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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Katsutani (US 20090206216 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Katsutani discloses a suction gripper comprising: a tubular body (see Fig. 3) which comprises a first section delimiting a first cavity in which a first hollow piston (6; see Fig. 3) is slidingly mounted (see Para. 0022), defining with walls of the first cavity, a first chamber (5; see Fig. 3) of variable volume into which a compressed air conduit opens, the first piston being provided opposite the first chamber (see Fig. 4; piston is opposite first chamber), with a tubular extension having a free end section projecting from the first cavity and provided with a suction cup (16; see Fig. 3), the first piston and the tubular extension defining a suction channel (see Fig. 4 for the suction channel leading to the suction cup) having an end which opens into the suction cup (16; see Fig. 3) and an opposite end which slidingly, sealingly receives a rod (8; see Fig. 3-4), the tubular extension comprising at least one first suction orifice (13; see Fig. 3-4) to connect the suction channel to a second chamber (11; see Para. 0025) under negative pressure and the first piston being movably mounted in translation with respect to the rod between a rest position in which the rod blocks the first suction orifice and a gripping position in which the rod is recessed from the first suction orifice (see Para. 0022-0025; Fig. 3-4 for rest position and gripping position).
Regarding claim 2, Katsutani discloses the suction gripper as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first piston (6; see Fig. 3), the tubular extension (see Fig. 3-4) and the rod (8; see Fig. 3-4) are coaxial (see Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 3, Katsutani discloses the suction gripper as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first piston (6; see Fig. 3) is returned to its rest position by a first spring (15; see Para. 0024).
Regarding claim 4, Katsutani discloses the suction gripper as claimed in claim 1, wherein the tubular body (see Fig. 3-4) comprises a compressed air supply channel (P; see Fig. 3-4) having an end opening into the first chamber (5; see Fig. 3-4) and an opposite end opening to the outside of the tubular body (see Fig. 3-4 for the vacuum pump connected to outside of body).
Regarding claim 5, Katsutani discloses the suction gripper as claimed in claim 1, wherein the tubular body (see Fig. 3-4) comprises at least one second suction orifice (18; see Fig. 3-4 and Abstract) having an end opening into the second chamber (11; see Fig. 3-4) and an opposite end opening to the outside of the tubular body (see Fig. 3-4 for opposite end opening to outside of tubular body).
Regarding claim 9, Katsutani discloses a vacuum box (see Para. 0020 for suction device mounted to a support plate) equipped with the grip member according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Katsutani discloses a device for gripping by vacuum (see Fig. 3-4) comprising a box (see Fig. 1) according to claim 9.
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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsutani (US 20090206216 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Katsutani discloses the suction gripper as claimed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the tubular body comprises a second section delimiting a second cavity in which a second piston is mounted, defining with walls of the second cavity, a third chamber and a fourth chamber arranged to be connected respectively to the compressed air source and to the ambient air, the rod being secured to the second piston and defining with said second piston, a delivery channel having an end opening into the suction channel and an opposite end opening into the third chamber, and the second piston being movably mounted in translation between a rest position in which the rod is recessed from the suction orifice of the first piston in the rest position, and a deposition position in which the rod blocks the suction orifice.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second suction cup assembly with all the claimed features. Such modification would constitute merely a duplication of parts to provide an additional suction cup having the same known function. The duplication of the suction cup assembly would have been within the ordinary skill in the art and would not have required more than routine skill and experimentation. See MPEP § 2114.04.VI.
Regarding claim 7, Katsutani discloses the suction gripper as claimed in claim 6, wherein the first piston (6; see Fig. 3-4) and the second piston are coaxial.
Katsutani fails to expressly disclose a second piston.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second piston being coaxial to the first piston. Such modification would constitute merely a duplication of parts to provide an additional piston having the same known function. The duplication of the piston assembly would have been within the ordinary skill in the art and would not have required more than routine skill and experimentation. See MPEP § 2114.04.VI.
Regarding claim 8, Katsutani discloses the suction gripper as claimed in claim 6, wherein the first piston (6; see Fig. 3) is returned to its rest position by a first spring (15; see Para. 0024).
Katsutani fails to expressly disclose wherein the second piston is returned to its rest position by a second spring.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second piston being returned to its rest position by a second spring. Such modification would constitute merely a duplication of parts to provide an additional piston and spring, in communication, having the same known function. The duplication of a piston and spring assembly would have been within the ordinary skill in the art and would not have required more than routine skill and experimentation. See MPEP § 2114.04.VI.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHMAN A QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-6262. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/REHMAN A QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights