DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are pending in the present application.
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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/17/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1, 3-10, 12, and 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrase “the size of the cross-sectional area of the flow restriction is similar to the size of the cross-sectional area of one hole of the at least one hole”. This is unclear because the term “similar” has not been defined such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain what is included or excluded by the phrase.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear if the phrase “preferably being attached to the gripper body” is a required due to the term “preferably”. For the purpose of examination, the phrase has been omitted.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what is intended by the phrase “which flow passage is capable of forming a flow restriction upon sealing of the opening and of flow passage”. In particular, the Examiner is unsure what it means to form a flow restriction upon sealing o the openings and of flow passage. However, the Examiner believes that the phrase was intended to read as “which flow passage is capable of forming a flow restriction upon sealing of the openings the flow passage” and has been read as such.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrase “essentially covering”. This is unclear because the term “essentially” has not been defined such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain what is included or excluded by the phrase.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear if the phrase “preferably the foam sheet is attached to the suction area by means of adhesive so as to be replaceable” is required due to the term “preferably”. For the purpose of examination, the phrase has been omitted.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrase “essentially covering”. This is unclear because the term “essentially” has not been defined such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain what is included or excluded by the phrase.
Furthermore, it is unclear if the phrase “preferably the stiffening sheet is attached to the foam sheet by means of adhesive so as to be replaceable” is required due to the term “preferably”. For the purpose of examination, the phrase has been omitted.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear if the phrase “preferably said holes are evenly distributed over the suction area of the primary vacuum chamber” is required due to the term “preferably”. For the purpose of examination, the phrase has been omitted.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear if the phrase “preferably said holes are evenly distributed over the suction area of the secondary internal vacuum chamber” is required due to the term “preferably”. For the purpose of examination, the phrase has been omitted.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear if the phrase “which stacking operation preferable is automated” is required due to the term “preferably”. For the purpose of examination, the term “preferably” has been omitted.
Regarding claims 8 and 12, these claims are rejected for failing to remedy the rejection of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas et al. (US Pat. No. 10,913,165 B1, hereinafter Jonas).
Regarding claim 1, Jonas teaches a vacuum gripper (see Fig. 2-6, vacuum gripper 104; see also Abstract; see also col. 5, line 23 through col. 7, line 17, discussion of vacuum gripper 104) for gripping sheet-formed objects (see Fig. 4, vacuum grippers 180 are along a plane and thus considered able to grip sheet-formed objects), comprising a body (106) having: - an internal primary vacuum chamber (176a); an opening (see Fig. 2, pneumatic suction outlet 160a) for connecting the primary vacuum chamber to a source of vacuum (see Fig. 1 and 2, pneumatic suction outlet 160a for connecting primary vacuum chamber 176a to a vacuum source 110); an opening for connection to a pressure sensor configured to sensing a pressure inside the gripper body (see Fig. 2, opening provided in the gripper body 106 for pressure sensors 138 as shown); a suction area for engaging a sheet-formed object (see Fig. 2, 4, and 6, suction areas 176a-c provided for engaging sheet-formed objects); at least one suction hole provided in the suction area (see Fig. 4 and 6, suction holes 180a-I provided); characterized in that the body additionally comprises a secondary internal vacuum chamber (177c) which stands in fluid communication with the primary vacuum chamber via a flow-restriction (see Fig. 2, col. 5, lines 5-8, and col. 6, lines 29-43, internal vacuum chambers 177a and 177c are in fluid communication with each other via the valves (flow-restrictions) 136a and 136b, which both isolates the pneumatic lines or connects them via the primary pneumatic hose 128), and in that said at least one suction hole is provided in a suction area of the secondary internal vacuum chamber (see Fig. 4, suction hole 180c provide in the suction area of the second internal vacuum chamber 176c), and the opening for connection to a pressure sensor is provided in the secondary internal vacuum chamber (see Fig. 2, each vacuum chamber 176a-c is provide with an opening for a pressure sensor 138a-c).
Jonas fails to specifically teach that the size of the cross-sectional area of the flow restriction is similar to the size of the cross-sectional area of one hole of the at least one hole.
However, Jonas teaches that the flow restriction devices (136a/136b) are utilized to connect the primary pneumatic hose (128) to the at least one hole (180a-c).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that the flow restriction of Jonas has a similar cross section area to the holes. The use of connections and restrictors with similar cross sectional areas to the holes would allow for providing consistent vacuum from the primary pneumatic hose to the suction areas as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Jonas above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Jonas above fails to specifically teach that the size of the cross-sectional area of the flow restriction is equal to, or smaller than the size of the cross- sectional area of one hole of the at least one hole.
However, as described above, Jonas teaches that the flow restriction devices (136a/136b) are utilized to connect the primary pneumatic hose (128) to the at least one hole (180a-c).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for the flow restriction of Jonas to have an equal or smaller cross section area as compared to the cross-sectional area of the holes. The use of connection and restrictors with equal cross sectional area to the holes would allow for providing vacuum from the primary pneumatic hose to the suction area as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Jonas above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Jonas above fails to specifically teach that the source of vacuum is an ejector.
However, Jonas teaches that the source of vacuum is a vacuum pump or any suitable pump able to provide negative pressure at the suction manifold (see col. 3, lines 4-22).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the vacuum gripper of Jonas such that the vacuum pump was an ejector. The use of a ejector as a vacuum pump allows for the creation of vacuum without moving parts as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Jonas above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Jonas teaches that the suction area of the primary vacuum chamber exhibits a multitude of suction holes, said holes are evenly distributed over the suction area of the primary vacuum chamber (see Fig. 6, suction areas 176a/176c have evenly distributed plurality of suction holes as shown).
Regarding claim 10, Jonas above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Jonas teaches that the suction area of the secondary internal vacuum chamber exhibits a multitude of suction holes (see Fig. 6, secondary internal vacuum chamber 176c includes multitude of suction holes 180).
Regarding claim 11, Jonas above teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10.
Jonas above fails to specifically teach that the size of the cross-sectional area of the flow restriction is equal to, or smaller than the size of the cross-sectional area of the smallest hole of the multitude of suction holes distributed over the suction area of the secondary internal vacuum chamber.
However, as described above, Jonas teaches that the flow restriction devices (136a/136b) are utilized to connect the primary pneumatic hose (128) to the at least one holes (180a-c) of the primary and secondary internal vacuum chambers (176a/176c).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for the flow restriction of Jonas to have an equal or smaller cross section area as compared to the cross-sectional area of the suction holes of the secondary internal vacuum chamber. The use of connection and restrictors with equal cross sectional area to the holes would allow for providing vacuum from the primary pneumatic hose to the suction area as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Jonas above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Jonas teaches one or more additional secondary internal vacuum chamber (176b) each of which is connected to the primary vacuum chamber (176a) via a flow-restriction (see Fig. 2, col. 5, lines 5-8, and col. 6, lines 29-43, internal vacuum chambers 177a and 177b are in fluid communication with each other via the valves (flow-restrictions) 136a and 136b, which both isolates the pneumatic lines or connects them via the primary pneumatic hose 128), and each of which exhibits a suction area having at least one suction hole (180h-i).
Jonas fails to specifically teach that the cross-sectional area of the flow restriction corresponds to that of one hole of the at least one hole provided in the respective suction area.
However, as described above, Jonas teaches that the flow restriction devices (136a/136b/136c) are utilized to connect the primary pneumatic hose (128) to the at least one holes (180a-i) of the primary, secondary, and additional internal vacuum chambers (176a/176b/176c).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for the flow restriction cross sectional area of Jonas to correspond to the cross-sectional area of the suction holes of the additional internal vacuum chamber. The use of connection and restrictors with corresponding cross sectional area to the holes would allow for providing vacuum from the primary pneumatic hose to the suction area as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Jonas teaches a method for detecting leakage of surrounding fluid into a vacuum gripper for gripping sheet-formed objects (see Fig. 2-6, vacuum gripper 104; see also Abstract; see also col. 5, line 23 through col. 7, line 17, discussion of vacuum gripper 104 apparatus and methods; see also col. 3, lines 33-47, sensors monitor slippage, considered as leakage of the surrounding fluid into the vacuum gripper), comprising the steps of: engaging a sheet-formed object with a vacuum gripper (see Fig. 4, vacuum grippers 180 are along a plane and thus considered able to grip sheet-formed objects); while the sheet-formed object is engaged with the vacuum gripper, monitoring a pressure in an internal vacuum chamber of the gripper using a pressure sensor connected to said internal vacuum chamber (see Fig. 2, pressure sensors 138a-c; see col. 3, lines 33-47; see also col. 5, lines 23-31, pressure sensors 138a-c monitor pressure within the internal vacuum chambers 176a-c), characterized in that the gripper comprises a primary internal vacuum chamber (176a), and a secondary internal vacuum chamber (176c), which chambers are fluidly connected to each other via a flow-restriction (see Fig. 2, col. 5, lines 5-8, and col. 6, lines 29-43, internal vacuum chambers 177a and 177c are in fluid communication with each other via the valves (flow-restrictions) 136a and 136b, which both isolates the pneumatic lines or connects them via the primary pneumatic hose 128), and in that the pressure which is monitored is the pressure in the secondary internal vacuum chamber (see Fig. 2, secondary internal vacuum chamber 176c monitored by pressure sensor 138c).
Jonas fails to specifically teach comparing the monitored pressure with a pre-determined desired pressure; and, establishing a monitored pressure which is higher than a pre-determined acceptable maximum pressure.
However, as described above, Jonas does teach that sensors are utilized to detect pressure, weight, and slippage (see col. 3, lines 33-47).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method of Jonas such that slippage was determined via the leakage of surrounding fluid into the vacuum gripper which would result in a loss of vacuum (or the monitored pressure being higher than an acceptable maximum) in each internal vacuum chamber during gripping of an object. This is because utilizing vacuum pressure monitoring to determine slippage based on thresholds is well-known in the art of vacuum grippers and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to utilize the pressure sensors of Jonas in a such a way.
Regarding claim 14, Jonas above teaches all of the limitations of claim 13.
Jonas fails to specifically teach that the method is discontinued when a monitored pressure in the secondary internal vacuum of the gripper is established to be higher than the pre-determined acceptable maximum pressure.
However, as described above, Jonas teaches that the method includes monitoring the vacuum gripper for slippage, and wherein the monitoring is used for controlling the vacuum gripper (see col. 3, lines 33-47).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to discontinue the method of Jonas when the monitored pressure in the secondary internal vacuum is higher than the acceptable maximum pressure. This would prevent unnecessary energy waste by turning of the vacuum pump when slippage occurs.
Regarding claim 15, Jonas above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Jonas above fails to specifically teach a use of the gripper of claim 1 in a stacking operation for stacking a number of sheets on top of each other, which stacking operation is automated.
However, Jonas does teach that the gripper is capable of manipulating inventory storage (see col. 2, lines 28-42).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize the device of Jonas in automated stacking or unstacking operations. This would allow for use of the device in a sorting and storage warehouse for inventory monitoring and delivery purposes.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wagner et al. (WO 2017/035466 A1, hereinafter Wagner).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Jonas above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Jonas above fails to teach a compressible foam sheet covering the suction area; wherein said compressible foam sheet exhibits one or more holes corresponding to one or more holes of the suction area of the secondary internal vacuum chamber.
Wagner teaches that it is known to cover the array of ports of a vacuum gripper with a foam ring or pad (see Abstract; see also page 1, para. 5).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Jonas such that a compressible foam sheet covered the suction area holes as suggested by Wagner. This allows for improved suction force as suggested by Wagner (see page 1, para. 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4, 7, and 8, Jonas in view of Wagner above represents the best art of record. However, Jonas in view of Wagner above fails to encompass all of the limitations of dependent claims 4, 7, and 8 as best understood.
Specifically, Jonas in view of Wagner above fails to critically teach a flow passage which stands in fluid communication with the secondary internal vacuum chamber and with the primary vacuum chamber, said flow passage having two openings provided in the surface of the suction areas respectively, which flow passage is capable of forming a flow restriction upon sealing of the openings the flow passage (claim 4); additionally comprising a stiffening sheet, essentially covering the foam sheet, exhibiting one or more holes corresponding to holes of the suction area of the secondary internal vacuum chamber (claim 7); OR wherein the porous foam sheet exhibits an adhesive non-permeable backing for covering and sealing off desired suction holes and/or an opening (claim 8).
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in dependent claims 4, 7, and 8 and the examiner can find no teachings for a vacuum gripper as particularly claimed and including the above limitations, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Patrick Assouad can be reached at (571) 272-2210. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights