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 .
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites the limitation "the moving mechanism" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samac (US 8,469,345).
Samac discloses an adsorbing mechanism comprising:
a base 704, 708, 904;
a plurality of suction cup units 902, 906, 1924 (FIGS. 9, 11, 19) disposed on a base and parallel to each other, each suction cup unit is configured to telescopically move along a first direction, and a plurality of suction cup units further configured for connecting to an external vacuum device 504-512, such that a negative pressure is generated in suction cup units for adsorbing an adsorbing surface of a product; and
a clamping unit disposed on a side of a base along a first direction, a clamping unit comprising a first clamping member 1920 (FIG. 19) and a second clamping member 1922, wherein first and second clamping members are located on opposite sides of suction cup units (1924 in FIG. 19), respectively, along a third direction, a third direction is perpendicular to a first direction,
wherein, under actuation (indicated generally as actuation of driving members 1916, 1918 which move brakes 1920, 1922) by first and second clamping members 1920, 1922 are configured to move close to or away from each other to clamp or release a plurality of suction cup units.
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.
Claim(s) 9 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samac in view of Hertz (US 6,726,195).
Samac does not disclose one first clamping member and two second clamping member. Hertz discloses one first clamping member 510, 522 and two second clamping member 120/524, 125/526, two second clamping members are parallel to each other, two clamping members are spaced from each other along a first direction, along a third direction, a projection of a first clamping member is between projections of two second clamping members. 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 Samac to provide discloses one first clamping member and two second clamping members, two second clamping members being parallel to each other, two clamping members spaced from each other along a first direction, along a third direction, a projection of a first clamping member is between projections of two second clamping members, as taught by Hertz, which allows for ease of removal and re-installation of any of the elongated support members.
Claim(s) 10, 19 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samac in view of Habisreitinger (US 2005/0042323).
See the above rejection of claim 1 for rejection of claim 10, lines 1-15. Samac does not disclose a transferring mechanism configured to drive the adsorbing mechanism to move. Habisreitinger discloses a robot 10, e.g. transferring mechanism, configured to drive an adsorbing mechanism 27 to move. 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 Samac to include a transferring mechanism, as taught by Habisreitinger, thereby allowing transferring articles from a base of shapes potentially not matching the shape of the article to be absorbed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 & 12-14 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