DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 37-68 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the Application and Preliminary Amendment filed on August 13, 2024. Claims 1-36 stand canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed October 22, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language.
Further, the information disclosure statement filed October 22, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
It has been placed in the application file, but not all the information referred to therein has been considered.
Specification/Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “99”. 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. 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 37-68 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 37 recites “when using a vacuum cup with a programmable motion device”. This limitation recites the conditional phrase “when”, and the claim does not appear to set forth any steps involved in “using” a vacuum cup “with a programmable motion device”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with language such “from a vacuum cup with a programmable motion device” is required.
Claim 37 recites “through a vacuum cup”. As the claim previously recites a vacuum cup, to improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “through the vacuum cup” is required.
Claim 37 recites “the each of the plurality of noise mitigating features”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “each of the plurality of noise mitigating features” is recommended.
Appropriate correction is required. Claims 38-47 are also objected to for being dependent on Claim 37.
Claims 40, 51 & 62 each recite “the vacuum cup open outlet”. As the claims do not previously recite an open outlet, to improve clarity, replacement of the limitation with “an open outlet of the vacuum cup” is required.
Further, Claim 62 recites “wherein said noise mitigating features encircle”. As parent Claim 59 recites positioning of the noise mitigating features, to improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with language such as “wherein said noise mitigating features further encircle” or similar is recommended.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 42, 53 & 64 each recite “the open outlet of the vacuum cup”. As the claims do not previously recite an open outlet, to improve clarity, replacement of the limitation with “an open outlet of the vacuum cup” is required.
Claim 48 recites “when using a using a vacuum cup with a programmable motion device”. This limitation recites the conditional phrase “when”, has a typographical/grammatical error, and does not appear to set forth any steps involved in “using” a vacuum cup with a programmable motion device. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with language such “from a vacuum cup with a programmable motion device” is required.
Claim 48 recites “through a vacuum cup”. As the claim previously recites a vacuum cup, to improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “through the vacuum cup” is required.
Claim 48 recites “a contact portion that contacts an object”. As the claim previously recites “an object”, to improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “a contact portion that contacts the object” is required.
Claim 48 recites “the each of the plurality of noise mitigating features”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “each of the plurality of noise mitigating features” is recommended.
Claim 48 recites “the radially extending ribs”. As the claim does not previously recite radially extending ribs, to improve clarity, replacement of the limitation with “radially extending ribs” is required.
Appropriate correction is required. Claims 49-58 are also objected to for being dependent on Claim 48.
Claims 47, 58 & 68 each recite “wherein the vacuum has a vacuum pressure of about 50,000 Pascals below atmospheric”. The specification does not set forth a clear definition of the values encompassed by the term “about”. Further, as a vacuum pressure is previously recited in parent Claims 48 & 59, respectively, to improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “wherein the vacuum pressure is 50,000 Pascals below atmospheric” is required.
Claim 59 recites “when using a using a vacuum cup with a programmable motion device”. This limitation recites the conditional phrase “when”, has a typographical/grammatical error, and does not appear to set forth any steps involved in “using” a vacuum cup with a programmable motion device. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with language such “from a vacuum cup with a programmable motion device” is required.
Claim 59 recites “through a vacuum cup”. As the claim previously recites a vacuum cup, to improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “through the vacuum cup” is required.
Claim 59 recites “an inner surface for contacting an object”. As the claim previously recites “an object”, to improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “an inner surface for contacting the object” is required.
Claim 59 recites “the each of the plurality of noise mitigating features”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “each of the plurality of noise mitigating features” is recommended.
Appropriate correction is required. Claims 60-68 are also objected to for being dependent on Claim 59.
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 37-68 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 37, 48 & 59 each recite “high flow vacuum”, where the term “high” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “high” renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to the flow required to be considered “high”. For purposes of examination, the Office considers “drawing a high flow vacuum” as “drawing a high flow vacuum of at least 100 cubic feet per minute” - as described in [0026] of the instant specification.
Further, Claim 59 recites “the each of the plurality of noise mitigating features being positioned on the outer surface in one or more discontinuous rings of one or more constant radii”; which is unclear. It is unclear what combination of the number of rings and radii the claim encompasses. As a non-limiting example, the limitation encompasses embodiments with one discontinuous ring with one or more constant radii; and embodiments where a plurality of rings have the same radius – is that not the same ring? For purposes of examination, the Office relies on Figure 7 and considers this limitation as “each of the plurality of noise mitigating features being positioned on the outer surface in a plurality of discontinuous rings, wherein each ring of the plurality of discontinuous rings has a constant radius”.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claims 38-47, 49-58 & 60-68 are also rejected for being dependent on Claims 37, 48 & 59, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 37-68 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the respective objections and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action; and, respectively, 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:
Robinson et al. (US 2019/0061174) discloses methods employing a vacuum cup with a programmable motion device with the steps of drawing a vacuum through a vacuum cup and applying the vacuum cup to an object as respectively claimed. The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with at least the step of mitigating noise caused by the non-contact/overhanging portion of the contact surface with the details of providing and positioning a plurality of noise mitigating features as respectively claimed.
Douglas et al. (US 11,241,802) discloses methods employing a vacuum cup with a programmable motion device with the steps of drawing a vacuum through a vacuum cup and applying the vacuum cup to an object as respectively claimed. The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with at least the step of mitigating noise caused by the non-contact/overhanging portion of the contact surface with the details of providing and positioning a plurality of noise mitigating features as respectively claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANURADHA AHUJA whose telephone number is (571)272-3067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/ANURADHA AHUJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights