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.
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,
In Claim 5, lines 2-3, “the at least one flat suction cup section is connected to at least one flow sensor, at least one pressure sensor and/or at least one valve”.
In Claim 13, lines 2-3, “at least one air pressuring means connected to the air-permeable cavities”.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 8-9, and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of Claims 2, 8, and 9, “the lifting device” should read ---the vacuum lifting device--- for consistency.
In line 2 of Claim 12 and lines 3-4 of Claim 13, “air-permeable cavities” should read ---one or more air-permeable cavities”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“at least one air pressuring means” in line 2 of Claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5 and 9-15 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 5, recites the limitation "the at least one flat suction cup section" in line 2. How does the “at least one flat suction cup section” in line 2 of claim 5 relate to the “at least one three-dimensional suction cup section” in lines 1-2 of claim 1? Are there two different suction cup sections being claimed? Suggestion to change “the at least one flat suction cup section” to read --- the at least one three-dimensional suction cup section---. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9, recites the limitation "the surface cover" in line 4. How does the “surface cover” in line 4 of claim 9 relate to the “at least one flat surface cover” in line 3 of claim 1? Are there two different surface covers being claimed? Suggestion to change “the surface cover” to read --- the at least one flat surface cover---. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10, line 1 recites “a vacuum lifting device” – however line 1 of Claim 1 already set forth “a vacuum lifting device” – therefore it is unclear if the second recitation is meant to refer to the first recitation or introduce an additional vacuum lifting device. For purposes of examination, the second recitation is being interpreted as “the vacuum lifting device”.
Claim 10, line 3 recites “an object” – however line 4 of Claim 1 already set forth an “object” – therefore it is unclear if the second recitation is meant to refer to the first recitation or introduce an additional object. For purposes of examination, the second recitation is being interpreted as “the object”.
Claim 14, line 1 recites “A support element” – however line 2 of Claim 11 already set forth “a support element” – therefore it is unclear if the second recitation is meant to refer to the first recitation or introduce an additional support element. For purposes of examination, the second recitation is being interpreted as “The support element”.
Claim 14, line 1 recites “a vacuum lifting arrangement” – however line 1 of Claim 10 already set forth “a vacuum lifting arrangement” – therefore it is unclear if the second recitation is meant to refer to the first recitation or introduce an additional vacuum lifting arrangement. For purposes of examination, the second recitation is being interpreted as “the vacuum lifting arrangement”.
Claim 15, line 2 recites “a vacuum lifting device” – however line 1 of Claim 1 already set forth “a vacuum lifting device” – therefore it is unclear if the second recitation is meant to refer to the first recitation or introduce an additional vacuum lifting device. For purposes of examination, the second recitation is being interpreted as “the vacuum lifting device”.
Regarding Claim 13, claim limitation “at least one air pressuring means” in line 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
No association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 11-14 are rejected because they are dependents of Claim 10.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Anderson (WO2021163003A1).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a vacuum lifting device (100; Figures 1-6D) comprising at least one three-dimensional suction cup section (130) defining an inner suction volume (126) and at least one flat surface cover (140), wherein the at least one flat surface cover (140) is configured to cover a portion of a surface of a lifted object (160) in a cover area surrounding the at least one three-dimensional suction cup section (130), wherein the at least one flat surface cover (140) extends from an edge of the at least one three-dimensional suction cup section (130) around the at least one three-dimensional suction cup section (130; Figures 1, 6D, and 7)
Regarding claim 2, Anderson discloses wherein the lifting device (100) comprises a plurality of suction cup sections (suction cups 130; Figures 1-2), wherein the plurality of suction cup sections is formed by at least one mat-shaped cover element (flexible membrane 140)
Regarding claim 3, Anderson discloses wherein the at least one flat surface cover (140) is at least partly flexible (¶0037).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson discloses wherein the at least one flat surface cover (140) comprises a flat or a structured surface for covering the surface of the lifted object (160) to be lifted (Figures 6B-6C).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson discloses wherein the at least one flat suction cup section (130) is connected to at least one valve (128; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson discloses wherein the at least one flat surface cover (140) comprises one channel (Figure 1) communicating with the inner suction volume (126), wherein the one channel extends through a portion of the cover area (channel opening for each suction cup 130 extends through the flexible membrane 140).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson discloses wherein the lifting device (100) comprises at least one elongated air-guiding structure (air guiding port and valve 128; Figure 2) communicating with the inner suction volume (126)
Regarding claim 9, Anderson discloses wherein the lifting device (100) comprises a plurality of air-guiding structures (air guiding ports and valves 128; Figure 2), wherein the plurality of air guiding structures are arranged in parallel to each other, or wherein the air guiding structures form at least a part of a frame structure (110) at least sectionally extending vertically to the at least one flat surface cover (140).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson discloses a vacuum lifting arrangement comprising the vacuum lifting device (100) and a support element (162; Figure 6A) comprising a support surface for supporting an object (160) to be lifted.
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(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Wennberg (US20060034968A1).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson discloses the above vacuum lifting device, but fails to teach wherein the inner suction volume is at least partly filled with an air permeable material.
Wennberg teaches a similar vacuum lifting device and further teaches wherein the inner suction volume (inner volume of body 5; Figure 1) is at least partly filled with an air permeable material (17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum lifting device of Anderson to include the air permeable material as taught by Wennberg in order to counteract the lifted object to prevent unwanted deformation of the surface of the object.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Duclos (US20170050393A1).
Regarding claims 11-13, Anderson discloses the above vacuum lifting device, but fails to teach
wherein the support element comprises one or more air-permeable cavities allowing for a passage of air through the support element into the object arranged on the support surface;
wherein the air-permeable cavities are formed by at least one layer of an at least partly air-permeable and/or porous material of the support surface, by one or more grooves in the support surface and/or by one or more through-holes in the support surface of the support element;
at least one air pressuring means connected to the air-permeable cavities and configured for providing pressurized air to the air-permeable cavities.
Duclos teaches a similar vacuum lifting device and further teaches
wherein the support element (50; Figures 12-13) comprises one or more air-permeable cavities (¶0044; vacuum/air blow off outlets; air flow indicated by arrows in Figures 12-13) allowing for a passage of air through the support element (50) into the object (42, 545) arranged on the support surface (top surface of 50);
wherein the air-permeable cavities (¶0044) are formed by at least one layer of an at least partly air-permeable and/or porous material of the support surface (top surface of 50), by one or more through-holes in the support surface of the support element (50);
at least one air pressuring means (¶0044,0068; air pressure source) connected to the air-permeable cavities and configured for providing pressurized air to the air-permeable cavities. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum lifting device of Anderson to include the support element and air pressuring means as taught by Duclos in order to reduce sticking and help release the object from the support element onto the vacuum lifting device.
Regarding claim 14, Anderson discloses the above vacuum lifting device and further teaches a support element (162) for a vacuum lifting arrangement.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Mukherjee (WO2021239954A1).
Regarding claim 15, Anderson discloses a method for lifting a preform element (object 160) using the vacuum lifting device (100) or vacuum lifting arrangement, but fails to teach lifting a preform element forming at least a section of a wind turbine blade.
Mukherjee teaches a similar vacuum lifting device and further teaches lifting a preform element (75; Figures 2-8) forming at least a section of a wind turbine blade (2; Abstract; page 10, lines 4-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum lifting device of Anderson to include lifting a preform element forming a wind turbine blade as taught by Mukherjee in order to arrange preforms with quick and easy handling during manufacturing of the wind turbine blade.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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.
/HENRIX SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
