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 § 112
Claim(s) 7 is/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 7 recites the limitation "the pulling device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, recites “a pulling member”, but does not recite “a pulling device”. Therefore, it is unclear whether “the pulling device” is intended to refer to the previously recited “pulling member” or to a different element.
For examination purposes, the “pulling device” is interpreted as referring to the “pulling member” recited in claim 1.
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) 1-2, 4-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Ogawa (JP 2019214435 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ogawa disclose a holding device comprising: a spatula (45; see Fig. 5) member having a front surface (see Fig. 5 for front surface of support member ‘45’) that is a surface that supports an object, a back surface (see Fig. 5 for back surface of support member ‘45’), and a tip (45T; see Fig. 5) located between the front surface and the back surface; a mobile device (15; see Fig. 5) that causes the tip to relatively approach the object; a belt (47; see Fig. 5) having one end and another end and covering the front surface, the back surface, and the tip (see Fig. 5 for belt covering front surface, back surface and tip); a belt connection part (33; see Fig. 5) connected to the one end; and a pulling member (33 and 35; see Fig. 5) that is connected to the other end and pulls a portion of the belt covering the back surface in a direction away from the tip (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Ogawa discloses the holding device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pulling member (33 and 35; see Fig. 5) includes a driven roller around which a part of the belt including the other end is wound to be freely wound and fed out (see Page 3, Para. 5-7).
Regarding claim 4, Ogawa discloses the holding device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the mobile device (15; see Fig. 5) includes a linear motion device (23; see Fig. 5) that moves the spatula member with respect to the belt connection part.
Regarding claim 5, Ogawa discloses the holding device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the mobile device (15; see Fig. 5) includes a robot arm that integrally moves the spatula member, the belt, the belt connection part, and the pulling member (see Page 2, Para. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Ogawa discloses the holding device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the belt connection part includes a driving roller (33 and 35; see Fig. 5) around which the part of the belt including the one end is wound to be freely wound and fed out, and a motor (M1; see Abstract) that rotates the driving roller.
Regarding claim 7, Ogawa discloses the holding device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pulling device is configured in which, after the object comes into contact with the belt, a relative speed of a portion of the belt, that is in contact with the object, to the object becomes zero (see Page 4, Para. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Ogawa discloses the holding device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: an object detection sensor (17; see Fig. 1) that detects a position of the object; and a controller (22; see Fig. 2) that controls at least one of the mobile device and the belt connection part based on a detection result of the object detection sensor (see Page 4, Para. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Ogawa discloses a method for a holding device comprising: causing a spatula member having a front surface that is a surface that supports an object, a back surface, and a tip located between the front surface and the back surface to relatively approach the object (see Fig. 5 for spatula member approaching an object); causing a belt having one end connected to a belt connection part and another end connected to a pulling member and covering the front surface, the back surface, and the tip to come into contact with the object (see Fig. 5); pulling, with the pulling member, a portion of the belt covering the back surface in a direction away from the tip (see Fig. 5 for belt able to move in any direction); wrapping the portion of the belt covering the back surface around a position covering the front surface; and supporting the object with the spatula member (see Fig. 5 for belt covering all position around spatula member).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Furukawa (JP 2007307631 A).
Regarding claim 9, Furukawa discloses a holding device comprising: a first spatula member (3; see Fig. 1) having a first front surface that is a surface that supports an object (3b; see Fig. 3), a first back surface (3d; see Fig. 3), and a first tip (3a; see Fig. 3) located between the first front surface and the first back surface (see Fig. 3); a first belt 4; see Fig. 3) having one end and another end and covering the first front surface, the first back surface, and the first tip (see Fig. 3); a first belt connection part (N; see Fig. 3) connected to the one end of the first belt; a first pulling member (P; see Fig. 3) that is connected to the other end of the first belt and pulls a portion of the first belt covering the first back surface in a direction away from the first tip (see Fig. 3); a second spatula member (3; see Fig. 3) having a second front surface that is a surface that supports the object (3b; see Fig. 3), a second back surface (3d; see Fig. 3), and a second tip (3a; see Fig. 3) located between the second front surface and the second back surface (see Fig. 3); a second belt (4; see Fig. 3) having one end and another end and covering the second front surface, the second back surface, and the second tip (see Fig. 3); a second belt connection (N; see Fig. 3) part connected to the one end of the second belt; a second pulling member (P; see Fig. 3) that is connected to the other end of the second belt and pulls a portion of the second belt covering the second back surface in a direction away from the second tip (see Fig. 3); and a mobile device (1; see Fig. 3) that causes the first tip and the second tip to relatively approach the object (see Fig. 3 for first tip and second tip approaching object; see Page 4, Para. 5 for advancing/retracting mechanism).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (JP 2019214435 A) in view of Pelle (US 4831231 A).
Regarding claim 3, Ogawa discloses the holding device as claimed in claim 2.
Ogawa fails to disclose wherein the pulling member further includes a spring that applies a rotational force to the driven roller.
However, Pelle teaches a winding device wherein the pulling member further includes a spring that applies a rotational force to the driven roller (see Col 8, lines 25-30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce the pulling member further includes a spring that applies a rotational force to the driven roller, on the holding device of Ogawa, as taught by Pelle, in order to urge the forearm rotationally toward a workpiece (see Abstract).
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