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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
WHEN CLAIMS ARE DIRECTED TO MULTIPLE CATEGORIES OF INVENTIONS
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475(c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
I. Claims 1-4, drawn to an article support apparatus having article supports which are laterally adjustable.
II. Claim 5, drawn to a body having a groove cooperating with a guide rail, a foot supported by the body and supporting a handle in a cradle.
III. Claim 6, drawn to a vertical support supporting a stand plate, the vertical support having receiving slot disposed between horizontal supports that are configured to receive and suspend and object.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I, II, and III lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature.
During a telephone conversation with ATTORNEY EUGENE MOLINELLI on 2026/04/21 a provisional election was made WITHOUT traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, Claims 1-4. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 5 and 6 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the shading in Fig. 3-Fig. 19 impedes the clear understanding of the relationship between different parts as the contrast between the shading of various parts is not clear and reduces legibility of the drawings Per MPEP 608.02(m). 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 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 1-4 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation:
a housing; a handle at the top end of a housing;
it is unclear if the second housing in the limitation is different than the first housing of the limitation, for the purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the second “a housing” to be a typo with the correct form “the housing”
Regarding Claims 2-4:
the claims are rejected for depending from a rejected claim
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 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 of this title, 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) 1, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 20170341131 A1) in view of Bloch (US 4900078 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Hayashi teaches:
An apparatus, comprising:
a housing (12);
a handle (14) at a top end of the housing (Fig. 1A);
a central passage through the housing and the handle (Fig. 1A & Fig. 2 & Fig. 3); and
a floating element (28) configured to move along an axis in the central passage through a range of positions bounded by an upper position (Fig. 4B) and a lower position (Fig. 4A) and including a neutral position (Fig. 1A);
a flip-flop linkage (34 & 38 & 39 & 52 & 56 & 57 & 64) comprising a sliding block (64) constrained to move perpendicular to the axis and a coupler (34 & 52) connected to the sliding block and to the floating element (Fig. 1A), wherein when the floating element is in the lower position the coupler positions the sliding block at a first perpendicular distance from the housing (Fig. 4A), when the floating element is in the upper position the coupler positions the sliding block at a different second perpendicular distance from the housing (Fig. 4B) and the floating element protrudes through the handle (Fig. 5), and when in the neutral position the coupler positions the sliding block at a maximum perpendicular distance from the housing (Fig. 1A); and
a hook (22) secured to the sliding block and configured to suspend an object therefrom (Fig. 1A).
Hayashi does not teach:
a spring configured to bias the sliding block toward the housing and thereby, via the coupler, bias the floating element away from the neutral position; and
Bloch teaches:
An apparatus (18), comprising:
a housing (17);
a handle (3) at a top end of the housing;
a central passage through the housing and the handle (Fig 1 & Fig. 2); and
a floating element (10) configured to move along an axis in the central passage through a range of positions bounded by an upper position [position between lower position and neutral position] and a lower position (Fig. 3) and including a neutral position (Fig. 2);
a flip-flop linkage (1 & 4 & 11) comprising a sliding block (1) constrained to move perpendicular to the axis (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3) and a coupler (11) connected to the sliding block and to the floating element (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3), wherein when the floating element is in the lower position the coupler positions the sliding block at a first perpendicular distance from the housing (Fig. 3), when the floating element is in the upper position the coupler positions the sliding block at a different second perpendicular distance from the housing and the floating element protrudes through the handle (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3), and when in the neutral position the coupler positions the sliding block at a maximum perpendicular distance from the housing (Fig. 2); and
a spring (16) configured to bias the sliding block toward the housing and thereby, via the coupler, bias the floating element away from the neutral position (Fig. 3) [Column 2 Lines 46-64 & Column 3 Lines 15-24]; and
a gripper jaw secured to the sliding block and configured to grip an object therewith [abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuable gripper utilizing a coupler to translate vertical linear motion of a floating member relative to a housing into horizontal linear motion of a sliding block supporting an object engaging member taught by Hayashi with actuable gripper utilizing a coupler to translate vertical linear motion of a floating member relative to a housing into horizontal linear motion of a sliding block supporting an object engaging member having a spring configured to bias the sliding block toward the housing and thereby, via the coupler, bias the floating element away from the neutral position taught by Bloch in order to provide a gripper having an increased grip force without requiring an increase in floating member weight or driving force in order to provide an increased grip strength for more securely supporting an object without increasing the weight of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 2, Hayashi teaches:
the first perpendicular distance is less than the second perpendicular distance (Fig. 4A & Fig. 4B).
Regarding Claim 4, Hayashi teaches:
a second flip-flop linkage (30 & 32 & 36 & 39 & 46 & 50 & 54 & 57 & 62) that functions identical to that of the flip-flop linkage and which is positioned opposite the flip-flop linkage about the floating element (Fig. 1A), and wherein a second coupler (32 & 50) secured to a second sliding block (62) of the second flip-flop linkage cooperates with the coupler to suspend the object there between (Fig. 4A & Fig. 4B & Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 20170341131 A1) in view of Bloch (US 4900078 A) as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Qian et al. (CN 107932024 A).
Regarding Claim 3, Hayashi in view of Bloch does not teach:
the first perpendicular distance is greater than the second perpendicular distance.
Qian teaches:
An apparatus, comprising:
a handle (1) at a top end of the apparatus (Fig. 1);
a central passage through the apparatus and the handle (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 & Fig. 3 & Fig. 4 & Fig. 5); and
a floating element (47) configured to move along an axis in the central passage through a range of positions bounded by an upper position (Fig. 5) and a lower position (Fig. 3) and including a neutral position (Fig. 4);
a flip-flop linkage (22 & 23 & 41 & 43 & 45) comprising a block (22 & 23) constrained to move perpendicular to the axis and a coupler (45) connected to the block and to the floating element (Fig. 2), wherein when the floating element is in the lower position the coupler positions the sliding block at a first perpendicular distance from a centerline (Fig. 3), when the floating element is in the upper position the coupler positions the sliding block at a different second perpendicular distance from the centerline (Fig. 5) and the floating element protrudes past the end of the handle (Fig. 1 & Fig. 5), and when in the neutral position the coupler positions the sliding block at a maximum perpendicular distance from the centerline (Fig. 4); and
the first perpendicular distance is greater than the second perpendicular distance [0014 & 0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuable gripper utilizing a coupler to translate vertical linear motion of a floating member relative to a housing into horizontal linear motion of a sliding block supporting an object engaging member, where when the floating element is in the lower position the coupler positions the sliding block at a first perpendicular distance from the housing, when the floating element is in the upper position the coupler positions the sliding block at a different second perpendicular distance from the housing and the first perpendicular distance is less than the second perpendicular distance taught by Hayashi in view of Bloch with actuable gripper utilizing a coupler to translate vertical linear motion of a floating member relative to a body into horizontal linear motion of a sliding block supporting an object engaging member, where when the floating element is in the lower position the coupler positions the sliding block at a first perpendicular distance from the housing, when the floating element is in the upper position the coupler positions the sliding block at a different second perpendicular distance from the housing and the first perpendicular distance is greater than the second perpendicular distance taught by Qian in order to provide a gripper having an increased grip force without requiring an increase in floating member weight or driving force in order to provide an increased grip strength for more securely supporting an object without increasing the weight of the apparatus by increasing the leverage through increasing the travel distance of the floating member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patent publications US 5938257 A and US 20220048203 A1 have been cited by the examiner as pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure because they teach: parallel grippers actuated by linkages.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN P TIGHE whose telephone number is 571-272-4872. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30 EST
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAUL RODRIGUEZ can be reached on 571-272-7097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN P TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights