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 17-36 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the Application and Preliminary Amendment filed on August 21, 2024. Claims 1-16 stand canceled.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-36 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the machine comprising at least a first and a second gripping device”. As recited, the phrase “at least” can apply to either the components of the machine or an unlimited number of gripping devices. To improve clarity, deletion of this phrase is required.
Claim 17 recites “adapted for gripping the same piece of limp material at the same time”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with language such as “adapted for simultaneously gripping a piece of the limp material” is recommended. Further, it is recommended that subsequent limitations in Claim 17 and any dependent claim referring to the limp material be appropriately amendment to recite “the piece of limp material”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “and/or”. To improve clarity of the claim, replacement of language such as A and/or B with language such as A, B or both, or similar, is recommended.
Appropriate correction is required. Claims 18-36 are also objected to for being dependent on Claim 17.
Claim 19 recites “at least one displacement wheel”. The specification appears to discuss one or two displacement wheels, whereas the claim recites an unlimited number of wheels. Further, one or more dependent claims recite “the displacement wheel” and additional features such as the guiding groove etc. with respect to a single displacement wheel. As such, to improve clarity in line with the specification and dependent claims, replacement of the limitation “at least one displacement wheel” in Claim 19 with “a displacement wheel” is required. Further, replacement of the limitation “a pair of displacement wheels” in Claims 24 & 34 with language such “a second displacement wheel”, or similar, is recommended.
Claim 19 recites “engage at the”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with language such as “engage the” is recommended.
Appropriate correction is required. Claims 20-29 & 33-36 are also objected to for being dependent on Claim 19 (also see objection to Claim 29 below).
Claims 22, 23, 27, 28 & 36 each appear to recite “the sensor” and “at least one sensor” (in parent Claim 17) interchangeably. Consistency in terminology and the number of sensors is required to improve clarity.
Claim 22 recites “the position”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “a position” is required.
Claims 27 & 36 each recite the limitation “the presence”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “presence” is required.
Appropriate correction is required. Claims 23 & 28 are also objected to for being dependent on Claims 22 & 27, respectively.
Claim 25 appears to have a typographical/grammatical error in reciting “which is perpendicularly with respect to the plane in which the limp material is held between the displacement wheels and the pressing wheels” (emphasis added).
Further, Claim 25 appears to recite “plane in which the limp material is held between the displacement wheels and the pressing wheels” and “plane in which the limp material is held in the manipulator” (in parent Claim 17) interchangeably. Consistency in terminology is required to improve clarity of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required. Claims 35 & 36 are also objected to for being dependent on Claim 25.
Claim 29 further limits the features of Claims 18 & 19, but is dependent on Claim 17. For purposes of examination, the Office considers Claim 29 as dependent on Claim 19.
Further, Claim 29 recites the limitation “and/or”. To improve clarity of the claim, replacement of language such as A and/or B with language such as A, B or both, or similar, is recommended.
Claim 29 recites “the axis of rotation of the displacement wheels”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “an axis of rotation of the displacement wheels” is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 32 recites “each of them being provided with one gripping device”. To improve clarity with respect to the gripping devices of parent Claim 17, replacement of this limitation with language such as “each of the robot arms comprising one of the gripping devices”, or similar, is recommended. Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-36 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 17 recites “A machine for handling limp material, in particular textile articles”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the “in particular” are part of the claimed invention. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the Office considers the claim without the limitation(s) tied to the phrase “in particular ".
Claim 17 recites “in a direction which is generally within a plane”, where the term “generally” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” 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 “generally” renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to the direction required to be considered “generally” within the plane.
Claim 17 recites “regions of interest”. It is unclear what this term includes and/or excludes. As such, the scope, metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claims 18-36 are also rejected for being dependent on Claim 17. The claims have been examined as best understood.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “particularly in a direction which is perpendicularly with respect to the plane in which the limp material is held between the displacement wheels and the pressing wheels”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the “particularly” are part of the claimed invention. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the Office considers the claim without the limitation(s) that follow the phrase “particularly".
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claims 35 & 36 are also rejected for being dependent on Claim 25. The claims have been examined as best understood.
Claim 31 recites “they are close to each other”, where the term “close” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” 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 “close” renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to the distance required to be considered “close”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 32 recites “they are close to each other”, where it is unclear whether “they” refers to the robot arms or the gripping devices. Further, the term “close” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” 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 “close” renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to the distance required to be considered “close”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 17 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman, Jr. et al. (US 6,105,494), in view of Kolluru et al. (Non-Patent Literature cited in PTOL-892).
With respect to Claim 17, Hoffman discloses a machine for handling limp material, in particular textile articles (Hoffman: Col. 1, Ln. 1-65), the machine comprising at least a first and a second gripping device adapted for gripping the same piece of limp material at the same time, at least one of the gripping devices being connected to a drive system adapted for displacing the gripping devices with respect to each other, one of the gripping devices being a manipulator having a displacement mechanism adapted for actively displacing the limp material in a direction which is generally within a plane in which the limp material is held in the manipulator (Hoffman: Col. 1, Ln. 55 through Col. 2, Ln. 35; Col. 3, Ln. 5 through Col. 4, Ln. 26); wherein movement of the limp material as disclosed by Hoffman is considered “generally within a plane” as instantly claimed; and wherein Hoffman discloses one or more mechanisms/controls (as non-limiting examples: pneumatic, hydraulic etc.) that are considered a “displacement mechanism” as broadly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between these features as disclosed by Hoffman and these features as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Hoffman further teaches employing a controller for the gripping device (Hoffman: Col. 1, Ln. 55 through Col. 2, Ln. 35; Col. 3, Ln. 5 through Col. 4, Ln. 26). The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose the machine further comprising “at least one sensor adapted for detecting the limp material and/or regions of interest” as instantly claimed.
Kolluru teaches fabric manipulation and gripper technology therein, wherein controllers and sensors are employed to accurately control the timing of gripper operations based on the proximity of the fabric (Kolluru: Pages 19-26). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hoffman with the aforementioned teachings of Kolluru to employ at least one sensor adapted as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control the timing of gripper operations based on the proximity of the material. (Kolluru: Pages 19-26).
With respect to Claim 18, the combined references of Hoffman and Kolluru teach the machine as provided above with respect to Claim 17. Hoffman further discloses “…wherein the manipulator comprises a base part and a pressing part which are displaceable with respect to each other, the displacement mechanism being provided at the base part (Hoffman: Col. 1, Ln. 55 through Col. 2, Ln. 35; Col. 3, Ln. 5 through Col. 4, Ln. 26).
Claims 19-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman, Jr. et al. (US 6,105,494), in view of Kolluru et al. (Non-Patent Literature cited in PTOL-892), further in view of Shmaiser et al. (US 2023/0009594).
With respect to Claim 19, the combined references of Hoffman and Kolluru teach the machine as provided above with respect to Claim 18. Hoffman further teaches the machine for printing applications including items such as paper goods (Hoffman: Col. 1, Ln. 1-65). Kolluru further teaches wherein it is known in the art to employ a wheel to move fabric/material in gripper technology (Kolluru: Pages 19-26).
The combined references, however, fail to explicitly disclose “wherein the displacement mechanism comprises at least one displacement wheel which is arranged so as to engage at the limp material” in combination with the displacement mechanism adapted as instantly claimed.
Shmaiser teaches apparatus for printing applications of sheets, including paper goods such as cardboard therein, wherein a displacement mechanism comprising at least one displacement wheel which is arranged so as to engage the material is employed to ensure movement that results in correct positioning and orientation of the material (Shmaiser: Sections [0001]-[0022]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combined references of Hoffman and Kolluru with the aforementioned teachings of Shmaiser to employ a displacement mechanism comprising at least one displacement wheel as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure movement that results in correct positioning and orientation of the material. (Shmaiser: Sections [0001]-[0022]).
With respect to Claim 20, the combined references of Hoffman, Kolluru and Shmaiser teach the machine as provided above with respect to Claim 19. Shmaiser further teaches “…wherein the displacement wheel is an omniwheel” (Shmaiser: Sections [0001]-[0022]).
With respect to Claims 21 & 33, the combined references of Hoffman, Kolluru and Shmaiser teach the machine as provided above with respect to Claims 19 & 20, respectively. Shmaiser further teaches wherein the wheels are used with gears to further ensure movement that results in correct positioning and orientation of the material. (Shmaiser: Sections [0001]-[0022] & [0048]); wherein a gear is considered a guiding groove as broadly claimed.
As such, although the references fail to explicitly teach the guiding groove in the pressing part as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for handling limp material, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including the use of grippers and wheels with a guiding groove to ensure desired movement and positioning of the material, as set forth above . As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the combined teachings of Hoffman, Kolluru and Shmaiser, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued a guiding groove as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 22, the combined references of Hoffman, Kolluru and Shmaiser teach the machine as provided above with respect to Claim 19. Hoffman further discloses “…wherein a receiving space is provided between the base part and the pressing part, the receiving space being adapted for receiving an edge portion of the limp material” (Hoffman: Col. 1, Ln. 55 through Col. 2, Ln. 35; Col. 3, Ln. 5 through Col. 4, Ln. 26). Kolluru further teaches wherein sensors are employed to detect proximity of the fabric to the gripper and control the timing of gripper operations (Kolluru: Page 22); wherein detecting the proximity of the fabric is considered detecting the position of the edge of the fabric within a receiving space as broadly claimed. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hoffman with the aforementioned additional teachings of Kolluru to arrange the sensor as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control the timing of gripper operations based on the proximity of the material. (Kolluru: Page 22).
With respect to Claim 23, the combined references of Hoffman, Kolluru and Shmaiser teach the machine as provided above with respect to Claim 22. Kolluru further teaches a plurality of “sensors” (Kolluru: Page 22), which is considered a sensor “formed from discrete sensing elements arranged spaced from each other” as broadly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as taught by Kolluru and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claims 24 & 34, the combined references of Hoffman, Kolluru and Shmaiser teach the machine as provided above with respect to Claims 19 & 20, respectively. Shmaiser further teaches one or more embodiments wherein a pair of displacement wheels is provided (Shmaiser: Sections [0029]-[0039]).
With respect to Claim 25, the combined references of Hoffman, Kolluru and Shmaiser teach the machine as provided above with respect to Claim 24. Shmaiser further teaches wherein the material is moved between two surfaces by employing one or more wheels and elements on both sides of the material to avoid slipping and control accurate movement of the material (Shmaiser: Sections [0035] & [0036]; Fig 5). As such, although the references fail to explicitly teach the pressing part comprising the instantly claimed feature, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for handling limp material, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including employing one or more wheels and elements on both sides of the material to avoid slipping and control accurate movement of the material, as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the combined teachings of Hoffman, Kolluru and Shmaiser, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the pressing part comprising components as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claims 26 & 35, the combined references of Hoffman, Kolluru and Shmaiser teach the machine as provided above with respect to Claims 24 & 25, respectively. Shmaiser further teaches one or more embodiments wherein a drive for the displacement wheels is provided which is adapted for rotating the wheels independent from each other or in opposite directions (Shmaiser: Sections [0041]-[0050]).
With respect to Claims 27, 28 & 36, the combined references of Hoffman, Kolluru and Shmaiser teach the machine as provided above with respect to Claims 24 & 25, respectively. Kolluru further teaches wherein one or more sensors are employed to detect proximity of the fabric to the gripper and control the timing of gripper operations (Kolluru: Page 22); wherein a plurality of sensors is considered a sensor “formed from a plurality of sensing elements” as broadly and respectively claimed. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for handling limp material, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including the use of one or more sensors to detect proximity of the fabric to the gripper and control the timing of gripper operations, as set forth above . As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the combined teachings of Hoffman, Kolluru and Shmaiser, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the arrangement/configuration of the sensors as desired, such as respectively claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 29, the combined references of Hoffman, Kolluru and Shmaiser teach the machine as provided above with respect to Claim 19; wherein it would appear that the combined teachings as set forth above would result in the base part and/or the pressing part configured as instantly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as taught by the references and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 30, the combined references of Hoffman, Kolluru and Shmaiser teach the machine as provided above with respect to Claim 17. Hoffman further discloses “…wherein two manipulators are provided” (Hoffman: Col. 1, Ln. 55 through Col. 2, Ln. 35; Col. 3, Ln. 5 through Col. 4, Ln. 26).
With respect to Claim 31, the combined references of Hoffman, Kolluru and Shmaiser teach the machine as provided above with respect to Claim 17. Hoffman further discloses “…wherein the drive system comprises a linear drive on which the gripping devices are mounted, the linear drive being adapted for displacing the gripping devices from a loading position in which they are close to each other to a position in which they are spaced from each other, and vice versa” (Hoffman: Col. 1, Ln. 55 through Col. 2, Ln. 35; Col. 3, Ln. 5 through Col. 4, Ln. 26).
With respect to Claim 32, the combined references of Hoffman, Kolluru and Shmaiser teach the machine as provided above with respect to Claim 17. Hoffman further discloses “…wherein the drive system comprises two robot arms, each of them being provided with one gripping device, the robot arms being adapted for displacing the gripping devices from a loading position in which they are close to each other to a position in which they are spaced from each other, and vice versa” (Hoffman: Col. 1, Ln. 55 through Col. 2, Ln. 35; Col. 3, Ln. 5 through Col. 4, Ln. 26).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eppinger (US 2001/0029657) discloses a machine comprising gripping devices for handling textile articles.
Andresen (US 2021/0078184) discloses a machine comprising gripping devices with wheels for handling textile articles.
Baker et al. (US 11,268,223) discloses a machine comprising gripping devices for handling textile articles.
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
