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, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29 & 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 7,338,102) in view Snodgrass (US 8,523,510).
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.
Interpretative note 2. "Direction parallel" in claim 16, line 27 has been interpreted according to the specification as a direction in which the first and second holders move closer to and farther away from each other.
Interpretative note 3. Claim 23 is interpreted as a method forming such that within an apparatus claim is given not patentable weight.
With respect to claims 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29 & 30, Hayashi discloses a gripping system comprising:
a first finger 27, e.g. holder, and a second finger 28, e.g. holder;
wherein one holder is designed to bear on an article 13 by means of a first surface of a holder holders are holding articles;
wherein a first surface has one first opening 26 and a second surface has one first opening 26,
wherein one holder is designed such that a fluid can be discharged through a first opening 26 as well as a second opening 26 along a first predetermined discharging direction (see "arrows" in FIG. 11A-C; C8/L33-40) in a direction of an article 13 when one holder 27 ( or 28) is holding an article,
wherein first and second holders 27, 28 are arranged on a gripping system in such a way that a first surface of a first holder 27 faces a first surface of a second holder 28, and a gripping system is designed to hold an article 13 (FIG. 10; C8/L15-20;) between a first surface of a first holder and a first surface of a second holder,
wherein a gripping system has an actuator 30 (C8/L11-14), e.g. translational drive, which is designed to change a distance between a first surface of a first holder and a first surface of a second holder, increasing a distance in order to release an article from holders,
wherein one holder 27 (or 28) is configured to move relative to an article along a direction parallel (see interpretative note 2 above) to an article surface;
and a fluid supply unit 2 (FIGS. 4A-4C).
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. Hayashi does not explicitly disclose that a holder is discharging of fluid to set an article down.
Snodgrass discloses an article holder 200 having an opening 206 through which gas, e.g. fluid, is discharged when article 112 is set down at a location identified as 308 in the figures. The operation of Snodgrass' holder is described thusly: "Once the end effector 200 engages the intermediate member 308, positive pressure can be applied to the intermediate member portals 316 and the end effector portals 206 to provide an air cushion to further manipulate or transfer the position of the substrate 112." (C4/L64-C5/L17). Snodgrass teaches that applying fluid from a holder when an article is set down avoids undesirable article movement when the article is flexible. 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 Hayashi to include a holder is discharging of fluid to set an article down, as taught by Snodgrass, to avoid undesirable article movement when the article is flexible during the act of setting down the article.
With respect to claim 17, Hayashi's discharge opening discharge fluid in a direction normal to article 13. It is noted that Hayashi discloses manipulating a round article. Regardless, the point at which article 13 engages a surface of holder 27 faces the surface and air discharging from opening 13 would be normal. (Although not part of this rejection air discharging from Snodgrass' openings 206 is also normal to article 112.)
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view Snodgrass and further in view of Ward (US 8,777,552) which discloses first and second holders are arranged in such a way that one holder 124 can be moved relative to a second holder 126 via respective motors 136, 136 in order to change a distance between a first surface of a first holder and a first surface of second holder. In other words, each holder 124, 126 moves independent of the other because each holder has its own motor 136. 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 Hayashi to include arranging first and second holders in such a way that one holder can move relative to a second holder in order to change a distance between a first surface of a first holder and a first surface of second holder, as taught by Ward, such that one holder can be fixed in position and the other moved toward the fixed holder to accommodate any number of dimensions, and/or geometry of articles being grasped.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view Snodgrass and further in view of Davis (US 2,693,304) which discloses a material holders 21, 23 arranged in such a way that a first surface of a first sheet material holder 21 is oblique with respect to a first surface of a second sheet material holder 23 (FIG. 1) when a first sheet material holder and a second sheet material holder are not holding any sheet material, wherein a gripping system is designed, e.g. flexes, such that a first surface of a first sheet material holder can be aligned parallel to a first surface of a second sheet material holder, counter to a restoring force. 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 Hayashi to provide a sheet material holders are arranged in such a way that the first surface of the first sheet material holder is oblique with respect to the first surface of the second sheet material holder when the first sheet material holder and the second sheet material holder are not holding any sheet material, as taught by Davis, such that gripper material will be compressed prior to deposition at a downstream process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31 & 32 are allowed.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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