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
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
In claim 3, the phrase, “the first portion is obtained by machining a plate,” is indefinite and vague. The claim is drawn to an apparatus claim, and not a method of process of producing the product. In so far the claim is understood as any plate that is not made by a hand carving meet(s) the limitation of the claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 1586419.
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 17, EP ‘419 shows a method of manufactured product of elements as shown below. EP ‘419 discloses a suction box 10 (see figure 1, a foam 48 and an insert 52 shaped like a suction cup, claim 16) for a gripper (using 50), the suction box comprising a first portion 26 (i.e., a monolithic part which is produced inherently by the machine rather than by a hand carving, claims 2-3), a second portion 24 (i.e., a plate shape and a monolithic part, claims 5 and 7) coupled together by a mechanical connection (i.e., 28, 30) with a contact member (i.e., a bottom portion of 44, see figure 2), said contact member to contact with at least one object (12…etc.) to be grasped bye the gripper, and the other side of the first and second portion being in fluidic communication with a vacuum generator (i.e., using 36, 38), an assembled configuration (i.e., connection 24 and 26 by 28, 30), a first wall (i.e., a surface of 26) and a second wall (i.e., a surface of 34), a suction cavity (area of 34), a disassembled configuration by the mechanical connection, the second portion defines a recess which participates in delimiting the first portion (i.e., a plurality of 42 provides protrusions/ribs to form a gap creating a recess, claims 6 and 13), in the assembled configuration, the suction cavity of the suction box, and a seal 36 in between the first and second portions; and each assembly (i.e., each connection 28, 30 as each separate assembly) with a male portion 28 as a support head and a female portion 30, in which the male portion 28 fitted into the female portion (claim 11), see figures 1-3.
PNG
media_image1.png
566
908
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1586419, in view of FR 3112980.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, as stated above, EP ‘419 does not explicitly disclose the material of the first portion and making into two parts.
FR ‘980 disclose a suction box (see figure 2) with a first portion 104 (i.e., 104 and 107 as two parts) and a second portion 105 (i.e., 105 and 124 as two parts) made from the composite material of a matrix and fibers , see paragraph [0011], see figures 1-8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of EP ‘419 to include the first portion into two parts with certain material as suggested by FR ‘980, to help reduce the material weight during the manufacturing. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1586419, in view of WO 2013/074943.
Regarding claim 14, as stated above, EP ‘419 shows a suction chamber 34 with the suction box 10, see figures 1-3.
WO ‘943 discloses a plurality of suction chamber with a plurality of suction boxes 110 to correspond to the suction device, see figures 16-26.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of EP ‘419 to include a plurality of suction chambers and boxes as suggested by WO ‘943, to help grip the materials better with using more than one chamber. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
The claims 9-10 and 12 are patentable over the prior art of record because the teachings of the references taken as a whole do not show or render obvious the combination set forth in claims 9-10 and 12, including every structural element recited in the claim, especially each dependent claim reciting elements a bumper with a bead or a separate third portion compressed with the seal.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest the elements of the device as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the device in the manner required by the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-6947. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 9 P.M or Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Hodge, can be reached on (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 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).
SK
10/5/26
/SANG K KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
