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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 24, 2024 and June 24, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, the “permanent magnets” as mentioned in claims 1-2 and 14-15 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.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification lacks the proper subject headings per the guidelines stated above. In addition, the reference to claim 1, on page 1, line 2 of the specification should be removed.
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.
Claims 2 and 14-15 are 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 "permanent magnets" (line 10). Claim 14 recites "permanent magnets" (line 19). Claim 15 recite "permanent magnets" (line 9). However, claim 1 has initially introduced “permanent magnets” on line 21. The plural inclusion of "permanent magnets" could lead to confusion as to whether subsequent recitations of "permanent magnets" are one and the same. Applicant can clarify this recitation by providing antecedent basis support with “the permanent magnets” or differentiating the elements (e.g., a "first permanent magnets", a "second permanent magnets", etc.). This would further enhance the clarity of the claims.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulson et al (US 11,542,103).
Paulson et al discloses a device (100), as illustrated in Figures 1-13, for gripping food products (food-grade robotic grippers” – see col. 1, line 7), comprising at least two static, straight guide rods (115) (see col. 17, lines 37-38 and Figure 8A) comprising stainless steel (see col. 3, line 51), which guide rods are fixedly connected to one another and arranged in parallel, a first gripper carriage (121A-1) having a first gripper arm (122A-1) attached thereto (base portion and tip portion – see col. 16, lines 27-28 and Figure 7A), and a second gripper carriage (121A-2) having a second gripper arm (122A-2) attached thereto, wherein the first and second gripper carriages each comprise a non-corrosive material (food-grade materials such as food-grade ABS plastic and/or stainless steel - see col. 16, lines 54-55), and the first and second gripper arms comprise a non-corrosive material (food-grade materials such as food-grade ABS plastic and/or stainless steel - see col. 16, lines 54-55), wherein the first and second gripper carriages are each arranged on the at least two guide rods (see Figure 8B), and wherein at least the first gripper carriage is movable along the at least two guide rods, and a first linear motor (140) (contact-free actuator system – see col. 11, lines 5-6 and Figure 1) comprising a first stator (145) (stator rod – see col. 12, line 11 and Figure 4C), which is fluid-tightly enclosed by a casing (447) (outer cylindrical surface – see col. 12, line 17 and Figure 4A) comprising a non-corrosive material (enclosed within a food-grade material layer (e.g., stainless steel 316) that forms an outer cylindrical surface 447 – see col. 12, lines 16-17), and a first slider (143-1) (actuator unit – see col. 12, line 28 and Figure 2) arranged so as to be movable relative to the first stator, which first slider has a fluid-tight slider tube comprising a non- corrosive material, wherein the first slider is fixedly connected to the first gripper carriage and the first stator is fixedly connected to at least one of the at least two guide rods, for movement of the first gripper carriage along the at least two guide rods by movement of the first slider relative to the first stator. Permanent magnets (446) are arranged in the stator (145), wherein the coils are in to the rotor (see Figure 4A). However, the permanent magnets are not located in the rotor as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to rearrange the permanent magnets to be in the rotor and the coils in the stator, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. This would increase the magnitude of the electromagnetic force to individually move and position the finger structures along the guide rods and to apply a suitable contact force on a targeted food item during transfer processes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-13 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.
Claims 2 and 14-15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pedersen, Paulson, Dalgaard, Weber, and Cawley are cited as being relevant art, because each prior art discloses a gripping device comprising two guide rods and a gripper carriage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 am - 3:30 pm EST.
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.
STEPHEN VU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/STEPHEN A VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights