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 § 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.
Claims 1, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Polido et al., U.S. 10933537 "Polido '537".
Claim 1 - product handling and transfer: Polido '537 discloses an end-of-arm suction tool 10 for engaging an item, transporting the item to a desired location, and discharging the item by discontinuing vacuum (paras. [0036]-[0039]; arm 8; tool 10; Fig. 11). This teaches a suction head for transferring a product from a supply location to a discharge location.
body mounted to a transfer unit: tool 10 is configured to be mounted to robotic arm 8 and includes fixed housing 14, proximal housing portion 70, connecting rods 74, and distal block 80 (paras. [0022]-[0025]; Figs. 1 and 11). Housing 14 is the recited body, and robotic arm 8 is the transfer unit.
first suction unit, cup, and pipe: each suction cup assembly 20 includes suction tube 30, suction cup 40, and actuator 50 (para. [0026]; Figs. 4 and 8). Suction tube 30 is the first pipe and suction cup 40 is arranged to engage the product.
fluid communication and reduced pressure: vacuum plenum 72 supplies vacuum to suction tube 30; housing 46 conveys vacuum from the interior of tube 30 to bellows 44 of cup 40; and the airflow path is unblocked from bellows 44 through tube 30 (paras. [0025], [0029], and [0030]; plenum 72; tube 30; housing 46; bellows 44). Thus, the cup communicates with suction means through the pipe for reducing pressure at the cup.
longitudinal sliding engagement: actuator tube 52 is fixed between housing portions 70 and 80, while piston 54 is coupled to suction tube 30 and the tube/piston assembly translates longitudinally within actuator tube 52 to extend and retract cup assembly 20 (paras. [0027]-[0028]; Figs. 4 and 8). Accordingly, tube 30 is longitudinally slidably engaged to body 14.
Claim 25: Polido '537 further expressly discloses product handling robot/robotic arm 8 and suction tool 10 mounted to the movable arm (para. [0022]; Fig. 11). The limitations of claim 1 are disclosed for the reasons stated above.
Claim 27 - providing and sliding: Polido '537 provides housing 14 and suction assembly 20 having tube 30 and cup 40 as mapped above. Arm 8 positions tool 10 relative to the product, and contact with the product longitudinally displaces cup assembly 20, piston 54, and tube 30 relative to housing 14 (paras. [0036]-[0037]; components 8, 10, 14, 20, 30, 40, and 54).
Claim 27 - engaging and reducing pressure: bellows 44 contacts and grasps the product while vacuum is transmitted through suction tube 30 to the cup (paras. [0029]-[0030] and [0037]-[0038]). Arm 8 then transports the product to the desired location and discharges it by switching off vacuum (para. [0038]). Polido '537 therefore performs every recited method step.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Polido et al., U.S. 10611580 "Polido '580".
Claim 19 - claim 1 structure: Polido '580 discloses an end-of-arm tool for a robotic arm having a housing, upper and lower manifolds 100 and 200, and longitudinally movable suction cup assemblies 20 (Figs. 1-13; claims 3-7). Each assembly includes a compliant suction cup 70 at the distal end of a lower suction tube/piston rod 44, a piston head 40, and an upper inner suction tube 54 communicating vacuum through rod 44 to cup 70 (Figs. 7-13; actuator tube 34; piston 40; rod 44; tube 54; cup 70). The cup and lower tube translate longitudinally relative to the housing and upper tube to engage and lift an item.
telescopic pipe: claim 5 of Polido '580 expressly recites that the lower suction tube is concentric with and translates relative to an upper suction tube, with vacuum transmitted through both tubes to the suction cup. The relatively translating upper and lower suction tubes are telescopic.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SMC Corporation, EP 3520973.
Claim 50 - suction cup assembly and insert: SMC discloses vacuum pad 10 for suctioning and transporting workpiece W. Vacuum pad 10 includes support member 12, suction cup/bellows 14, and restriction insert 16 positioned inside bellows 14 (para. [0019]; Figs. 1-4).
basket bottom, sides, and open mouth: insert 16 includes cylindrical sleeve portion 34 and flange portion 36 extending from one end of sleeve 34 (para. [0023]; Figs. 2-4). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, flange 36 forms the basket bottom, cylindrical sleeve 34 forms the basket sides, and the open end of axial hole 40 opposite flange 36 forms an open mouth opposite the bottom.
gas permeability: sleeve 34 includes axial hole 40 and side openings 42 and 44, and flange 36 includes through-holes 48 (paras. [0025]-[0027]; Figs. 2-4). Thus, the bottom and sides are gas permeable.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polido '537 in view of SMC.
Claim 9: Polido '537 discloses all limitations of claim 1 for the reasons stated above and discloses suction cup 40 having bellows 44, but does not expressly disclose a gas-permeable insert in the cup.
SMC discloses restriction insert 16 inside suction cup/bellows 14. Insert 16 includes sleeve 34, flange 36, axial opening 40, side openings 42/44, and through-holes 48, making the insert gas permeable (paras. [0019], [0023], and [0025]-[0027]; Figs. 1-4). SMC explains that insert 16 restrains a deformable workpiece from being drawn into the vacuum pad and stabilizes the held workpiece.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to place SMC's perforated insert 16 inside Polido '537's bellows cup 44 to prevent a flexible product from being drawn into or obstructing the vacuum passage and to stabilize the product. This is the application of a known suction-cup insert to a known bellows cup for its established purpose, producing the predictable benefits taught by SMC.
Claims 10, 11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polido '537 in view of Watkiss, U.S. 4717138.
Claim 10: Polido '537 discloses the suction head of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose the claimed automatic blocking valve. Watkiss discloses a suction handling mouthpiece 47, suction cup/boot 58, bellows 10, and passages 42 and 44 connected to a vacuum pump. When the mouthpiece is fully retracted, sealing member 50 engages fixed valve member 14 and blocks fluid communication between the suction cup and pump (abstract; Fig. 3; claim 1). See reasoning to combine below
Claim 11: Watkiss locates sealing member 50 at the rearward/proximal end of generally cylindrical moving tube 48 (Fig. 3). Watkiss claim 5 expressly places the suction cup at one end of the tubular mouthpiece and the sealing means at the other end. Thus, the valve is positioned at a proximal part of the first pipe. See reasoning to combine below
Claim 13: Watkiss's tube 48, guide tube 46, guide rod 54, sealing member 50, and fixed valve member 14 are coaxial and operate by longitudinal movement (Fig. 3). Watkiss therefore teaches an axial valve. See reasoning to combine below
Claim 14: Watkiss's sealing member 50 carried at the proximal end of tube 48 provides the movable seat, while the rounded forward end of fixed valve member 14 provides a plug positioned proximally of the seat (Fig. 3). The expressly optional statement that the pipe end itself may form the seat does not further limit the claim. See reasoning to combine below
Claim 15: Watkiss's tube 48 and sealing member/seat 50 move axially with bellows 10, while valve member/plug 14 remains fixed in base 40 (Fig. 3). Accordingly, the seat is axially movable relative to the plug for opening and closing the valve. See reasoning to combine below
Claims 16 and 17: Watkiss states that sealing member 50 engages valve member 14 when bellows 10 and mouthpiece 47 reach the fully retracted position (abstract; Fig. 3; claim 1). Full retraction is a predetermined proximal position, and proximal movement of the cup/mouthpiece to that position closes the valve. See reasoning to combine below
Claim 18: Watkiss's guide rod 54 is fixed to moving mouthpiece 47 and slides in fixed guide tube 46; rod 54 moves with the mouthpiece between the valve-open extended position and valve-closed retracted position (Fig. 3). Watkiss claim 1 states that the sleeve and mouthpiece are normally biased to the extended position. That bias also biases rod 54 to the open position, while proximal cup movement carries rod 54 and seal 50 to the closed position. See reasoning to combine below
Reason to combine: Watkiss concerns automatically valved suction equipment for controlled material handling and expressly seeks a simple construction and manner of operation. It would have been obvious to incorporate Watkiss's full-retraction axial cutoff into Polido '537's longitudinally retractable suction tube so that a cup reaching its proximal end position automatically blocks vacuum flow. The modification reduces unnecessary vacuum loss and simplifies control, while each component performs the same function taught by Watkiss.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makefield LLC, WO 2016/022714, in view of Robinson et al., U.S. 20190061174.
Claim 12 - Makefield discloses a suction device 100 having vacuum tube 106, suction nib/cup 108, vacuum source 110, valve 112, and positioner/body 114 (paras. [0039], [0070], and [0071]; Fig. 1). Tube 106 is longitudinally movable and may be telescoping (para. [0056]). Valve 112 is positioned between nib 108 and vacuum source 110 and closes the fluid path in a retracted position; Makefield further states that the valve may be located at any place in the fluid path (para. [0049]). Makefield does not expressly provide the common cup with two longitudinally movable vacuum pipes required by the second alternative of claim 1.
Robinson discloses two parallel vacuum paths: pump 12 and hose/pipe 18, and pump 32 and hose/pipe 38. Wyes 54 and 56 combine the paths through common pipe 60 to common suction cup 100 (paras. [0031]-[0033]; Figs. 1, 2, and 4). Robinson explains that the dual paths provide a desired high vacuum airflow (para. [0047]).
Reason to combine and valve location: it would have been obvious to duplicate Makefield's longitudinally movable suction conduit in accordance with Robinson's parallel-path teaching, with both movable conduits connected to the common suction cup, to obtain Robinson's increased vacuum airflow. After the two paths are combined, Makefield's valve 112 would predictably be placed in the common flow path either before the paths divide or after they merge, consistent with Makefield's express teaching that the valve may be located anywhere between the suction source and cup. The resulting valve is upstream or downstream of both second pipes and controls both branches with one valve.
Claims 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polido '580 in view of Peng et al., U.S. 2002/0091300.
Claim 20-23 - Polido '580 discloses the telescopic suction head of claim 19 as mapped above. Each suction assembly includes piston head 40 connected to hollow piston rod/lower suction tube 44 and cup 70. Pneumatic pressure on opposing sides of piston 40 controls extension and retraction. In particular, Polido '580 teaches that pressure above piston 40 resists linear retraction of cup assembly 20 and that the magnitude of the resisting force is selected by the differential pressure across piston 40 (Fig. 19 and accompanying description). Polido '580 does not expressly state that the same suction applied through the telescopic pipe supplies the piston volume to make the resisting force track the suction-induced retraction force.
Peng discloses suction cup 21 attached to movable tube 22 and piston 29 closing the open end of compliant cylinder/volume 27 having closed end 28 (Figs. 5 and 6). Suction line 25 evacuates the volume between piston 29 and end 28. Cup 21, tube 22, and piston 29 move together as a unit, and air flows from cup 21 through tube 22 and through an opening in piston 29 into volume 27 and suction line 25 (Figs. 5 and 6). Peng further teaches that the piston force and cup suction force remain in a fixed ratio determined by their effective areas.
Reason to combine: a person of ordinary skill would have applied Peng's suction-connected piston volume to Polido '580's piston-controlled telescopic suction tube so that the resisting force automatically varies with the applied vacuum, reducing the need for a separately regulated counterpressure. Polido '580 itself teaches that selecting which piston side receives a pressure differential determines whether the cup extends or retracts. It therefore would have been a predictable design choice to place the evacuated volume on the side of piston 40 that produces a distal force opposing suction-induced proximal retraction. The result is a known pressure-area counterforce used for its established purpose.
Claim 21: the modified Polido '580 assembly includes Peng's piston 29 closing fluid volume 27/28, with that volume communicating with the suction source through line 25.
Claim 22: Peng teaches that piston 29 is fixed to or carried with movable tube 22, because cup 21, tube 22, and piston 29 move together as a unit. Applied to Polido '580, the piston is fixed to the movable distal telescopic portion.
Claim 23: Peng's movable tube/piston assembly contains a through-flow opening by which suction passes from cup 21 through tube 22 and piston 29 into volume 27. This opening is the recited aperture communicating the suction means with the fluid volume.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polido '537 in view of Tanaka, U.S. 2013/0025946
Claim 24: Polido '537 discloses the suction head of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose a sensor that measures the weight of the product. Tanaka discloses suction-type robot hand 20 having suction pad/unit 26, hollow shaft 24b, and weight measurement instrument 22 (Fig. 1). Tanaka measures the weight of workpiece W while workpiece W remains held by suction unit 26, thereby avoiding transfer to a separate weighing device and enabling subsequent handling based on the measured weight.
Reason to combine: it would have been obvious to provide Polido '537's robot suction head with Tanaka's weight measurement instrument so that a product can be weighed while held, eliminating a separate weighing operation and permitting the handling system to select a destination or grasping strategy based on weight. This is a predictable use of Tanaka's known in-hand weighing technique in the same type of robot suction tool.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M BENEDIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7824. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00-3:00.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/JUSTIN M. BENEDIK/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JUSTIN M BENEDIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights