figures 1-4. This is further described in ¶'s [0037] - [0039]),
wherein the air path system comprises: a rotatable hub member (Figure 4, 260) having a plurality of hub air paths therethrough (Figure 4 illustrates that the hub has a plurality of air paths 250-255), each hub air path including an opening (Openings shown in figure 4), wherein the non-circular continuous transport path extends around a rotation axis of the rotatable hub member (Shown in figure 4);
a plurality of flexible tubes (Figure 4, 250-255), each flexible tube extending from one of the openings of the rotatable hub member and connected to enable control of one of the vacuum grip mechanisms (Described in ¶'s [0037] - [0039]);
wherein each flexible tube (Figure 4, 250-255) includes a first end that rotates with the rotatable hub member and a second end that moves with the vacuum grip mechanism (Shown in figure 4, and described in ¶'s [0037] - [0039]).
Regarding claim 2, Siemens further discloses wherein, for each flexible tube, a linear distance between the first end and the second end of the flexible tube varies during operation of the item transport mechanism and a shape of a path followed by the flexible tube also varies (Figure 4 illustrates that the linear length of the flexible tubes 250-255 and the shape of the path followed by the tube changes during operation).
Regarding claim 3, Siemens further discloses wherein, for each flexible tube, the linear distance has a maximum value, and an actual length of the flexible tube is at least 1.2 times greater than the maximum value (Figure 4 shows the length of the tubes 250-255).
Regarding claim 7, Siemens further discloses wherein the non-circular continuous transport path comprises a path along which a belt or chain (Figure 4, 200) or other flexible element travels (Figure 4 shows that the conveyor belt 200 travels along a continuous path), wherein each vacuum grip mechanism is connected to a part of the belt or chain or other flexible element for movement therewith (Figure 4 shows that the vacuum grip mechanism 205-209 is connected to the belt).
Regarding claim 10, Siemens further discloses wherein the non-circular continuous transport path comprises a running rail (Figure 4, 200) comprising a plurality of coils (250-255) which are arranged in and sequentially along the running rail (Shown in figure 4), wherein each vacuum grip mechanism is connected to a corresponding conveying element (Shown in figure 4, 245/246) that is mounted for movement along the running rail under control of energization of the coils (Shown in figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, Siemens further discloses wherein: air is moved through the flexible tubes to the rotatable hub member for drawing air through the vacuum grip mechanisms (Described in ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 12, Siemens discloses an item transport system (Figures 1-4), comprising:
a non-circular continuous transport path (Figure 4 and described in ¶'s [0038] - [0039]);
a plurality of vacuum grip mechanisms (Figure 4, 205 - 209) mounted for movement around the non-circular continuous transport path (Shown in figure 4);
an air path system (Figure 4, 250-255) for providing an air path to each of the vacuum grim mechanisms (Figure 4, 207 - 209) enabling controlled application of vacuum to each of the vacuum grip mechanisms (Shown in figures 1-4. This is further described in ¶'s [0037] - [0039]),
wherein the air path system comprises: a rotatable hub member (Figure 4, 260) having a plurality of hub air paths therethrough (Figure 4 illustrates that the hub has a plurality of air paths 250-255), each hub air path including an opening (Openings shown in figure 4), wherein the non-circular continuous transport path extends around a rotation axis of the rotatable hub member (Shown in figure 4);
a plurality of flexible tubes (Figure 4, 250-255), each flexible tube extending from one of the openings of the rotatable hub member and connected to enable control of one of the vacuum grip mechanisms (Described in ¶'s [0037] - [0039]);
wherein a length of each flexible tube varies during operation of item transport system (Shown in figure 4) in which the rotatable hub member rotates and the vacuum grip mechanisms move about the non-circular continuous transport path (Shown in figure 4, and described in ¶'s [0037] - [0039]).
Regarding claim 14, Siemens further discloses wherein: air is moved through the flexible tubes to the rotatable hub member for drawing air through the vacuum grip mechanisms (Described in ¶ [0033]).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siemens in view of Muchalov (WO 2017/024380).
Regarding claim 8, Siemens does not specifically teach wherein the belt or chain or other flexible element traverses about a drive wheel and a further wheel, wherein a linked connection is provided between the drive wheel and the hub member such that rotation of the hub member is synchronized with movement of the belt or chain or other flexible element such that the hub member makes a single rotation for each complete movement of the belt or chain or other flexible element around the path.
Muchalov teaches wherein the belt or chain or other flexible element traverses about a drive wheel (Figure 1, 46) and a further wheel (Figure 1, 2), wherein a linked connection is provided between the drive wheel and the hub member such that rotation of the hub member is synchronized with movement of the belt or chain or other flexible element (Figure 1 shows that the wheel 2 causes the movement of the belt/chain/flexible element 28) such that the hub member makes a single rotation for each complete movement of the belt or chain or other flexible element around the path (Described on page 9, line 22 - page 10, line 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Siemens to incorporate the teachings of Muchalov to include a drive wheel and a further wheel which cooperate to drive the belt/chain/flexible element with the motivation of providing a structure that can provide a reliable and high-torque rotation to the belt as described by Siemens.
Allowable Subject Matter
If the above rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are overcome, claims 4-6, 9, and 13 would be 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights