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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “… are disclosed,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: multi-axis movement mechanism, article-picking device (Claims 1-8 and 17-19), first gripping mechanism, second gripping mechanism (Claim 2), first gripping member, second gripping member (Claims 1-19), third gripping member, fourth gripping member (Claims 2, 14), and first stabilization member (Claims 5, 13). The term “member” is construed to be a generic placeholder.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 2 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 2 recites the limitation "first gripping mechanism" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the first gripping mechanism should be the first gripping member or something else. From this, construing Claim 2 is not clear.
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) 9-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakasono (JP 2006-62000 A).
Claim 9: a first gripping member having a first face (42) that is positioned opposite a second face of a second gripping member (other 42), wherein the first and second gripping members are adapted to transition from an open configuration to a closed configuration by laterally and linearly sliding toward each other through a common plane (figure 6);
Claim 10: wherein said first and second gripping members linearly sliding toward each other includes one or more of the following: (1) at least one of the first and second gripping members linearly sliding toward the other or (2) both of said first and second gripping members linearly sliding toward each other (figure 6);
Claim 12: wherein the closed configuration is characterized by the first and second gripping members being in common contact with a first article such that at least a portion of the first face is in contact with the first article and at least a portion of the second face is simultaneously in contact with the first article (figure 6).
Claim(s) 9 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lei (US 2020/0290825; Filed: Dec. 3, 2019; Prov. application, filed Mar. 14, 2019; current application, FIG. 8A et seq. with third and fourth gripping members are not disclosed in prov. appl. 62/889,294).
Claim 9: a first gripping member having a first face that is positioned opposite a second face of a second gripping member, wherein the first and second gripping members are adapted to transition from an open configuration to a closed configuration by laterally and linearly sliding toward each other through a common plane (“first grasping blade 310, the second grasping blade 312, the third grasping blade 314, and the fourth grasping blade 420”; “linear displacement”);
Claim 14: a third gripping member having a third face that is positioned opposite a fourth face of a fourth gripping member, wherein the third and fourth gripping members are adapted to transition from an open configuration to a closed configuration by laterally and linearly sliding toward each other through a common plane (“first grasping blade 310, the second grasping blade 312, the third grasping blade 314, and the fourth grasping blade 420”; “linear displacement”; FIG. 7 shows common plane of gripping members with the same profiles/etc.);
Claim 15: one or more sensors operable to facilitate transitioning from the open configuration to the closed configuration (“first position sensor 510 and the third position sensor 514, and the second position sensor 512 and the fourth position sensor 516”; “the gripper 122 can be configured with the orientation sensor 702 proximate to the second grasping blade 312.”; para. [0143]/[0164]);
Claim 16: wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more of a fixed field sensor, a reflective sensor, or a proximity sensor (para. [0143]/[0164]).
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(s) 1, 5, 7-8, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasono in view of Tetsuji Kosen (JP 6-45948 U) (“Tetsuji”). Nakasono discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above; and
Claim 1: a multi-axis movement mechanism (9; para. [0019]) coupled to an article-picking device (11/12) that includes a first gripping member (42) and a second gripping member (other 42)
a storage system that includes a first cartridge (8 for “containing one or more articles”) that is adapted to hold a first article and a plurality of second articles (figure 7), wherein the article-picking device is adapted to retrieve the first article from the first cartridge by utilizing the first gripping member to grasp a wrapping of the first article when the first gripping member is in the closed configuration (figure 6(d) where W picked-up by upper surface wrapping the inside matter of W);
Claim 5: wherein the first gripping member further includes a first stabilization member that extends laterally from the first gripping member and is adapted to stabilize the first article when it is picked (41 aids in stabilizing W);
Claim 7: wherein the wrapping is made from one or more of the following: plastic, cellophane, paper, tissue, or foil (para. [0002], plastic);
Claim 8: wherein the wrapping includes one or more of the following: a covering that covers all the first article, a material that covers only a portion of the first article, or a band (figure 6(d) where W picked-up by upper surface wrapping the inside matter of W is a covering).
Nakasono does not directly show:
Claim 1: a second gripping member spaced apart fewer than two inches in an open configuration and at least one of the first or second gripping members;
Claim 11: wherein the open configuration is characterized by the first and second gripping members being separated by fewer than two inches;
Claim 13: wherein the first gripping member further includes a first stabilization member that extends laterally from the first gripping member and is adapted to stabilize the first article when it is picked.
Tetsuji shows a similar device having:
Claim 1: a second gripping member spaced apart fewer than two inches in an open configuration and at least one of the first or second gripping members (para. [0011], about 0.1 mm < 2 inches);
Claim 11: wherein the open configuration is characterized by the first and second gripping members being separated by fewer than two inches (para. [0011], about 0.1 mm < 2 inches);
Claim 13: wherein the first gripping member further includes a first stabilization member that extends laterally from the first gripping member and is adapted to stabilize the first article when it is picked (body of 11 in figures 7-8 help stabilize first article 10);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of ensuring that the article is properly lifted to reduce the possibility of dropping the article (para. [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakasono as taught by Tetsuji and include Tetsuji’s similar device having:
Claim 1: a second gripping member spaced apart fewer than two inches in an open configuration and at least one of the first or second gripping members;
Claim 11: wherein the open configuration is characterized by the first and second gripping members being separated by fewer than two inches;
Claim 13: wherein the first gripping member further includes a first stabilization member that extends laterally from the first gripping member and is adapted to stabilize the first article when it is picked;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of ensuring that the article is properly lifted to reduce the possibility of dropping the article.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al. (US 2020/0198157; 102(a)(2) date: Aug. 31, 2017) (“Hirata”) in view of Martin et al. (US 2011/0071666) (“Martin”). Hirata discloses:
Claim 17: utilizing a multi-axis movement mechanism (100) to transport an article-picking device (1)
utilizing the article-picking device to retrieve an article (article inside P1 in FIG. 5)
Claim 19: wherein each of the [containers] is adapted to contain a plurality of greeting cards (P1 is adapted to contain a plurality of greeting cards).
Hirata does not directly show:
Claim 17: transport an article-picking device to a storage system that includes a plurality of cartridges, wherein each of the plurality of cartridges is adapted to contain a plurality of articles;
transporting the article to a conveyance system;
Claim 18: wherein utilizing the article-picking device to retrieve an article comprises inserting at least a portion of the article-picking device into an interior portion of the one of the plurality of cartridges;
Claim 19: wherein each of the plurality of cartridges is adapted to contain a plurality of greeting cards.
Martin shows a similar device having:
Claim 17: transport an article-picking device to a storage system that includes a plurality of cartridges, wherein each of the plurality of cartridges is adapted to contain a plurality of articles (230a-230c);
Claim 18: wherein utilizing the article-picking device to retrieve an article comprises inserting at least a portion of the article-picking device into an interior portion of the one of the plurality of cartridges (FIG. 2/etc.);
Claim 19: wherein each of the plurality of cartridges is adapted to contain a plurality of greeting cards (234 of Martin are adapted to being within P1 of Hirata);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the number of storage devices to decrease the cost of providing multiple retrieving devices (para. [0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirata as taught by Martin and include Martin’s similar device having:
Claim 17: transport an article-picking device to a storage system that includes a plurality of cartridges, wherein each of the plurality of cartridges is adapted to contain a plurality of articles;
Claim 18: wherein utilizing the article-picking device to retrieve an article comprises inserting at least a portion of the article-picking device into an interior portion of the one of the plurality of cartridges;
Claim 19: wherein each of the plurality of cartridges is adapted to contain a plurality of greeting cards;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the number of storage devices to decrease the cost of providing multiple retrieving devices.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasono in view of Tetsuji and Stiernagle et al. (US 2016/0325933) (“Stiernagle”). Nakasono discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Nakasono does not directly show:
Claim 3: wherein the storage system comprises a storage unit that includes a plurality of shelves vertically spaced apart from one another, and wherein each of the plurality of shelves is adapted to hold a portion of a plurality of cartridges in addition to the first cartridge;
Claim 4: wherein each of the plurality of shelves is coupled to a cartridge conveyance system, and wherein the cartridge conveyance system comprises a plurality of tracks adapted to transport one or more cartridges to the plurality of shelves.
Stiernagle shows a similar device having:
Claim 3: wherein the storage system comprises a storage unit that includes a plurality of shelves vertically spaced apart from one another (shelves for 230/etc.), and wherein each of the plurality of shelves is adapted to hold a portion of a plurality of cartridges in addition to the first cartridge (230/etc.);
Claim 4: wherein each of the plurality of shelves is coupled to a cartridge conveyance system, and wherein the cartridge conveyance system comprises a plurality of tracks (372/373/etc.) adapted to transport one or more cartridges to the plurality of shelves;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing efficiency by increasing access to multiple storage units (para. [0064]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakasono and Tetsuji as taught by Stiernagle and include Stiernagle’s similar device having:
Claim 3: wherein the storage system comprises a storage unit that includes a plurality of shelves vertically spaced apart from one another, and wherein each of the plurality of shelves is adapted to hold a portion of a plurality of cartridges in addition to the first cartridge;
Claim 4: wherein each of the plurality of shelves is coupled to a cartridge conveyance system, and wherein the cartridge conveyance system comprises a plurality of tracks adapted to transport one or more cartridges to the plurality of shelves;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing efficiency by increasing access to multiple storage units.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasono in view of Tetsuji and Davidson et al. (US 2016/0073584) (“Davidson”). Nakasono discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Nakasono does not directly show:
Claim 6: wherein the system is adapted to retrieve the first article from the first cartridge and transport the article to a conveyance system in ten seconds or fewer.
Davidson shows a similar device having:
Claim 6: wherein the system is adapted to retrieve the first article from the first cartridge and transport the article to a conveyance system in ten seconds or fewer (para. [0048], 6 seconds or less; it is noted that para. [0010] discloses “approximately nine seconds”);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of minimizing damage to the article during conveyance (para. [0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakasono and Tetsuji as taught by Davidson and include Davidson’s similar device having:
Claim 6: wherein the system is adapted to retrieve the first article from the first cartridge and transport the article to a conveyance system in ten seconds or fewer;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of minimizing damage to the article during conveyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,012,293 (“USPN”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application claims are broader than the USPN claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: “wherein the third and fourth faces are spaced apart such that there is a second gap that is not more than two inches between the third and fourth faces when the second gripping mechanism is in an open configuration, but the second gap is closed when the second gripping mechanism is in a closed configuration” is not disclosed in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2019/0299424 discloses gripping members 100 in FIG. 3A-3D.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652