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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 14, 17, 23, 24, and 26-31 are currently pending.
In regarding to claim 24, Applicant argues that “Brown does not disclose a support element configured to receive and secure a card at a desired focal distance relative to a laser source” (page 6, arguments). Examiner notes that the apparatus is “a card positioning device for use inside a printer”, wherein the card is the intended workpiece, and the printer is the intended environment of the device. In response to applicant's argument, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the case of the prior art, Brown’s positioning device is configured to hold and position a workpiece, such as in manufacturing, machining, or industrial processes, with a high degree of accuracy in order to achieve highly precise positioning of the workpiece (see [0002]).
Regarding Applicant’s argument directed towards Brown not disclosing the claimed at least one linear actuator rotatably coupled to the basic structure, and “another actuator whose second end is fastened to the basic structure and constrained to linear-only movement” (emphasis added by Applicant and reproduced by Examiner), Examiner has not found persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the claimed invention; claim 24 recites “the other linear actuator is constrained to linear movement relative to the basic structure”. There is no recitation of “only”. Furthermore Brown does disclose the argued amendment; in order to reduce redundancy, please refer to the updated grounds of rejection below which addresses the claim limitation in view of the prior art.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed towards claim 14 being unpatentable over the prior art, i.e.1) “Brown does not teach at least three handling means comprising connecting-rod-crank systems” and Canfield does not teach this feature, and 2) “Brown does not teach the claimed connecting element having a rotatable first end and a non-rotatable second end fixed to a basic structure”, Examiner has carefully considered but has not found persuasive. In regards to Applicant’s argument 1), Applicant argues that the cited portions of Canfield “show only an actuator driving a basal link through a single revolute joint within a 5-R parallel linkage”, and “no crankshaft, crank radius, connecting rod, rotary-to-linear conversion, or crank-based multi-axis inclination mechanism is disclosed” and thus Canifield “cannon teach or suggest the claimed” feature (page 7, arguments). Examiner points out that Canfield is cited for the argued limitation, and that the claimed invention recites, inter alia,
“wherein each of the at least three handling means comprises a connecting-rod-crank system comprising a connecting rod rotatably connected to the supporting element and connected to a crank rotatably connected to an actuating means, and each connecting rod is rotatably connected to the supporting element by a first spherical joint or a first semi-spherical joint”.
Firstly, there is no recitation of a crank radius, crankshaft, rotary-to-linear conversion, or crank-based multi-axis…in the claimed invention. At least a connecting rod, crank, actuating means, and spherical or semi-spherical joint is recited, as can be seen in the reproduced limitation above. As cited in the previous office action, Canfield teaches that three actuators (50) are mounted on plate (46), with the drive shafts (54) of the actuators (50) intermittently rotating or oscillating about their axes, wherein this rotation or oscillation is then converted into reciprocating movement, i.e. linear movement (Col. 6, lines 46-67).
Lastly, in regards to Applicant’s argument 2), Examiner points out that an updated grounds of rejection has been provided as necessitated by amendment, and the argument is thus rendered moot.
Applicant argues the prior art rejection of claim 27, including “Brown and Akeel, alone or in hypothetical combination do not teach the claimed card positioning device” because neither “discloses a card-positioning device for use in side a printer…” (Page 8, Arguments). Examiner has not found Applicant’s arguments persuasive, and in an effort to reduce redundancy, kindly directs Applicant to Examiner’s response provided above in regards to the functional language/intended use of the apparatus. The claimed invention may recite intended use and impart function, however, the printer and laser are not considered positively recited and required parts of the invention. Examiner points out that the rejection of claim 23, which does require a printer, addresses the positive recitation of the printer below. This is further evidence that by reciting “a printer’ in claim 23, the recitations within claim 14 are functional and do not require the structure of a printer (or subcomponents).
Applicant argues that “Akeel utilizes universal joints, not spherical joints, at the actuator connections to the base…” which is “mechanically distinct from a spherical or semi-spherical joint” (Page 9, Arguments). Examiner kindly points out that the claims do not recite the “unconstrained three-axis rotation” as argued by Applicant, nor does the claim explicitly require only a spherical joint, as a semi-spherical joint is also provided as an option within the claim.
Applicant then argues that “even where Akeel discloses spherical joints, they are explicitly positioned at the upper plate, not at the basic structure”. Examiner kindly points out that Akeel is not bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, and that the joints (44, 33) pointed out by Examiner are at least semi-spherical under broadest reasonable interpretation.
For the above stated reasons, Examiner has not found Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Thus, this action is made final herein, as necessitated by amendment.
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:
a support/supporting element…configured for receiving…for keeping a card in claims 14 24, and 27. Examiner is relying upon the supporting element (1) described in page 4, line 21-page 5, line 12.
at least three handling means (…) configured for handling the supporting element to which they are connected in order to arrange the supported card with an inclination useful for its treatment in claims 14 and 27. Examiner is relying upon handling means 3, 23 (page 6, lines 16-25) for sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions.
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 Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 27, please amend “of the at least three handling provides” to read “of the at least three handling means provides”. The word “means” was erroneously deleted in the most recent amendments. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown (US 2014/0151947).
Regarding claim 24, Brown discloses a device for positioning a card within a printer (wherein Examiner acknowledges the intended use of the device with a card, wherein the prior art is designed as a top plate for supporting items, see Abstract and [0002] describing manufacturing, machining, or industrial processes), the device comprising:
a basic structure (110);
a support element (140) defining a surface configured to receive and secure a card at a desired focal distance relative to a laser source of the printer (wherein Examiner acknowledges the intended use of the device with a card, wherein the prior art discloses a top plate, which can receive and support a card; wherein Examiner also recognizes the intended use of the claimed invention within the context of a printer, however, the claimed invention is drawn towards an apparatus, not the combination of the apparatus and a printer, and thus ability of element 140 to receive and secure a card discloses the required functionality); and
a plurality of linear actuators (120) each extending between a first end and a second end (see Figures 6-8),
the first end of at least a portion of the plurality of linear actuators being rotatably coupled to the support element (140) via a spherical joint or semi-spherical joint (see ball 134 in Figure 7, as well as [0040-0041], [0055-0056], [0070]; see also Figure 10),
at least one linear actuator of the plurality of linear actuators being rotatably coupled to the basic structure (110) at the second end (see Figure 6 as well as the pivot pins 115, [0053-0054], [0060-0061]), and
at least one other linear actuator of the plurality of linear actuators having a second end fastened to the basic structure such that the other linear actuator is constrained to linear movement relative to the basic structure (wherein the position of the linear actuator can be specifically set and held at a set position, coupled with the ability to extend in very precise linear increments; see [0041-0043]; wherein [0037] discloses that linear actuator 120A has not been changed and is the same length as starting out, linear actuator 120B has been lengthened, and linear actuator 120C has also been lengthened, i.e. the lengthening of the linear actuators can be constrained to linear movement; wherein [0041] discloses that the actuator slider 122 can be linearly displaced, and wherein [0042] discloses that the controller device can signal a set position, wherein the set position signal may comprise any appropriate mechanical…or pneumatic linear position signal; wherein [0056] discloses that the linear actuator can move in an X-Z plane or in a Y-X plane, i.e. linear movement without rotation; wherein [0058] discloses that rotational movements and linear movements are decoupled),
wherein the plurality of linear actuators are configured to vertically and rotatably position the support element at a desired incline and distance with respect to the laser source within the printer (see at least [0035-0037], wherein [0040] discloses the three linear actuators 120 can move the top plate 140 in a linear motion along the Z-axis, tilt/rotate about the X-axis, and tilt/rotate about the Y-axis; wherein Examiner acknowledges the intended use of the device within a printer having a laser source, however, the printer and laser source are not a part of the claimed invention; wherein the prior art meets the functional limitations required; see also [0041-0042], [0054-0058]).
Regarding claim 26, Brown discloses the invention as applied above, wherein Brown further discloses wherein the at least one linear actuator is rotatably coupled to the basic structure via an electric motor coupled to the basic structure and a connector coupling the linear actuator and the electric motor (see Figure 8 as well as [0044-0046]; wherein each linear actuator 120 is rotatably coupled to the base plate 110, wherein positioning actuator 124 comprises an electric motor, and Figure 8 shows the connection therebetween; see also [0064])
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 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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2014/0151947) in view of Canfield (US 5699695).
Regarding claim 14, Brown discloses a card positioning device for use inside a printer (wherein Examiner acknowledges the intended use of the device with a card, wherein the prior art is designed as a top plate for supporting items, see Abstract and [0002] describing manufacturing, machining, or industrial processes), the card positioning device comprising:
a supporting element (140) configured for receiving a card from an external supplying means and for supporting the card for handling (wherein Examiner acknowledges the intended use of the device with a card, wherein the prior art is designed as a top plate, and can receive and support a card);
at least three handling means (1-20), each under a control unit to arrange an inclination of the supporting element for positioning the card at a selected angle and substantially constant distance with respect to a laser source of the printer (see at least control system 60, Figures 1, 11, 13 and [0029]; see also [0040-0041], [0055-0056], [0070]; see at least Figures 6-8; wherein Examiner acknowledges the intended use of the device within a printer having a laser source, however, the printer and laser source are not a part of the claimed invention; wherein the prior art meets the functional limitations required, as [0021] discloses that the linear actuators 120 can be actuated to raise or lower the top plate 140, i.e., can move the top plate 140 along a Z-axis and can be actuated to tilt the top plate 140 to various degrees of incline and in any direction, i.e., can move the top plate 140 along one or more of the X-axis, the Y-axis, and/or the Z-axis),
wherein each of the at least three handling means comprises a connecting-rod-crank system comprising a connecting rod rotatably connected to the supporting element (wherein there is a linear actuator 120 in the form of a cylinder/rod connected to the top plate 140 via ball joints 34, see [0028]), and each connecting rod is rotatably connected to the supporting element by a first spherical joint or a first semi-spherical joint (please see Figure 1, wherein there are ball joints 34; see also [0028]); and
a connecting element comprising a first end and a second end ([0076]: wherein tripod motion system 300 includes rotator component 313 and table 325, i.e. tripod motion system 300, which serves as a connecting element by connecting the motions of the apparatus, comprises a first end comprising rotator component 313 and a second end comprising table 325), wherein the first end of the connecting element is rotatably and centrally connected to the supporting element through a second spherical or second semi-spherical joint (wherein rotator component 313 is rotatably and centrally connected to the top plate 140, see Figure 12 regarding the semi-spherical joint shown, as well as [0076-0080]), the second end of the connecting element is fastened to a basic structure and is not rotatably connected to the basic structure (wherein the positioning table 325 is fastened to bottom plate 110 as is not rotatably connected, see [0079-0080]), and
the at least three handling means are rotatably connected to the basic structure (wherein each actuator 120 is rotatably connected to the bottom plate 110 via hinge 115), and
wherein cooperative actuation of the connecting systems provides controlled inclination of the supporting element around at least two spatial axes for generating multiple laser incident angles ([0072]; wherein Examiner also recognizes the intended use of the claimed invention within the context of a printer having a laser, however, the claimed invention is drawn towards an apparatus, not the combination of the apparatus and a printer having a laser, and thus the printer and laser source are not a part of the claimed invention; wherein the prior art meets the functional limitations required, as the inclination of plate 140 is controlled around at least two spatial axes for generating different angles of the plate, see [0077-0079], [0082]).
However, Brown does not explicitly teach linear actuators comprises a connecting rod-crank system, and a crank rotatably connected to an actuating means. However, from the same or similar field of endeavor for controlled motion devices, Canfield (US 5699695) teaches three actuators (50) mounted on support plate (46), with drive shafts (54) of actuators (50) intermittently rotating or oscillating, and wherein the rotation or oscillation is converted to reciprocation of connecting rods (60) through cranks (56) that are fixed at one end to the drive shaft (54) and at the opposite end to connecting rods (60; see also Col. 6, lines 46-67), i.e. a connecting-rod-crank system (Figure 4) and a crank (56) rotatably connected to an actuating means (50, 54; see Figure 4, and Col. 6, lines 46-67).
Both Brown and Canfield are directed towards the field of systems designed to use actuators and linked elements to effect a desired orientation of a distal end plate; please see at least the Abstract of both. Brown contemplates modifications to the device, including a system which comprises six degrees of freedom (see [0076] and Figure 12), and that the bottom SDOF hinges can comprise any mechanism that allows movement in a single degree of freedom, such as bearings (see [0054], as well as [0083]). However, Brown does not provide a specific crank linkage which transfers motion to effect orientation or inclination.
Canfield teaches that the rods (60), analogized to the actuators (20) of Brown, have ends coupled to the cranks (56) by a pin passing through both the crank (56) and end of the rod, best shown in Figure 4; this is similar to the pivot pins (15) passing through the hinge (11) of Brown at the ends of respective actuators (20). Canfield then goes on to teach that the rotation or oscillation of the drive shafts (54) converts to a reciprocation of the rods (60), i.e. a linear movement, which then imparts pivotal movement of links (26). This is similar to the shortening and lengthening of the actuators (20) of Brown, wherein the shortening/lengthening movement imparts a tilt to the support plate attached to the other end of the actuators (20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Brown to include the crank control mechanism as taught by Canfield. One would be motivated to do so because the controlling motions may be in excess of 180 degrees, thus allowing greater flexibility for operations and access to a workpiece, please see Col. 7, lines 1-16 of Canfield. Canfield also notes that the motion imparted by the actuators (50) can be constrained such that the motion is held fixed (Col. 7, lines 1-16). The incorporation of the teachings of Canfield would provide an optional supplemental movement in the device of Brown, and may be fixed or selectively used when desired. The additional reciprocation ability would increase the overall shortening/lengthening capabilities of the actuators of Brown, while still maintaining the hinge connections (11/15) at the ends of actuators (20). Canfield serves to compliment the lengthening/shortening movements of Brown’s actuators, as the actuators can reciprocate additional length if necessary. Furthermore, the implementation of a crank in the context of a motion system using actuators and a plate would be have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, and would be another way to achieve the degree of freedom motion transfer accomplished by the invention of Brown.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2014/0151947) in view of Canfield (US 5699695), and in further view of Akeel (US 5987726).
Regarding claim 17, Brown as modified by Canfield teaches the invention as applied above. However, modified Brown does not explicitly teach wherein the supporting element (140) is rotatably coupled to the basic structure (110) through a third spherical or a third semi-spherical joint.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of devices employing multiple degrees of freedom to support an object, Akeel teaches of a device having an upper locator plate (43; see Figure 5), multiple actuators rotatably connected to the locator plate (see 24, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42), each actuator connected to base plate (32), and each actuator having upper joints (44) and lower joints (33), i.e. at least an additional element which allows the supporting element to be connected to the basic structure (32) through a third spherical joint or a third semi-spherical joint (see Col. 8, lines 8-50; see also Col. 3, lines 11-33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated additional joint structure, including intermediate connections between the base plate and the support plate, as taught by Akeel into the invention of modified Brown. One would be motivated to do so because additional degrees of freedom increase the flexibility of the platform to maneuver (see Col. 2, lines 5-15), i.e. increasing versatility, thus allowing the support device to position a device as needed (see Col. 7, lines 1-15; see also Col. 11, lines 28-40).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2014/0151947) in view of Canfield (US 5699695), and in further view of BIELESCH (DE-102017211254-A1).
Regarding claim 23, Brown as modified by Canfield teaches the invention as applied above. However, modified Brown does not explicitly teach the invention is a printer comprising the card positioning device of claim 14. However, Bielesch teaches using a card positioning device in a plastic card treatment device, i.e. a printer (please see at least [0001-0005] describing applying laser radiation to achieve different markings, i.e. applying print via laser; see [0011-0012] regarding the intended workpiece, including at least identify cards, identification cards, access cards, driving licenses).
Both Bielesch and modified Brown use positioning devices, and Brown is silent regarding the specific application of the system. Brown intimates and suggests systems within manufacturing, machining, or industrial processes; see at least [0002]. Brown then notes the benefit of the positioning system is high positional accuracy, see [0004]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the positioning device of claim 14 within the context of a printer, as taught by Bielesch. One would be motivated to do so not only because Brown suggests wide applicability of the device, but also because the benefits of the device of Brown being highly accurate would have lent itself to the highly detailed and technical field taught by Bielesch. Small components such as cards and passport documents require precision offered by the device of Brown.
Claim(s) 27-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2014/0151947) in view of Akeel (US 5987726).
Regarding claim 27, Brown discloses a card positioning device for use inside a printer (wherein Examiner acknowledges the intended use of the device with a card, wherein the prior art is designed as a top plate for supporting items, see Abstract and [0002] describing manufacturing, machining, or industrial processes), the card positioning device comprising:
a supporting element (140) configured for receiving a card from an external supplying means and for supporting the card for handling (wherein Examiner acknowledges the intended use of the device with a card, wherein the prior art discloses a top plate, which can receive and support a card); and
at least three handling means (120), each extending between a first end and a second end, each of the first end is rotatably connected to the supporting element via a first spherical joint or a first semi-spherical joint (see ball 134 in Figure 7, as well as [0040-0041], [0055-0056], [0070]; see also Figure 10), and at least two of the second ends of the at least three handling means are each rotatably connected to a basic structure (see SDOF hinge 111 and base plate 110),
wherein cooperative actuation of the at least three handling provides both inclination and vertical movement of the supporting element relative to the basic structure to maintain a controlled inclination angle and focal distance of the case with respect to a laser source of the printer (see at least [0035-0037], wherein [0040] discloses the three linear actuators 120 can move the top plate 140 in a linear motion along the Z-axis, tilt/rotate about the X-axis, and tilt/rotate about the Y-axis; see also [0041-0042]; wherein Examiner acknowledges the intended use of the device with a card, wherein the prior art discloses a top plate, which can receive and support a card; wherein Examiner also recognizes the intended use of the claimed invention within the context of a printer, however, the claimed invention is drawn towards an apparatus, not the combination of the apparatus and a printer, and thus the prior art teaches the claimed function by adjustable inclination and movement).
However, Brown does not explicitly teach at least two of the second ends of the at least three handling means are each rotatably connected to a basic structure via a second spherical joint or a second semi-spherical joint, emphasis added.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of devices employing multiple degrees of freedom to support an object, Akeel teaches of a device having an upper locator plate (43; see Figure 5), multiple actuators rotatably connected to the locator plate (see 24, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42), each actuator connected to base plate (32), and each actuator having upper joints (44) and lower joints (33), i.e. the second ends of the handling means are each rotatably connected to a basic structure (32) via a second spherical joint or a second semi-spherical joint (see Col. 8, lines 8-50; see also Col. 3, lines 11-33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated additional joint structure which are spherical or semi-spherical, as taught by Akeel, into the invention of modified Brown. One would be motivated to do so because additional degrees of freedom increase the flexibility of the platform to maneuver (see Col. 2, lines 5-15), i.e. increasing versatility, thus allowing the support device to position a device as needed (see Col. 7, lines 1-15; see also Col. 11, lines 28-40).
Regarding claim 28, Brown as modified by Akeel teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Brown further teaches wherein the at least three handling means comprise three handling means (Brown: see at least Figures 6-8).
Regarding claim 29, Brown as modified by Akeel teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Brown further teaches wherein one of the three handling means has the second end fastened to the basic structure such that the one of the three handling means has only a linear movement with respect to the basic structure (Brown: wherein the position of the linear actuator can be specifically set and held at a set position, coupled with the ability to extend in very precise linear increments; see [0041-0043]).
Regarding claim 30, Brown as modified by Akeel teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Brown does not explicitly teach wherein the at least three handling means comprise four handling means. However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Akeel teaches additional handling means (see Figure 5, wherein there are two actuators for each of the three corners of the upper plate 43), i.e. wherein the at least three handling means comprise four handling means.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Brown to include additional actuators, as taught by Akeel. Doing so would be considered a duplication of parts, and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. The additional linear actuator elements would still provide the same tripod structure taught by Brown, while enabling additional power/force to be provided due to the secondary actuator, thus motivating one to combine in the teachings of Akeel. See also Section (VI.)(B.) of MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 31, Brown as modified by Akeel teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Brown further teaches wherein the at least three handling means comprise linear actuators (see Brown: Abstract, see also Figure 6).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723