DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B, Figure 2 in the reply filed on 2/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden to consider all the claims. This is not found persuasive because, as outlined in the Requirement for Restriction/Election dated 12/29/2025, the different species at least require a different field of search, such as by using different search strategies or search queries (text searches) for the different species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/27/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 10/18/2024 has been received and considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: resilient return element in claim 8, corresponding in structure to elements 50.1, 50.2 which are coil springs per page 13, the third full paragraph of the applicant’s specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Birkelund (U.S. 2018/0180064).
Birkelund discloses a vacuum production device, comprising at least a first ejector (2) having an inlet port (4) and a suction port (6), a second ejector (3) having an inlet port (5) and a suction port (7), a control member (11) that comprises a body (12) having at least one pressure inlet (10) and one suction inlet (18) intended to be connected respectively to a pressurised air circuit and to a vacuum circuit (intended use which has not been given patentable weight), a first spool (23) mounted so as to be able to move in the body between a connection position in which the inlet port of the first ejector is connected to the pressure inlet and the suction port of the first ejector is connected to the suction inlet (fig. 4), and a disconnection position in which the inlet port of the first ejector is disconnected from the pressure inlet and the suction port of the first ejector is disconnected from the suction inlet (fig. 3), and a second spool (24) mounted so as to be able to move in the body between a connection position in which the inlet port of the second ejector is connected to the pressure inlet and the suction port of the second ejector is connected to the suction inlet (described in para. 44), and a disconnection position in which the inlet port of the second ejector is disconnected from the pressure inlet and the suction port of the second ejector is disconnected from the suction inlet (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Birkelund further discloses wherein the control member comprises an actuator (26, 27) for moving the first spool and/or the second spool at least towards its disconnection position (reciprocating upward to have the spools move to the connection position and downward to move the spools to the disconnection position, see paras. 41-44 generally describing this operation).
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.
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) 1, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sapelem (FR2945086)(supplied by the applicant in the IDS dated 10/18/24, machine translation included herewith and referred to below) in view of Birkelund (U.S. 10,253,788).
Sapelem discloses a vacuum production device, comprising at least a first ejector (15, 16) having an inlet port (the port connected to channel 12) and a suction port (port connected to channel 13), a control member that comprises a body (1, 2) having at least one pressure inlet (11 E) and one suction inlet (14, 14 SA) intended to be connected respectively to a pressurised air circuit and to a vacuum circuit (intended use which has not been given patentable weight), a first spool (30) mounted so as to be able to move in the body between a connection position in which the inlet port of the first ejector is connected to the pressure inlet and the suction port of the first ejector is connected to the suction inlet (fig. 2), and a disconnection position in which the inlet port of the first ejector is disconnected from the pressure inlet and the suction port of the first ejector is disconnected from the suction inlet (pg. 7, the second to last paragraph describing the distributor’s stop position so that communication is prevented),
Sapelem does not appear to disclose a second ejector having an inlet port and a suction port and a second spool mounted so as to be able to move in the body between a connection position in which the inlet port of the second ejector is connected to the pressure inlet and the suction port of the second ejector is connected to the suction inlet, and a disconnection position in which the inlet port of the second ejector is disconnected from the pressure inlet and the suction port of the second ejector is disconnected from the suction inlet (in essence, two of the same structures for the ejector and spool and their associated features).
Birkelund teaches it was known in the art to have multiple ejectors (2) and associated features such as a motive inlet and suction inlet (3, 29, respectively, see multiple shown in fig. 1 of the same ejector with associated control valve/spool 19 for each, which is, in essence, a plurality of the same ejector/spool within a housing 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sapelem by having a plurality of the ejector/spool devices within the housing/body as taught by Birkelund in order to provide a greater capacity with respect to the amount of fluid per time (see col. 1, ll. 29-32 of Birkelund) which can provide greater suction for the gripper (see the fourth paragraph on page 6 of Sapelem, the paragraph beginning with “8 vacuum gripping means”) and especially as it has been held that the duplication of essential working components of a device generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04.
Regarding claim 9, Sapelem as modified further discloses wherein the control member comprises an actuator for moving the first spool and/or the second spool at least towards its disconnection position (the fluid actuation for the spool 30 that moves the spool to the different positions, including the distributor’s stop position, see pg. 7, the 4th and 5th paragraphs (the 4th beginning with “15 Preferably”)).
Regarding claim 11, Sapelem as modified discloses a handling device comprising a gripper (see the fourth paragraph on page 6 of Sapelem, the paragraph beginning with “8 vacuum gripping means”) having a duct connected to the suction inlet (the conduit that is necessarily present to connect to the suction inlet in order to provide the suction to the gripper) of a vacuum production device according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sapelem in view of Birkelund as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ise (U.S. 4,402,651).
Sapelem as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose at least one resilient return element mounted between the first spool and/or second spool and the body to resiliently return the first spool and/or second spool towards its connection position.
Ise teaches it was known in the art to have a spool with a resilient return element mounted between the spool and a body to return the spool to its connection position (spring 27 which biases the spool 8 leftward to the normally open (connection) position, see col. 2, ll. 44-48).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Sapelem such that there is a spring that biases the spool to the connection position as taught by Ise in order to allow the spool to default to the connection position without requiring the use of energy from the actuation system in order to move the spool to the connection position and also prevent the spool from moving to another position absent the use of the actuation system).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sapelem in view of Birkelund as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klobucar et al. (U.S. 7,241,080).
Sapelem as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the pressure inlet of the control member connected to the pressurized air circuit by a proportional valve.
Klobucar teaches it was known in the art to have a solenoid valve (88, reads on proportional valve as the applicant’s proportional valve is a solenoid valve per page 7, the second full paragraph of the applicant’s specification) that connects a pressure inlet to a pressurized air circuit (see fig. 3 and valve 88 between the compressed air source 86 and the ejector system to the right of 88).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Sapelem by having a proportional solenoid valve connecting the pressurized air circuit to the pressure inlet of the control member as taught by Klobucar in order to allow a user to selectively stop or start flow (or moderate flow such that the solenoid is partially open to allow for greater than no flow but less than full flow) to the system if so desired. This can be done in order to completely stop flow so that components can be removed or replaced and also moderate flow such that there is less than full suction force for the gripper if so desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art is not seen to disclose or teach (and in combination with claim 1), the body comprising a first pressure channel and first vacuum channel separated from each other and provided with first and second seats extending in line with each other along a sliding axis along which the first spool slides between positions and the first pressure channel extending from the inlet port of the first ejector to the pressure inlet and the first vacuum channel extending from the suction port of the first ejector to the suction inlet, the first spool passing through the first pressure channel and the first vacuum channel and comprising a first poppet for cooperating with the first seat and a second poppet for cooperating with the second seat, the first and second poppets engaged with the first and second seats in the disconnection position and separated from the first and second seats in the connection position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hampton et al. (U.S. 10,221,867) discloses a flow control system for aspirators with a movable spool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm est.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753