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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 12/14/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR 2314236 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: as amended, claim 11 is missing a comma (“,”) after “…to fix the collar sealingly to the support ring” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-13 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “the edge” in line 3, which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 2 recites “it” in line 2, but it is not clear whether this limitation refers to the immobilizing ring or to the support ring.
Claim 2 recites the phrase “such as” in line 4, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites “the ceiling” in line 4, which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 4 recites “the sealed volume” in line 3, which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 9 recites “the seal” in line 2, which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 10 recites “its walls” in line 2, which does not agree in number with “a wall” in claim 1.
Claim 12 recites “it” in line 2, but it is not clear whether this limitation refers to the insertion tube or to the plug.
Claims 5-8, 11, and 13 incorporate the limitations of an indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (JP 2016-059996 A; see attached English language machine translation).
Consider claim 1. Takahashi teaches a device for manipulating items contained in a glove box, comprising: an enclosure ring (200) adapted to be fixed to the edge of a through opening formed in a wall of the glove box, a sealed protective sleeve (300) comprising an open end (at right side of 320), a support ring (360) on which the sealed protective sleeve is sealingly mounted, the support ring being adapted to be fitted into the enclosure ring in such a way as to sealingly fix the protective sleeve to the enclosure ring (see figs. 1 and 2), a robotic arm or a slave arm of a remote manipulator (100) comprising a plug (205, 206, 207), the robotic arm or the slave arm being adapted to be inserted into the protective sleeve with the plug which sealingly plugs the open end of the protective sleeve (see fig. 1).
Consider claim 2. Takahashi teaches an immobilizing ring (inner surface of 201 which engages 321) to lock the support ring when it is fitted into the enclosure ring.
Consider claim 3. Takahashi teaches the robotic arm or the slave arm being mounted on a support (101) for absorbing forces exerted by the robotic arm or the slave arm, the support being adapted to be fixed to the ground, to a partition of a structure, such as a wall, or to the ceiling (via an operator).
Consider claim 5. Takahashi teaches the plug comprising a base (206), a sealed collar (205) fixed sealingly around the base, and a means (204) for sealingly fixing the collar to the support ring.
Consider claim 7. Takahashi teaches the collar comprising an inner bead (207) housed and compressed in a groove formed in the base (206, see fig. 2).
Consider claim 8. Takahashi teaches the fixing means being a support hoop (204) on which the collar is mounted, the support hoop being adapted to be fitted into the support ring in such a way as to fix the collar sealingly to the support ring (see figs. 1 and 2).
Consider claim 10. Takahashi teaches a glove box comprising: a through opening formed in one of its walls (see paragraph [0002]), a device as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection above), the enclosure ring being fixed to the edge of the through opening (at 250) and the support ring being fitted into the enclosure ring, thus sealingly fixing the sealed protective sleeve to the enclosure ring (see fig. 1).
Consider claim 11. Takahashi teaches the plug of the device comprising a base (206), a sealed collar (205) fixed sealingly around the base, and a means (204) for sealingly fixing the collar to the support ring, the fixing means being a support hoop (204) on which the collar is mounted, the support hoop being adapted to be fitted into the support ring in such a way as to fix the collar sealingly to the support ring (see figs. 1 and 2), the box comprising a spacer (between 204 and 206) adapted to be assembled with the support hoop and the base so as to maintain a radial separation, between the support hoop and the base (assembly of 204 and 206 allowing for free rotation of 206; see paragraphs [0027]-[0028]).
Consider claim 12. Takahashi teaches an insertion tube (inner surface of 204) for guiding the plug in translation when it is inserted into the sealed protective sleeve.
Consider claim 13. Takahashi teaches the insertion tube comprising a mechanism (205; see paragraphs [0027]-[0028]) for exerting a pushing force on the plug.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (JP 2016-059996 A; see attached English language machine translation).
Consider claim 6. Takahashi does not explicitly teach from what material the collar is made. Takahashi teaches that flexible polymer is well-known in the art (polyvinyl chloride; see paragraph [0031]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the collar from flexible polymer in order to minimize cost while making the collar durable to wear. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (JP 2016-059996 A; see attached English language machine translation) in view of Henry et al. (US 6,974,197 B1), hereafter referred to as Henry.
Consider claim 4. Takahashi does not explicitly teach a pressure sensor as specifically claimed. Henry teaches a pressure sensor which detects a change of pressure in a sealed volume (see column 2, line 66-column 3, line 8). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Takahashi’s protective sleeve with a pressure sensor as taught by Henry in order to alert an operator when there is a leak in the glove box to improve operator safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The attached PTO-892 lists references which teach various sealing devices for manipulation openings in a glove box.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D SNELTING whose telephone number is (571)270-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:30 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 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.
/JONATHAN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights