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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 25, 28, 29 & 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward (US 8,777,552) in view of Hayashi (US 7,338,102) and Willi (DE 199 59 408) (English translation attached with copy of reference) and
Interpretative note 1. Applicant is respectfully reminded that the material or article worked upon by the apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. In other words, the type of article contributes no novelty because any article that can be placed between placing first and second holders will function identically in the claimed apparatus. The term article has been substituted for "value documents" for readability in the rejection below.
With respect to claims 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 25, 28, 29 & 30, Ward discloses a gripping system comprising:
a first finger 124, e.g. holder, and a second finger 126, e.g. holder;
wherein one holder is designed to bear on an article B1 by means of a first surface of one holder when one holder is holding an article,
wherein first and second holders are arranged on a gripping system in such a way that a first surface of a first holder faces a first surface of a second holder, and a gripping system is designed to hold an article between respective first surfaces,
wherein a gripping system has a translational drive 136, 136, which are designed to move a first holder 124 relative to a second holder 126 along a predetermined axis (direction parallel to element #128 in FIG. 4) in order to change a distance between respective first surfaces, increasing a distance in order to release value documents from a value document holders,
wherein, in releasing value documents from a value document holder, a value document holder is configured to move relative to value documents in a direction substantially normal to a predetermined axis.
Ward does not disclose a first surface that has one first opening, wherein one value document holder is designed such that a fluid can be discharged through a first opening along a first predetermined discharging direction in a direction of value documents when one value document holder is holding value documents, and does not disclose that in releasing an article from a holder during a discharging of a fluid.
With respect to a first opening on a first holder Hayashi discloses-
a first holder 27 and a second holder 28;
wherein one holder is designed to bear on an article 13 by means of a first surface of one holder when one holder is holding an article,
wherein a first surface has one first opening 26,
wherein one value document holder is designed such that a fluid can be discharged through a first opening along a first predetermined discharging direction that is normal to an article, e.g ejected against a vertical face of an article when one an article is holding value documents.
Hayashi discloses an article that move parallel to an article surface while discharging air, e.g. fluid, from a holder 27 (or 28). Hayashi also appears to disclose the intended use of discharging fluid during article set down insomuch as Hayashi's holder discharge art from openings 26 when "the target object 13 is fed forward." C9/L1-7) The act of feeding forward in interpreted as releasing article 13 from holders 27, 28. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Ward to include a first holder having a fist surface, wherein a first surface has a first opening from which fluid is discharged, as taught by Hayashi, to execute fine work such as attitude control while properly grasping even a minute target object.
And, Willi discloses a holder 9 that includes first openings 20 wherein during release of an article from holder 9 fluid, e.g. air, is discharged from openings 20 to "reduce the friction during" releasing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Ward to include releasing an article from a holder during fluid discharge, as taught by Willi, to reduce friction between the holder and the article during placement for improved accuracy in the position of article placement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31 & 32 are allowed. Claims 20-22 & 27 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to previously rejected claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-5pm.
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.
/GREGORY W ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights