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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method for producing a predetermined breaking line in a vehicle interior trim part, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/24/25.
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 7 and 8 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 7 recites “the processing system”; however, “a processing system” is not recited in claim 5 from which claim 7 depends. Claim 8 is rejected for at least the reason of its respective dependency from claim 7. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kantz et al. (WO 2006074840) in view of Norbert (DE 102010060958).
With regard to claim 5, Kantz teaches A device (FIG. 1) for producing a predetermined breaking line (“movement pattern processing points”) in a vehicle interior trim part (“the predetermined movement pattern refers to an ideal surface profile (106) and a substantially constant distance from ideal indicates processing points to the laser optics, and wherein the predetermined course of motion is corrected with the measured values obtained by the scan so that the substantially constant distance is maintained when the surface is exposed to the laser beam”, cl. 8), comprising: a sensor (114), a camera (116), a laser generator (124), a processing head (head interpreted as an enclosure which includes 116)( arranged in a defined manner with respect to the sensor (114) and an intermediate working plane (104), said processing head (“processing head” interpreted as an enclosure including 116) containing a laser scanning device (portion of 116, “Means (140) for correcting a predetermined course of movement (130) of the motor vehicle interior trim part with respect to a laser optics (116) with the measured values obtained by the scanning”, cl. 20), which is connected to the laser generator (124)(see FIG. 1 for connection between 116 and 124), in which the vehicle interior trim part to be processed is arranged (“Means (115, 102, 114) for scanning a surface profile of a surface of the motor vehicle interior trim part to be machined at a plurality of measuring points, wherein the means for scanning the surface profile are designed such that the scanning takes place after the motor vehicle interior trim part in the robot Gripper has been fixed, Means (140) for correcting a predetermined course of movement (130) of the motor vehicle interior trim part with respect to a laser optics (portion of 116) with the measured values obtained by the scanning,”, cl. 20), and a control and computing unit (120, FIG. 1), the camera (116) is directed towards the working plane (104, FIG. 1), and is configured to detect an actual position of the vehicle interior trim part arranged in the working plane in relation to the laser scanning device (“the motor vehicle interior trim part 100 is clamped in a gripper 110 of a robot 112. The robot 112 with its gripper 110 is arranged so that it can move the motor vehicle interior trim part 100 in the area of a sensor 114 and a laser optics 116. The sensor 114 is used to scan the real surface profile 108. Preferably, the sensor is stationary. The sensor 114 has an interface 118 for outputting the measurements obtained by the scan to a controller 120 having a corresponding interface 122.”, pg. 4, ln. 24-28) T, from which an actual position of the predetermined breaking line is derived therefrom (pg. 4, ln. 24-28), and the control and computing unit (120) is configured to bring the scan figure into alignment with the predetermined breaking line (“movement pattern processing points”: “the predetermined movement pattern refers to an ideal surface profile (106) and a substantially constant distance from ideal Indicates processing points to the laser optics, and wherein the predetermined course of motion is corrected with the measured values obtained by the scan so that the substantially constant distance is maintained when the surface is exposed to the laser beam.”, cl. 8).
Although Kantz teaches a sensor, Kantz does not teach a sensor matrix and a diffuser wherein: a field of view of the sensor matrix is larger than a maximum extension of the predetermined breaking line and the diffuser is arranged upstream of the sensor matrix; however, Norbert from the same field of endeavor directed toward an integrated spectrometer assembly and method teaches at FIG. 12 a matrix sensor 122 situated below a diffuser 120 in which the matrix sensor is oversized with respect to an optical output being received thereon (col. 25, ln. 61 to col. 26, ln. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kantz reference, to include a sensor matrix and a diffuser wherein: a field of view of the sensor matrix is larger than a predetermined amount and the diffuser is arranged upstream of the sensor matrix, as suggested and taught by Norbert, for the purpose of providing a microprocessor/controller with data indicative of received optical data (Norbert: col. 25, ln. 61 to col. 26, ln. 12).
With regard to claim 6, Norbert teaches individual sensors of the sensor matrix (122) each have a sensitivity that is matched to each other so that the sensor matrix has a homogeneous sensitivity (“matrix optical sensor 122 may be a monochrome optical sensor array, such as CCD-type or other type of light sensor element such as may be used in a video camera. The output of matrix optical sensor 122 is digitized by ADC 124 and output to microprocessor 126 (which may the same processor as microprocessor 10 or another processor).” (col. 25, ln. 61 to col. 26, ln. 12).
With regard to claim 7, although Norbert teaches a feeder (robot 112) for moving an interior trim part to a predetermined location (“The robot 112 with its gripper 110 is arranged so that it can move the motor vehicle interior trim part 100 in the area of a sensor 114 and a laser optics 116.”, pg. 4, ln. 24-25); however, the citation does not teach at least two feeders by which a vehicle interior trim part is alternately transported and positioned in the working plane of the device for producing the predetermined breaking line; however, it is submitted that such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as obvious duplication of parts to enhance the speed of moving respective parts to predetermined locations which it is respectfully submitted is not a new and unexpected result (see MPEP 2144.04 VI.B Duplication of Parts).
With regard to claim 8, although Norbert teaches a feeder (robot 112) for moving an interior trim part to a predetermined location (“The robot 112 with its gripper 110 is arranged so that it can move the motor vehicle interior trim part 100 in the area of a sensor 114 and a laser optics 116.”, pg. 4, ln. 24-25); however, the citation does not teach the at least two feeders include multi-axis robots which hold the vehicle interior trim parts suspended in the working plane in each case; ; however, it is submitted that such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as obvious duplication of parts to enhance the speed of moving respective parts to predetermined locations (by including a second robot) which it is respectfully submitted is not a new and unexpected result (see MPEP 2144.04 VI.B Duplication of Parts).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761