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 .
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claims 1 – 16 are currently pending and considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Kingdom of Sweden on 5 September, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the SE 22193959.8 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. The Applicant submitted the foreign priority of EP 22193959.8 dated on 5 September 2022 instead.
The Examiner will acknowledge the prior date of 5 September, 2022 based on the certified copy of EP 22193959.8 but not SE 22193959.8 as stated in the Applicant Data Sheet for the purpose of the examination.
As the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 119 (a-d) are not fully met due to lack of certified copy of SE 22193959.8.
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.
Claims 1 – 12 and 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aegerter (DE 102016203171 B3) (As submitted by the Applicant in IDS) in view of Truelsen (CN 111601767 A).
As per claim 1, Aegerter teaches the limitation of:
a vacuum lifting arrangement (See at least abstract; A suction holding device (1) is proposed which has a suction holder (2) which includes a housing (6) and a control body (23) movable with respect to the housing (6). The housing (6) defines a working chamber (14) which has a working opening (15) that can be covered by an object (3) to be held in place. A suction channel (45) extends through the control body (23), to which a vacuum source (V) is connected, the control body (23) being positionable such that the suction channel (45) either communicates with the working chamber (14) in a suction position of the control body (23) or is separated from the working chamber (14) in a shut-off position of the control body (23).), comprising:
a vacuum source (See at least abstract; a vacuum source (V) );
a suction foot having an upper end, and a lower end configured to engage with an object to be lifted (See at least abstract and figure 1);
a load valve comprising a movable valve member (Figure 1, #28) configured to be movable between a closed position in which closed position the valve member prevents an air flow from an inner volume of the suction foot through the valve into an inner volume of the housing of suction holding/lifting device (See at least figure 3), and an open position, in which open position the valve member enables an air flow from the inner volume of the suction foot into the inner volume of the lifting tube through the valve, which valve is disposed inside the upper end of the suction foot, or, inside the housing of suction holding/lifting device See at least figure 1), and which valve is configured to be in the open position in an instance of rest of the vacuum lifting arrangement, characterized in that the load valve is pneumatic and exhibits a pneumatic cylinder (#55) having a high-pressure side configured to stand in fluid connection with ambient air, and a low-pressure side configured to stand in fluid connection with the inner volume of the housing of suction holding/lifting device, in which cylinder a movable member (#34) is displaced, configured to be movable in a direction between the high-pressure side and low-pressure side, the movable member being operatively connected to the movable valve member, and, in that, an opening (#48) is provided fluidly connecting the inner volume of the suction foot with the inner volume of the suction tube (See at least figure 1 and figure 3, paragraph 20 – 22; The suction holding device is expediently equipped with a control valve device, by means of which the vacuum application to the suction channel can be controlled. Preferably, the control valve device is capable of connecting the suction channel to a vacuum source in order to make it possible to evacuate the working chamber in the suction position of the control body. Expediently, the control valve device can also separate the suction channel from the vacuum source and instead, in one possible embodiment, connect it to the atmosphere and, in another possible embodiment, to a positive pressure source. The control valve device can also be designed such that the suction channel separated from the vacuum source can be selectively connected to the atmosphere or to a positive pressure source. Connecting to the atmosphere or to an overpressure source has the advantage that in the control body positioned in the suction position, ventilation of the working chamber can take place through the suction channel, which reduces the underpressure located there to atmospheric pressure or to an overpressure located above it, so that an object held until then is detached from the suction holder or even actively discharged. The control valve device is preferably designed such that it also controls the movement and the positioning of the control body with respect to the housing. It is expedient to equip the suction holding device with an electronic control device which controls both the application of negative pressure to the suction channel and the movement and the positioning of the control body with respect to the housing, for example by electrically activating the abovementioned control valve device.).
PNG
media_image1.png
1092
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1103
760
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While Aegerter teaches the limitation of vacuum device and connection of one side of housing to vacuum device and another side of the housing is connected to the upper end of suction foot (See rejection above), Aegerter does not explicitly show a lifting tube that is sealingly attached to the upper end of the suction foot, and the second end of the lifting tube being configured to be operatively connected to the vacuum source.
Truelsen teaches the limitations of:
a lifting tube that is sealingly attached to the upper end of the suction foot, and the second end of the lifting tube being configured to be operatively connected to the vacuum source (See at least figure 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
875
623
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a lifting tube that is sealingly attached to the upper end of the suction foot, and the second end of the lifting tube being configured to be operatively connected to the vacuum source as taught by Truelsen in the system of Aegerter, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, the combination of Aegerter and Truelsen teaches the limitation of:
wherein the opening is formed in the movable valve member of the pneumatic load valve, in the valve seat of the pneumatic valve, or in the vicinity of the pneumatic valve (Aegerter , see at least paragraph 20).
As per claim 3, the combination of Aegerter and Truelsen teaches the limitation of:
The vacuum lifting arrangement of claim 1, wherein additionally, upstream of the pneumatic load valve, a flow valve configured to connect the inner volume of the lifting tube to ambient air (Aegerter, see at least paragraph 7 and 20 and figure 1, Truelsen, see at least page 12 paragraph 2).
As per claim 5, the combination of Aegerter and Truelsen teaches the limitation of:
wherein the pneumatic cylinder comprises a spring, biasing the load valve into the open position in a state of non-activity of the vacuum lifting arrangement (Aegerter, see at least paragraph 14 and 39).
As per claim 6, the combination of Aegerter and Truelsen teaches the limitation of:
wherein the movable valve member and a valve seat of the pneumatic valve are configured to form a tight seal in the closed position of the pneumatic valve (Aegerter, see at least paragraph 20 – 23).
As per claim 7, the combination of Aegerter and Truelsen teaches the limitation of:
wherein the pneumatic valve is displaced inside the lifting tube in the first end thereof (Aegerter, see at least figure 1 and 3, and Truelsen, see at least figure 1).
As per claim 8, the combination of Aegerter and Truelsen teaches the limitation of:
Wherein the lifting tube is flexible and configured to allow for extension and retraction thereof (Truelsen, see at least figure 1 and page 9 paragraph 7 – page 10 paragraph 1).
As per claim 9, the combination of Aegerter and Truelsen teaches the limitation of:
wherein the flow valve is configured to control the vertical position of the suction foot (Aegerter, see at least paragraph 4 and 6).
As per claim 10, the combination of Aegerter and Truelsen teaches the limitation of:
wherein the pneumatic valve is configured so that a direction of movement of the movable valve member is essentially parallel with a general longitudinal direction of the lifting tube (Aegerter, see at least figure 1 and 3, and Truelsen, see at least figure 1).
As per claim 11, the combination of Aegerter and Truelsen teaches the limitation of:
wherein the movable member is a piston (Aegerter, see at least paragraph 13 – 14) .
As per claim 12, the combination of Aegerter and Truelsen teaches the limitation of:
wherein the movable member is a membrane (Aegerter, see at least figure 1 and 3).
Regarding claims 4 and 14 – 15:
Claims 4 and 14 – 15 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 1 – 12 above, respectively.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aegerter and Truelsen and in further view of Tanaka et al. (US 2017/0073174 A1).
As per claim 13, the combination of Aegerter and Truelsen does not explicitly teach the limitation of:
wherein the suction foot is detachable.
Tanaka teaches the limitation of:
wherein the suction foot is detachable (See at least paragraph 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the suction foot is replacable as taught by Tanaka in the system of the combination of Aegerter and Truelsen, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 13 above, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carlsson (WO 2021/145815 A1) discloses vacuum lifting arrangement and method for providing a such.
Paul (US 2019/0276279 A1) discloses operating device for a tube lifter and tube lifter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights