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 21-30,34,37, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Landes (US 20090097956).
Re claim 21, Landes teaches a manipulator for packages 12 with variable geometry ([0012,0020]), said manipulator comprising: a pair of gripping elements 38 movable from an open configuration to a gripping configuration and vice versa, and configured to cooperate with each other to grasp one of said packages (12, figures 1,2), and a plurality of adhesion elements 42 interposed between the pair of gripping elements, each adhesion element of said plurality of adhesion elements 42 mounted on a respective elastic support (not numbered) of elastic supports, the respective elastic support capable of varying an extension of the respective elastic support independently of other elastic supports ([0019], figures 1-5).
Re claim 22, Landes teaches said elastic supports are springs ([0019]).
Re claim 23, Landes teaches plurality of adhesion elements mounted on elastic supports are mounted on a plate (see figures, 24,26, etc.).
Re claim 24, Landes teaches a position of said plate is adjustable with respect to the pair of gripping elements (see figures, [0014,0017-18], etc.).
Re claim 25, Landes teaches said plurality of adhesion elements ((0019]) comprise at least one of: suction cups and magnetic elements.
Re claim 26, Landes teaches each of the pair of gripping elements comprises a plurality of prongs (38,38a,38b).
Re claim 27, Landes teaches each prong of said plurality of prongs of a first gripping element (38,38a,38b, see figures) has an end portion pointing towards a second gripping element (38,38a,38b, see figures).
Re claim 28, Landes teaches the position of each adhesion element 42 of said plurality of adhesion elements on said manipulator is adjustable.
Re claim 29, Landes teaches an apparatus and its inherent process for moving packages 12 with variable geometry ([0012,0020]), the process comprising: providing a manipulator 16 on which a pair of gripping elements 38 is mounted in an open configuration; providing a plurality of adhesion elements 42 interposed between the pair of gripping elements, each adhesion element of said plurality of adhesion elements being mounted on a respective elastic support of a plurality of elastic supports (not numbered, [0019], figures 1-5); adhering said plurality of adhesion elements to said package by adjusting an extension of each of said plurality of elastic supports to adapt said plurality of adhesion elements to the geometry of said package; bringing the pair of gripping elements into a gripping configuration to grasp said package; moving said package by said manipulator from a first point to a second point; and releasing said package.
Re claim 30, Landes teaches the adhering said plurality of adhesion elements to said package comprises approaching said manipulator to said package.
Re claim 34, Landes teaches the releasing said package comprises separating the package from the adhesion elements and returning the gripping elements to said open configuration.
Re claim 37, Landes teaches a package of said packages with variable geometry is a bag containing loose material ([0020]).
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 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landes (US 20090097956).
Re claim 31, Landes teaches adhering said plurality of adhesion elements to said package further comprises lowering said manipulator onto said package adhering said plurality of adhesion elements to said package and the pair of gripping elements are closing. Landes teaches closing the gripping elements before rather than while adhering said plurality of adhesion elements to said package. However, changes in sequence, reversal of parts, etc. are known obvious modifications (MPEP 2144; In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Landes as claimed in order to allow greater variation in handling different objects and use in varied type systems.
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landes (US 20090097956) in view of Moore (US 9,950,907).
Re claims 32,33, Landes teaches the ability for moving said package within a geometric plane, but does not specifically mention doing so. Moore teaches a package gripper (10, figure 1, column 4 lines 23-36) moved in a horizontal geometric plane. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Landes as claimed in order allow various known types of handling movements and to fit in varied spacial limitations and process needs.
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landes (US 20090097956) in view of Ziegler (US 7,273,343).
Re claim 35-36, Landes teaches wherein said plurality of adhesion elements comprise at least one suction cup made to adhere to said package by depressurizing said at least one suction cup, but does not mention a suction circuit. Ziegler (see figures) teaches a manipulator 10 with a suction circuit (conduit 64, vacuum cups 52, vacuum pump) for handling, picking up and dropping off articles 54 along varied paths including curvilinear trajectories. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Landes as claimed in order to allow greater control over gripping, releasing and allow varied movement paths to fit the needs of various shaped & sized environments and facilities.
Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landes (US 20090097956) in view of Christine (US 5,271,208).
Re claims 38-40 , Landes does not mention conveyor belts, containment elements, boxing packages with variable geometry or the manipulator mounted on a carousel. However, Christine does teach a manipulator 14,32 for boxing packages with variable geometry (abstract, figures) on a carousel 12 with pickup / delivery points on a conveyor belt (18,20,22,24) with gripping elements 32 are shaped to couple with said containment elements (not numbered, see figure 2 to left and right of conveyor belt 18) of said conveyor belt. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Landes as claimed in order to be able to handle packages to / from various points including conveyors with containments along paths such as best met by carousels to efficiently interact with varied shaped, laid out and equipped production facilities.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dettman teaches a manipulator with controlled suction gripping and handling using a vacuum pump or venturi vacuum generating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights