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 .
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 following claimed elements must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s): (A) the vacuum gripper (claim 10), and (B) the "block conveying system" (claim 1; page 12 of the specification describes this element as "a block conveying system typically includes a plurality of clamps and shuttles that move the block from the base of the machine to the laying head"). 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 § 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1( as being anticipated by Wasmer (DE 197 43 717) (English translation attached).
Wasmer discloses a vehicle which incorporates a robotic block laying machine for use in constructing a block structure, the vehicle including:
a vehicle chassis 4, 4;
a base frame 2 mounted to a chassis; and,
a robotic block laying machine mounted from a base frame, a machine including:
a loading bay for receiving pallets of blocks 22, 23 stacked with one or more courses of blocks 22 wherein each course comprises a plurality of rows of blocks;
a robotic arm 14, 15, 16 configured to pick any individual block directly from a course of a pallet; and,
a block conveying system 24 that receives blocks from a robotic arm and transports them to a laying head 38, 39 of a machine that lays blocks in order to create a block structure.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 3 & 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasmer in view of Pivac (US 2019/0251210).
Wasmer does not disclose pallets are stacked with pre-sequenced blocks in accordance with a block sequence generated by a build datafile associated with a block structure. Nor does Pivac disclose blocks of different length.
With respect to claims 2 & 3, Pivac discloses selecting bricks, e.g. blocks, based on a block sequence generated by a build datafile associated with a block structure generated by "CAD software". (Paras. 72, 158). Pivac further enhances by discloses that a transfer robot, e.g. robotic arm used for unstacking blocks operates thusly: "the transfer robot is free to return to the row of dehacked bricks, to select the next brick in the sequence as determined by the brick placement database." (Para. 158) In other words, the blocks are palletized in a sequence that the robot uses to select blocks therefrom. And, Pivac discloses cutting unstacked blocks to length "in order to meet the required dimensions of wall length, void size and aperture size." (Para. 104) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Wasmer to provide pallets stacked with pre-sequenced blocks in accordance with a block sequence generated by a build datafile associated with a block structure as well as courses of blocks arranged in a pre-sequenced order include blocks of varying length, as taught by Pivac, which allows brick/block laying to improve by allowing for different block spacings between adjacent bricks and thicknesses of adhesive or mortar between adjacent bricks.
With respect to claim 4, Wasmer does not discloses blocks of varying length are one of: a) Pre-cut; and, b) Moulded. Pivac discloses pre-cutting blocks via a cutter such that the blocks are pre-cut of varying length. Pivac teaches cutting blocks "to length in order to meet the required dimensions of wall length, void size and aperture size." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Wasmer to provide pre-cut blocks of varying length, as taught by Pivac, which allows brick/block laying to improve by allowing for different block spacings between adjacent bricks and thicknesses of adhesive or mortar between adjacent bricks.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasmer in view of Holmes (US 3,039,233).
Wasmer discloses a gripper having fingers 39, 39 which grip a block 22 and does not disclose finger insertable into a block core. Holmes discloses a gripper (FIGS. 14, 15) having a pair of fingers 162, 162 with pads 169, 169 that are insertable into a single core and/or separate cores (block with two(2) cores shown in FIG. 10) to apply a force. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Wasmer to provide a gripper with fingers insertable into cores of a block, as taught by Holmes, which offers the flexibility to grip blocks either internally or externally " a total time of laying up an average size basement is reduced to about from one- fourth to one-sixth of the time required by hand masonry."
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasmer in view of Melan (US 4,708,562).
Wasmer discloses a robotic arm that includes a gripper to pick up a block from a pallet, and does not disclose a vacuum gripper to pick up a block directly from a pallet. Melan discloses a gripper 64 for picking up blocks wherein the gripper includes fingers 66, 68. However, Melan teaches that "gripping device 64 can also consist of suction cups (see 82 in FIGS. 2 and 3). Suction cups have the advantage of greater simplicity. On the other hand, the advantage of tongs is that they can grasp two superimposed bricks at the same time and thus virtually double the brick laying rate." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Wasmer to include a vacuum gripper, as taught by Melan, where vacuum grippers are well known substituted for gripping fingers when selecting grippers that grip and transfer blocks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (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 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.
/GREGORY W ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights