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 .
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 2, 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 2 recites in part “… preferably an outer casing thereof…” it is unclear whether the limitation after the word preferably is part of the claim or not.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "such as" 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 8 recites in part “…movement of gripper ( and a piece good carried by it) with respect to the telescopic arm…” it is unclear whether the limitation between parenthesis is part of the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “…less than 25 cm…”, and the claim also recites “…less than 22 cm…” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spicher [US Pub # 2003/0133775].
Regarding claim 1: Spicher shows a device for moving piece goods from a supply device to a receiving device, comprising:
A supply device (4), such as a conveyor belt, for delivering piece goods in a plane;
A receiving device, such as a tray, for receiving piece goods;
wherein
A suspension point (7) located above the plane, relative to which a first part of a:
telescopic arm (2) is suspended at a first location thereof so as to be rotatable about two axes of rotation (see [0036], fig 1, axis X and Y),-3,
which axes of rotation each extend substantially parallel to the plane and at a, preferably straight, angle to each other, so that
a second location, located at a distance towards the plane of the first location, formed by an end of the first part of the telescopic arm:
is movable relative to the plane with a directional component in two mutually perpendicular directions parallel to the plane; and where
the telescopic arm comprises a second part, which is telescopically movable relative to the first part in a direction from the first location to the second location, thus with a directional component from the suspension point to and from the plane (see [0032] and [0033], fig 4 and 5),
which second part is provided on a side facing the plane with an engaging means (27) for engaging at least one of the piece goods, wherein the first and second parts of the telescopic arm are mutually rotatable about a rotation axis extending coaxially with respect to both parts, wherein all rotational and translational movements of the telescopic arm can be driven individually and controllably ([0036]).
Regarding claim 2: Spicher shows wherein at least one of the first and second parts of the telescopic arm (2), preferably an outer casing thereof, is made of carbon.
Regarding claim 3: Spicher shows designed to extend the telescopic arm (2) the more, the more the deflection around one of the axes of rotation is, in order to keep the engaging means (27) within a certain distance from the plane.
Regarding claim 4: Spicher shows comprising a direct drive for driving the telescopic movement of the second part (2, “… the removal arm 2 is longitudinally displaceably…”) relative to the first part in a direction from the first location to the second location, and for driving the rotation about the rotation axis extending coaxially with respect to both parts.
Regarding claim 7: Spicher shows comprising a suspension (29) for a gripper (28) coupled to the second part of the telescopic arm (2), wherein the suspension is independently movable with respect to the second part of the telescopic arm (2), in particular over two rotational degrees of freedom.
Regarding claim 8: Spicher shows wherein the suspension is configured to compensate for the change of orientation due to the swing of the telescopic arm (2) or be used for purposive movement of the gripper (28) (and a piece good carried by it) with respect to the telescopic arm.
Regarding claim 11: Spicher shows wherein the suspension is electrically drivable (by the motor).
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.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spicher [US Pub # 2003/0133775] in view of Iqtidar [US Pub # 20170217013].
Regarding claim 4: Spicher does not explicitly show a harmonic drive for driving the movement relative to the plane with a directional component in two mutually perpendicular directions parallel to the plane. However Iqtidar shows a harmonic drive for driving the movement relative to the plane with a directional component in two mutually perpendicular directions parallel to the plane (44).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have provided the motor with harmonic drive to reduce backlash and increase movement accuracy.
Regarding claim 6: Spicher does not explicitly disclose release means (113) such as a knob, for unlocking the drives, for allowing movement of the telescopic arm by an external force.
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have provided the device with release mechanism to allow free movement of the arm in case of motor matfunction.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spicher [US Pub # 2003/0133775] in view of Scarfe [US Pat # 11034034].
Regarding claim 12: Spicher does not explicitly disclose wherein the engaging means comprise a suction cup. However Scarfe shows wherein the engaging means comprise a suction cup (30).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have provided the device with suction cup to expedite the picking process in addition suction cup provides more flexibility to accommodate different shapes and objects sizes.
Regarding claim 13-17 : Spicher does not explicitly shows The assembly of several devices arranged in an array, configured to jointly pick piece goods in a first mutual orientation from the supply device and place them in a second orientation different from the first orientation on the receiving device, wherein each of the devices of the assembly has a working space or area, defined as the space or area wherein the engaging means can be moved, wherein the working areas of different devices overlap and in particular the multiple devices may be working in the overlapping area at the same time, that is, simultaneously. The assembly configured to move jointly picked piece goods from the first mutual orientation to the a second mutual orientation via mutually crossing paths. However Scarfe The assembly of several devices (21, see fig 11) arranged in an array, configured to jointly pick piece goods (3) in a first mutual orientation from the supply device and place them in a second orientation different from the first orientation on the receiving device, wherein each of the devices (21) of the assembly has a working space or area, defined as the space or area wherein the engaging means can be moved, wherein the working areas (7) of different devices overlap and in particular the multiple devices may be working in the overlapping area at the same time, that is, simultaneously. The assembly configured to move jointly picked piece goods (3) from the first mutual orientation to a second mutual orientation via mutually crossing paths.
moving piece goods from a supply device to a receiving device, comprising picking up a piece good (3) from a supply device (7) and moving it to the receiving device. moving multiple piece goods simultaneously from supply devices to receiving devices of multiple devices, and changing the mutual orientation of the piece goods (3) during the movement.
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have provided the device with several devices to simultaneously pick the items and expedite the picking and transferring of the items.
wherein the devices have a common suspension point, wherein their shafts are at a mutual distance of Spicher and Scarf do not expliclity disclose a distance of less than 25 cm and in particular less than 22 cm and in particular between 10 and 20 cm, and/or about 15 cm. However selecting a particular distance is design choice.
In 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.[AltContent: rect]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 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 ZAKARIA ELAHMADI whose telephone number is (571)270-5324. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. 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.
/ZAKARIA ELAHMADI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights