DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the clamp comprising the capture head, and the mixture of embodiments using different types of “clamping elemements” (claim 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 1-10 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 1 recites the limitation "it" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, presuming the applicant meant “it” to refer to the clamping element, it’s not clear as to how the “clamping element” includes a capture head (disclosed as 4) provided with the clamping elements. The applicant’s disclosed invention relates to the use of a gripper (2) and opposed to that gripper is the disclosed capture head. The gripper is the only disclosed “clamp” which requires two or more parts that are brought together to hold an object. In all of the applicant’s embodiments, the “capture head” does not performing the necessary function required to be a “clamp”. In the applicant’s originally filed claims the parentheses show 2 as being the claimed clamp – however even with this interpretation, the claimed clamp doesn’t “comprise a capture head” as required by the claim as these are separate parts which work together to separate and grip the sheet as well as the disclosed embodiments of capture heads do not clamp the sheet. By and large, the applicant’s shown and disclosed invention doesn’t represent what is required by the claims. The applicant’s can be their own lexicographer – however the applicant’s, if using terms not given their normal meaning, MUST define the terms being used.
Regarding claim 3, the use of the phrase “and/or” is not supported by the applicant’s disclosed embodiments. While the applicant’s have written disclosure for mixing and matching alternatives; the applicant’s disclosed embodiments only disclose the use of each of the groupings independently of one another. Therefore the applicant’s use of “and/or” is not supported by the disclosed embodiments.
Regarding claim 6, the applicant’s use of the phrase “or other detection sensor” is not clear since the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined. It is noted that the applicant’s specification recites “or similar detection sensor” however it’s not clear since the applicant provides no example of a similar sensor. Is the use of ultrasonic, or light interruption, or feeling type sensor considered to be acceptable? Where is the boundary for this limitation without provided example of similar structure to perform the recited function?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 5, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishibori (US Pat No 4,570,920).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Nishibori discloses a device for handling adjacent sheet elements, comprising a clamp (41) for gripping a sheet element, characterized in that the device comprises a capture head (1), which separate, grip and lift an edge of a sheet element (shown in figures 5-7).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Nishibori discloses the capture head/s is/are rotatable about a longitudinal axis (e.g. since the applicant’s claim doesn’t structurally define the longitudinal axis).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Nishibori discloses one or more air suction elements (1).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Nishibori discloses a feeder for gripping clamps (see column 4, lines 36-45).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Nishibori discloses the clamp elements are movable (see column 4, lines 36-45).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Nishibori discloses the clamping elements move in a reciprocating motion (see column 4, lines 46-52).
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishibori in view of Maden (WO 2008/144945).
Regarding claim 4, it is noted that Nishibori fails to disclose the use of an identification means in the clamp. However, Mader discloses a similar gripping transport system wherein the clamp device includes identification elements (e.g. T1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Nishibori with the teachings of Mader to achieve the predictable result of identifying the piece held clamp or monitoring the functionality thereof (noted in paragraphs 5-7 of page 5 of the applicant’s provided translation).
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses comprising a reader/writer of the identification element of the gripping clamp (see paragraphs 5-7 of page 5 of the applicant’s provided translation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 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 to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art generally discloses features believed to be relevant to the applicant’s claimed invention
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Cicchino whose telephone number is (571)270-1954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 5PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/Patrick Cicchino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights