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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 6/18/2026. Claims 1-11 remain pending. Claims 4-7 remain withdrawn. The amendment to claim 2 to place the claim in independent form now renders claim 2 allowable. Claim 3 is allowable due to its dependency on claim 2. Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previous 102 rejection in view of Birkelund. However, art rejections remain and are presented below. This action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 in the Non-Final Rejection dated 3/19/2026 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 first spool connects the inlet port of the first ejector to the pressure inlet and connects the suction port of the first ejector to the suction inlet (fig. 2), and a disconnection position in which the first spool disconnects the inlet port of the first ejector from the pressure inlet and disconnects the suction port of the first ejector 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 second spool connects the inlet port of the second ejector to the pressure inlet and connects the suction port of the second ejector to the suction inlet, and a disconnection position in which the second spool disconnects the inlet port of the second ejector from the pressure inlet and disconnects the suction port of the second ejector 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 allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments as they pertain to the amendment to claim 1 with respect to the Birkelund reference have been found persuasive. The 102 rejection in view of Birkelund has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 with respect to the 103 rejection of Sapelem in view of Birkelund have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amendments to claim 1 are not disclosed or taught by Birkelund or Sapelem. The applicant argues on page 7 of the response that Birkelund sets out the importance of a simple construction when using several ejectors so that one of ordinary skill in the art would also use the control system of Birkelund to control the ejectors. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Sapelem already has an in place control system that operates the assembly as desired by Sapelem. Birkelund has merely been used to teach it was known in the art to have multiple ejectors of the same type.
For at least the above reasons, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights