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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 34, 36-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sadeh (US 4,498,404).
Sadeh teaches the method for robot assisted sewing as claimed including gripping a first fabric layer (WP1) by a handling mechanism (figure 2) of a handling robot (10) with an effector (24) for handling fabric layers (WP1, WP2); positioning the first fabric layer above a second fabric layer which rests on a worktable (8); fixing the first fabric layer (WP1) with the second fabric layer (WP2) to form a fabric layer stack (Figure 5) by means of a fixing mechanism ( which is arranged at least partially at the effector in such a way that a joining region (SL) of the first fabric layer (WP1) rests on a further joining region of the second fabric layer (WP2) (Column 6, lines 17-42); feeding the fabric layer stack to a sewing machine (4) by means of the handling mechanism, wherein the joining regions (SL) are freely accessible for the sewing machine (4); sewing the joining regions (Figure 5), wherein during the sewing the handling mechanism guides the fabric layer stack relative to the sewing machine (Column 6, lines 59-63); and handling the sewn fabric layer stack by means of the handling mechanism from the sewing machine to a depositing location (column 7, lines 1-5). Regarding claim 36, Sadeh teaches the at least one feature of the first fabric layer (WP1) and the second fabric layer (WP2) form regions of a fabric part. Regarding claim 37, Sadeh teaches a work surface of the worktable comprises adhesion regions with different static friction (via positive and negative pressure, Column 6, lines 1-4) and as such different adhesion regions for aligning the first fabric layer, the second fabric layer or the fabric layer stack when positioning the first fabric layer, the second fabric layer or the fabric layer stack, wherein the adhesion of the adhesion regions is controllable. Regarding claim 38, the handling mechanism moves the fabric layer stack over the adhesion regions such that the position of the lower second fabric layer is adjusted to the first upper fabric layer due to the static friction to the adhesion region. Regarding claim 43, Sadeh teaches the at least one feature of the handling mechanism comprising an effector contour (as shown at least in figure 5), wherein one of the fabric layers or the fabric layer stack can be fastened within the effector contour. Regarding claim 44, Sadeh also teaches a program element for robot-assisted sewing of fabric layers for clothing, which program element, when executed by a processor, is configured to carry out the method according to claim 34 (Column 2, lines 62-67). Regarding claim 45, Sadeh teaches the system for robot assisted sewing of fabric layers including a handling robot (10) with an effector (24), which comprises a handling mechanism for handling fabric layers (WP1, WP2), wherein the handling mechanism is configured to grip a first fabric layer (WP1), wherein the handling mechanism is configured to position the first fabric layer (WP1) above a second fabric layer (WP2) which rests on a worktable (8); a fixing mechanism which is arranged at least partially at the effector, wherein the fixing mechanism is configured to fix the first fabric layer and the second fabric layer to one another to form a fabric layer stack (figure 5) in such a way that a joining region (SL) of the first fabric layer rests on a further joining region of the second fabric layer; and a sewing machine (4), wherein the handling mechanism is configured to feed the fabric layer stack to the sewing machine, wherein the joining regions are freely accessible for the sewing machine, wherein the sewing machine is configured to sew the joining regions, wherein the handling mechanism is configured to guide the fabric layer stack relative to the sewing machine during the sewing, wherein the handling mechanism is configured to convey the sewn fabric layer stack from the sewing machine to a depositing location. Regarding claim 46, Sadeh teaches the at least one feature of Sadeh teaches the at least one feature of the handling mechanism is selected from the group consisting of at least one of grippers, suckers (suction), clamps, regions with at least one of increased friction and electrostatic attraction, rollers, freezing grippers, and Bernoulli grippers. Regarding claim 50, wherein the effector comprises an abutment surface within an effector contour, at which one of the fabric layers or the fabric layer stack can abut, wherein the abutment surface is configured to hold one of the fabric layers based on air pressure. Regarding claim 51, the abutment surface forms a suction surface as part of the handling mechanism, at which one of the fabric layers or the fabric layer stack can abut, wherein the suction surface comprises a plurality of suction openings. Regarding claim 53, Sadeh teaches the at least one feature of the fixing mechanism comprising a suction device with at least one sucking unit.
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 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadeh in view of German patent document DE 202015102104.
Sadeh teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the handling mechanism singulates (separating) the second fabric layer from a plurality of fabric layers and deposits it in a flat manner on a work surface of the worktable. German patent document DE 202015102104 teaches separating a single fabric layer from a stack of fabric layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sewing robot of Sabeh with a separating mechanism for separating layers from a stack of layers for the purpose of allowing loading of a plurality of fabric layers to be automatically sewn by the robot rather than loading each fabric layer individually.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant is reminded that all business with the Patent and Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt. 37 C.F.R. 1.2
Further it is noted that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.111, including:
-The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references.
-A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
-Moreover, The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06, MPEP 714.02. The "disclosure" includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY WORRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4997. The examiner can normally be reached on M, W-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/DANNY WORRELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights