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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/29/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant has been advised to replace “Gripping system” in line 1 of each claim to – The gripping system--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an elastic resting element” and “a constraint element” in claim 1 and “adjustment members” in claim 5. In view of the written specification, Examiner has interpreted them as -- an elastic lamina (Pg 7 li 10-11) --; -- a protrusion, for example a leg or a foot (Pg 9 li 3) --; and – screws 31 (Pg 7 li 15) --, respectively.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 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 limitation “in particular…” in line 1. 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 1 recites the broad recitation “composite material” in line 1, and the claim also recites “with a thermoplastic matrix” in line 1 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. Furthermore, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite such as “for example" because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The remaining dependent claims 2-10 are also rejected under 112 (b) because they depend from, and thus include all the limitations of rejected claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corvaglia et al. (US 2021/0060831 A1-of record) in view of Nguyen (US 2022/0081260 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Corvaglia teaches gripping system (“a fixed support structure 9” and “holding means 15”, Pa [0048] and [0051]) for compression molding of a slab of composite material, in particular with a thermoplastic matrix (“a compression molding device according to the present invention configured to produce a first example of a part or component 2 in composite material, preferably for use in the aeronautical sector, starting from a plane plate 3 in composite material with a thermoplastic matrix”, Pa [0038]), said gripping system comprising:
a support structure (“a fixed support structure 9”, Pa [0048]) defining a cavity designed to receive in use said slab (“the plate 3”, Pa [0051]) to be molded in a loading direction transverse to the slab itself (“in a direction A transverse to the plate 3 itself”, Pa [0052], Fig. 2); and
at least two releasable gripping members (“respective releasable grippers 16”, Pa [0057]), carried by said support structure and configured to retain said slab in a predetermined position for molding (“holding means 15 carried by the support structure 9 in a fixed position and configured to hold the plate 3 in a position interposed between the upper half-die 10 and the lower half-die 12”, Pa [0051]);
in which said gripping members are configured to frictionally grip distinct portions of a peripheral edge of said slab and to completely release the slab itself as soon as it is compressed during molding (“respective releasable grippers 16 configured to grip by friction distinct portions of a peripheral edge 18 of the plate 3 and to completely release or allow the complete release of the plate 3 itself when the latter is compressed between the upper half-die 10 and the lower half-die 12 during the molding operation.”, Pa [0057]);
characterized in that each said gripping member comprises:
a jaw (“24”), which has a head portion adapted to cooperate in use with a second surface of said peripheral edge of said slab, opposite to said first surface with respect to said loading direction (See the annotated Fig. 7 below); said jaw being movable between a stable equilibrium operative position (Fig. 7), in which it protrudes inside said cavity with its head portion to retain in grip said peripheral edge of said slab, and an unstable equilibrium operative position (Fig. 6), in which it is set aside from said cavity and allows the movement of said slab along said loading direction (“each gripper 16 comprises two jaws 23, 24, hinged together around a common axis B that is parallel to the relative side of the frame element 20 to which the gripper 16 itself is fixed, and which are movable between a closing configuration (FIGS. 4 and 7) and an opening configuration (FIG. 6).”, Pa [0063]);
PNG
media_image1.png
396
1301
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and characterized by also comprising a constraint element (“actuator means 30” and “an actuating portion 32”, Pa [0069] and [0072]) that inhibits the displacement of said jaw from said stable equilibrium operative position to said unstable equilibrium operative position in a movement direction of said slab opposite to said loading direction (“actuator means 30 configured to load one or both of the relative jaws 23, 24 towards the closing configuration and defining the retention force on the relative plate 3. In the case illustrated, the actuator means 30 of each gripper 16 comprise a spring 31, in particular with a cylindrical helix, wound around the relative pin 27 and acting on the jaws 23, 24 through the respective arms 28, 29 so as to push the same jaws 23, 24 towards the closing configuration.”, Pa [0069]-[0070]).
Corvaglia is silent to an elastic resting element configured to receive in abutment a first surface of said peripheral edge of said slab and elastically deformable between a first undeformed operative position, set in absence of external stresses, and a second deformed operative position, spaced from the first operative position along said loading direction and reached as a result of the movement of said slab along the loading direction itself.
In the same field of endeavor, clamping devices for lifting and transferring objects, Nguyen teaches that a clamping device 2700 can include a first jaw 2760, a rubber pad 2765 can be coupled to the first jaw to increase friction with clamped objects, and a jaw assembly including a second jaw 2741, a rubber pad 2745 can be coupled to the second jaw to increase friction with clamped objects (Pa [0511] and Fig. 27B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Corvaglia with the teachings of Nguyen and provide the rubber pad in each jaw of Corvaglia in order to increase friction with clamped plate.
With respect to claim 2, Corvaglia as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that said cavity has a central axis and wherein said loading direction is parallel to said central axis (“a direction A”, Pa [0052], Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 3, Corvaglia as applied to claim 2 above further teaches that said central axis and said loading direction are vertical (“a direction A”, Pa [0052], Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 6, Corvaglia as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that said jaw of each said gripping member has its own intermediate portion hinged, about a rotation axis orthogonal to said loading direction, to a frame fixed with respect to said support structure (See the annotated Fig. 6 below) (“The hinging axes B of the jaws 23, 24 of each gripper 16 are orthogonal to the direction A and parallel to the relative side of the peripheral edge 18 of the plate 3 on which they act.”, Pa [0065]; “the jaw 23 of each gripper 16 is arranged below the jaw 24 and is fixed to the relative support arm 22”, Pa [0066]; “The jaw 24 of each gripper 16 has a front operative portion 26, also extending from the hinging area with the relative jaw 23 and substantially V-shaped with concavity facing towards the jaw 23 itself so as to cooperate with the relative plate 3 along a line or strip of the latter.”, Pa [0067]).
PNG
media_image2.png
418
1265
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, Corvaglia as applied to claim 6 above further teaches that said jaw of each gripping member further comprises a rear portion disposed on the opposite side of said intermediate portion with respect to said head portion (See the annotated Fig. 6 above), and wherein said constraint element comprises a projection (“an actuating portion 32”, Pa [0072]) protruding cantilevered from said rear portion of said jaw and configured to cooperate in contact with a predefined part of said support structure and prevent the rotation of the jaw itself from said stable equilibrium operative position in the event of external stress on said head portion in the movement direction opposite to said loading direction (“Each gripper 16 also comprises an actuating portion 32 carried by one of the jaws 23, 24, extending rearwardly from the hinging zone B with respect to the relative operating portion 25, 26 and actuatable from the outside to bring the gripper itself into the opening configuration.”, Pa [0072]; “the actuating portion 32 is constituted by a plate fixed, at its own end portion 32 a, to the jaw 24 in proximity to the hinging area and protruding rearwardly in a cantilever manner from the jaw 24 itself. In greater detail, the actuating portion 32 of each gripper 16 extends posteriorly to the jaw 23 so as to spread apart therefrom starting from the hinging area and has a free end portion 32 b, opposite the end portion 32 a and slightly bent towards the jaw 23 itself.”, Pa [0073]).
With respect to claim 8, Corvaglia as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that said support structure comprises a frame element extending around said loading direction and having a plurality of attachment zones for selectively fixing a desired number of said gripping members related to the configuration of the slab to be subjected to compression molding and to the retaining force that is desired to be exerted on said slab (“the support structure 9 comprises a frame element 20, in this case with a rectangular profile, having a plurality of attachment areas 21 for the selective fixing of a desired number of grippers 16 correlated to the configuration of the plate 3 to be molded and to the retention force on the plate 3 itself which is desired to be obtained.”, Pa [0060]).
With respect to claim 9, Corvaglia as applied to claim 8 above further teaches that said gripping members are fixed internally to said frame element by means of variable or extendable length support arms of said support structure (“the grippers 16 are fixed internally to the frame element 20 through support arms 22 of variable or extensible length so as to be able to adapt to different profiles of the plate to be subjected to molding.”, Pa [0062]); said support arms being constrained, at their own end portions, to respective said attachment zones and extending along respective longitudinal directions orthogonal to said loading direction (Figs. 2 and 3).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corvaglia et al. (US 2021/0060831 A1-of record) in view of Nguyen (US 2022/0081260 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hughes (US 3,793,815 A).
With respect to claim 4, Nguyen as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above teaches a clamping device including jaws, each coupled with rubber pad to increase friction with clamped objects (Pa [0511]), but does not explicitly teach that said elastic resting element of each gripping member comprises an elastic lamina having a first end portion fixed with respect to said support structure and a second opposite end portion, protruding with respect to said support structure towards said cavity and free to flex in said loading direction upon receipt of said slab in the loading direction itself.
Hughes relates to a tree shaker and teaches that it has a pair of tree gripping arms 41 (co 2 li 64-65), the gripping jaws 47 include an opposed pair of buffering cushions 130 fabricated of sheets 131 of an elastomeric material with a considerable coefficient of surface friction, such as rubber, each of the sheets 131 is mounted by suitable fasteners 132 on the respective upper inner edges of the two vibrating heads 48 and 49 located at the forward ends of the respective clamping arms 42 and 43, the buffering sheets 131 extend inwardly toward each other from their horizontal mountings and drape downwardly into vertical attitude to form a pair of spaced parallel trunkengaging portions 134 (co 6 li 12-23), the buffering cushions 130 engage the trunk 61 of the tree when the clamping jaws 47 are in closed position and, being of deformable material as well as possessing a substantial coefficient of friction, the jaws not only grip the trunk firmly but also with a minimum of abrasion, the yieldable nature of the back-up pad 136 augments the positive yet safe grip on the trunk as clamping and shaking takes place, and as wear occurs, the buffering cushions 130 can readily be replaced (co 6 li 32-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Corvaglia in view of Nguyen with the teachings of Hughes and substitute an opposed pair of buffering cushions 130 fabricated of sheets 131 of an elastomeric material for the rubber pads in order to not only grip the plate firmly but also with a minimum of abrasion.
With respect to claim 5, Hughes as applied in the combination regarding claim 4 above further teaches adjustment members interposed between said first end portion of said elastic resting element of each gripping member and said support structure to adjust the position of the elastic resting element itself to and from said cavity (“Each of the sheets 131 is mounted by suitable fasteners 132 on the respective upper inner edges of the two vibrating heads 48 and 49 located at the forward ends of the respective clamping arms 42 and 43.”, co 6 li 16-19).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corvaglia et al. (US 2021/0060831 A1-of record) in view of Nguyen (US 2022/0081260 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Slutsky et al. (US 2008/0175941 A1-of record).
With respect to claim 10, Corvaglia as applied to claim 9 above teaches that the grippers 16 are fixed internally to the frame element 20 through support arms 22 (Pa [0062]), but does not explicitly teach that each said support arm comprises at least two arm elements, hinged to each other about a hinge axis parallel to said loading direction, such that one of said arm elements can rotate with respect to the other of said arm elements so as to orient the respective gripping member with respect to the slab to be gripped and compression molded.
In the same field of endeavor, thermoforming machine, Slutsky teaches that pallet 208 may include a tray 60 with a peripheral billet support surface 62, at different points on one side of the tray 60 (such as at each of the four corners), may be positioned grippers 66, gripper 66 (seen best in FIG. 3C) may include a curved cam head 68 mounted by means of a post 69 on an arm 70 (Pa [0035]) and the gripper of the pallet of FIGS. 3A-3D is arranged for rotational movement between a first position, wherein the gripper does not grip a billet placed in the pallet, and a second position, wherein the gripper grips the billet placed in the pallet (Pa [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Corvaglia in view of Nguyen with the teachings of Slutsky and additionally provide a post 69 and an arm 70 with the relative support arm 22 for the purpose of rotational movement of the grippers, since it has been held that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. 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.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights