DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 5, recites “height of 1000 mm and 1500 mm” which appears that it should recite - - height of 1000 mm to 1500 mm - -.
Claim 5, line 7, recites “height of 300 mm and 1000 mm” which appears that it should recite - - height of 300 mm to 1000 mm - -.
Claim 16, line 15, recites “into which the first protrusions fit” which appears that it should recite - - into which first protrusions fit - -. Appropriate correction is required.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 2, and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Usami (KR 20150135067 A; “Usami”).
Usami discloses:
Regarding claim 1:
A gripping device (assembly depicted in FIG. 1) connected to a vehicle (10) for transporting items (81) to be transported in a semiconductor manufacturing plant (see abstract), comprising:
a base unit (22; FIG. 1, 3) provided on the vehicle to be movable up and down (via belts 15; pg. 2, “The lifting and lowering driving unit 12 is a part for lifting up and lowering the chucking device 20 in a suspended state. The lifting and lowering drive part 12 is attached to the lower end of the moving vehicle 11. The lifting and lowering drive unit 12has a plurality of lifting and lowering belts 15. The lifting and lowering drive unit 12 is configured to simultaneously wind and wind the plurality of lifting belts 15. The chucking apparatus 20 supported by the lifting belt 15 is lifted and lowered while maintaining a substantially horizontal posture by winding and unwinding a plurality of lifting belts 15”); and
a hand unit (21) provided on the base unit and having an adjustable spacing to either secure or release the items (as indicated e.g. by arrows A in FIG. 1 and arrows B in FIG. 3; MPEP § 2125), wherein the hand unit includes:
motors (31, 32);
a conversion module (ballscrew 33, 37 and nuts 34, 35, 38, 39; pg. 4, “Hand grip (21)” section) converting the rotational motion of the motors into linear motion (via ballscrew mechanisms, supra); and grippers (24-26) connected to the conversion module (see pg. 4 pg. 4, “Hand grip (21)” section), with their spacing adjusted in conjunction with the conversion module (the motors drive the ballscrew mechanisms to adjust the spacing between the grippers 24-26 as indicated by arrows A and B as indicated in FIG. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 2:
The gripping device of claim 1, wherein the items include first target items (80, 81) having first and second specifications and second target items (80, 81) having third and fourth specifications, and the hand unit includes a first hand module for gripping or releasing the first target items, and a second hand module for gripping or releasing the second target items (pg. 5, “even when the trays 80 having different shapes or sizes are mixed by moving the first chuck type 24 and the second chuck type 25 in two stages, the respective chuck types 24, 25 and 26 Can hold the tray 80 by the gripping portion 21 without being caught by the tray 80”).
Regarding claim 6:
The gripping device of claim 1, wherein the base unit includes a first plate (portion on which rail 48 is mounted; FIG. 1), the motors include a first motor (32), the conversion module includes a first moving module (47) provided to be movable within the base unit (depicted in FIG. 1), the grippers include a pair of first grippers (25, 26; FIG. 3) connected to the first moving module (via vertical arm portions 27; FIG. 1), the first motor is provided with a first shaft (37) with a first thread formed on its outer circumferential surface (pg. 4, “The third shaft 37 is formed by a ball screw”), a first through hole with a second thread formed on its inner circumferential surface is formed in the first moving module (pg. 5, “The third nut member 38 and the fourth nut member 39 move toward the central portion of the third shaft 37 so that the third nut member 38 and the fourth nut member 39 approach each other.”), and an end of the first moving module is slidably connected to the first plate.
Regarding claim 7:
The gripping device of claim 6, wherein the first grippers include, at their bottoms, first support plates extending downwardly toward the items to contact lower surfaces of the items (28, 30 in FIG. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 8:
The gripping device of claim 6, wherein the first moving module includes: linear motion (LM) guiders (48; FIG. 1, 3) provided on the first plate and extending in a direction where the first grippers approach or separate from the items (see arrows A in FIG. 1); and first moving blocks (47; FIG. 1) provided to be slidable on the LM guiders (pg. 4, “The third slide member 42 includes a third guide portion 47 for supporting the first chucking member 24 or the second chucking member 25 and a third guide rail 47 for sliding the third guide portion 47.”).
Regarding claim 9:
The gripping device of claim 8, wherein the first moving module further includes a first connecting block that is provided with the first moving blocks at both ends (38, 39 and upper horizontal portions of arms 27 that connect to the moving blocks 47), has the first through hole formed therein (nuts 37, 38 have threaded holes therein that mesh with the threads of ballscrew 37), and is bent toward the first motor (upper horizontal portion of arms 27 extend toward motor 32 as seen in FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 10:
The gripping device of claim 6, wherein the first motor includes a first bracket that allows the first shaft to be rotatable and is fixed to the first plate (FIG. 3, 5 depict a bracket disposed horizontally between the motor housing 32 and shaft 36 that is connected/fixed to the plate; see MPEP § 2125).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usami.
Regarding claim 5, Usami discloses the gripping device of claim 2, see above, including wherein the first target items and the second target items differ in at least one of size and weight (pg. 5, “even when the trays 80 having different shapes or sizes are mixed”). However, it does not expressly disclose that each of the first and second specifications is provided in the form of a box with a combined width, length, and height of 1000 mm and 1500 mm, and each of the third and fourth specifications is provided in the form of a box with a combined width, length, and height of 300 mm and 1000 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Usami, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide that each of the first and second specifications is provided in the form of a box with a combined width, length, and height of 1000 mm and 1500 mm, and each of the third and fourth specifications is provided in the form of a box with a combined width, length, and height of 300 mm and 1000 mm as a matter of design choice because it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)( the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device); see also MPEP § 2144.04 (IV)(A). Here, nowhere in the original disclosure does it disclose or suggest that the particular size of the boxes as claimed would cause the invention to perform any differently than that of the prior art device. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide each of the first and second specifications is provided in the form of a box with a combined width, length, and height of 1000 mm and 1500 mm, and each of the third and fourth specifications is provided in the form of a box with a combined width, length, and height of 300 mm and 1000 mm as a matter of design choice because it has been held that, limitations relating to the size of the claimed invention is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); see also In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). Here, ¶ [0033] of the instant application recites that the specifications “are not limited to” the claimed ranges thereby indicating that such configurations are optional and not necessarily required for the invention. As such, this limitation does not amount to a patentable difference.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usami in view of Havel et al. (WO 2022/128947 A1; “Havel”).
Regarding claim 3-4, Usami discloses the gripping device of claim 2, see above, and further teaches that the second target items are supported on a second stand (lowest portion 80 of the plurality serving as a stand). However, it does not expressly disclose that the second stand is provided with coupling guiders having fitting grooves formed therein and the second hand module includes second couplings inserted into the fitting grooves.
Havel teaches a second stand (50) is provided with coupling guiders having fitting grooves formed therein (¶ 92, “guides 421 arranged in the corners”) and a second hand module (100) includes second couplings (140) inserted into the fitting grooves (55; FIG. 6, 15) to aid in proper alignment of the hand module with the stand during the lowering and gripping process (pg. 25, “The guide members 140 are configured to mate or engage with the cut-outs or openings 55 in the corners of the storage container 50 to help align the frame 101 over the top of the container 50 as the gripping device 100 is lowered so that the grippers 152 are in the correct position to be received in the openings 54 in the rim 53 of the container 50.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Usami, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the second stand is provided with coupling guiders having fitting grooves formed therein and the second hand module includes second couplings inserted into the fitting grooves, as taught by Havel, to aid in proper alignment of the hand module with the stand during the lowering and gripping process.
Regarding claim 3, Usami as modified above teaches the gripping device of claim 2, see above, and further teaches that the first target items are supported on a first stand (one of the lower portions 80 of the plurality serving as a stand) and a first sensor (23) for detecting the first stand (pg. 4, “As shown in Figs. 1 and 3, the sensor 23 is provided at the lower end portion (on the side of the accommodating portion 28) of each of the chucking members 24, 25, and 26. The sensor 23 detects the tray 80 by the 21”); and that the first hand module is provided with first protrusions and the first stand includes first couplings that the first protrusions fit into (as taught by Havel, supra, wherein the hand module 100 has projections 140 and the stands 50 include couplings 55 into with the protrusions 140 fit for alignment purposes). However, it does not expressly disclose that the first stand is provided with first protrusions, and the first hand module includes first couplings that the first protrusions fit into.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Usami, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the protrusions and couplings are reversed; that is that the first stand is provided with first protrusions and that the first hand module includes first couplings that the first protrusions fit into rather than vice versa because it has been held that the mere reversal of parts was held to be an obvious modification. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification). See MPEP § 2144.04. Here, whether the protrusions are on the first stand versus the first hand module is a mere reversal of the element upon which the protrusions are mounted (same with the couplings/openings for the protrusions), and nowhere is there a disclosure, teaching or suggestion that such a reversal would affect the nature of the connection of the two components or any other function of the device. As such, this limitation does not amount to a patentable difference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is allowed. Claims 11-15 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL D YABUT whose telephone number is (571)270-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 John Olszewski can be reached on (571) 272-2706. 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.
/DANIEL D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights