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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 22 May 2026 has been entered.
The Applicant’s amendments to the drawings have overcome the Drawing objections. The Drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections. The previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn. However, the Applicant’s amendments have provided grounds for a new 35 USC 112 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 22 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. After reviewing the identified prior-art references of record, one of these references teaches the amended portion of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 22 May 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-11, 14, 16-18 have been amended. Claim 21 is new.
Claims 1-18 and 21 are pending.
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 limitations are the following:
“first manufacturing machine and a second manufacturing machine” in claims 1 and 18
The generic placeholder is “machine,” and the functional limitation is “configured to manufacture the sheet metal.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitations is a “laser” (paragraph 0052 of the Specification).
Claim 17 has sufficient structure such that 112f is not invoked for the claimed “machines” in this claim.
“transporting unit” in claims 1 and 18
The generic placeholder is “unit,” and the functional limitation is “transporting.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “forklift truck, driverless transport vehicle…and/or rail-bound floor conveyors” (paragraph 0063 of the Specification).
Claim 13 has sufficient structure such that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked for the claimed “transporting unit.”
“third manufacturing machine” in claim 3
The generic placeholder is “machine,” and the functional limitation is “manufacturing.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitations is a “laser” (paragraph 0052 of the Specification).
“holding element” in claim 14
The generic placeholder is “element” and the functional limitations are “holding” and “configured to detachably secure the workpiece carrier to the transporting unit.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “stop, an elevation, a depression, a wall, a clamp, a pin” (paragraph 0105 of the Specification).
“positioning device” for the “transporting unit and/or the workpiece carrier” in claim 15
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitations are “positioning” and “configured to arrange the workpiece carrier.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “depression, an elevation, a wall, a stop” (paragraph 0105 of the Specification).
“shaping machine,” in claim 17
The generic placeholder is “machine,” and the functional limitations are “shaping” and “configured to shape the sheet metal workpiece.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “bending press.”
“separating machine” in claim 17
The generic placeholder is “machine,” and the functional limitations are “separating” and “configured to separate portions of the sheet metal workpiece from one another.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes “punching units or laser separating units” (where “punching” and “laser” connote specific structure).
“joining machine” in claim 17
The generic placeholder is “machine,” and the functional limitations is “joining.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “laser welding machine” (where “laser” and “welding” connote specific structure).
“coating machine” in claim 17
The generic placeholder is “machine” and the functional limitation is “coating.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes “lacquering and inscribing units” (where “lacquering” and “inscribing” connote specific structure).
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 18 and 21 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 18 recites “A mechanical method for manufacturing sheet, the method comprising:
moving a transporting unit in a driven manner between:
a first manufacturing machine,
a second manufacturing machine, and
a non-manufacturing station,
wherein the first manufacturing machine and the second manufacturing machine are each configured to manufacture the sheet metal,
wherein the non-manufacturing station is not configured to manufacture the sheet metal,
wherein the transporting unit has a workpiece carrier configured to store a sheet metal workpiece,
wherein the non-manufacturing station is configured to perform a non-manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece,
wherein the workpiece carrier is configured to arrange the sheet metal workpiece such that the first manufacturing machine performs a first manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece while the sheet metal workpiece is stored by the workpiece carrier,
wherein the workpiece carrier is further configured to arrange the sheet metal workpiece such that the second manufacturing machine performs a second manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece while the sheet metal workpiece is stored by the workpiece carrier, and
wherein the workpiece carrier is further configured to arrange the sheet metal workpiece such that the non-manufacturing station performs the non-manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece while the sheet metal workpiece is stored by the workpiece carrier and
transferring the workpiece carrier between the first manufacturing machine, the second manufacturing machine, and the non-manufacturing station.”
Although claim 18 includes method steps, claim 18 also includes functional limitations that are attributed to the structure that is recited within the method steps. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the methods steps for using the apparatus is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05.p.II). It is unclear if infringement occurs based on the structure itself or based on the method for moving or transferring the structure. For example, does the method of claim 18 require “performing a second manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece while the sheet metal workpiece is stored by the workpiece carrier” or does claim 18 instead require a capability for the workpiece carrier where “the workpiece carrier is further configured to arrange the sheet metal workpiece such that the second manufacturing machine performs a second manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece while the sheet metal workpiece is stored by the workpiece carrier?” Recommend reciting method steps in claim 18 (e.g., as written in claim 21) and then associating structure with the different method steps but without the current functional limitations being attributed to the structure.
Claim 21 is rejected based on its dependence to claim 18.
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 1-9, 11-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshiaki (US-5500507-A) in view of Thorwarth (US-20200324378-A1, hereinafter Thorwarth ‘378, effective filing date of 24 May 2016).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshiaki teaches a machine arrangement (fig. 33) for manufacturing sheet (sheet workpiece W, fig. 33), the machine arrangement comprising:
a workpiece carrier (work pallet 211, fig. 33) configured to store a sheet metal workpiece (“a sheet workpiece W is mounted on the work pallet 211,” column 16, lines 49-50);
a first manufacturing machine and a second manufacturing machine (work station 214 and laser beam machine 215, fig. 33, annotated), each configured to manufacture the sheet metal (“laser beam machining,” column 17, line 12), wherein the workpiece carrier is configured to arrange the sheet metal workpiece such that the first manufacturing machine performs a first manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece while the sheet metal workpiece is stored by the workpiece carrier (column 17, lines 15-19), and wherein the workpiece carrier is further configured to arrange the sheet metal workpiece such that the second manufacturing machine performs a second manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece while the sheet metal workpiece is stored by the workpiece carrier (column 17, lines 15-19);
a non-manufacturing station (temporary stocker 209, fig. 33, annotated) that is not configured to manufacture the sheet metal and that is configured to perform a non- manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece (“storing a work pallet 211,” column 14, lines 12-13; storing is construed a non-manufacturing operation), wherein the workpiece carrier is configured to arrange the sheet metal workpiece such that the non-manufacturing station performs the non-manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece while the sheet metal workpiece is stored by the workpiece carrier (column 17, lines 19-22) and
a transporting unit (work robot 252 and passage 250, fig. 33; the “transporting unit” is interpreted under 35 USC 112f; Yoshiaki does not explicitly disclose a forklift, driverless vehicle, or a rail-bound conveyor) movable in a driven manner (column 17, lines 2-3) together with the workpiece carrier between the first manufacturing machine, the second manufacturing machine, and the non-manufacturing station, thereby enabling the workpiece carrier to be transferred between the first manufacturing machine, the second manufacturing machine, and the non-manufacturing station (column 17, lines 12-22).
Yoshiaki, fig. 33 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
509
933
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yoshiaki does not explicitly disclose sheet metal and a transporting unit.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of automating the manufacturing of workpieces, Thorwarth ‘378 teaches sheet metal (para 0023) and a transporting unit (the conveyor means 22 can be “driverless vehicles,” para 0048, and is construed as the claimed “transporting unit”)
Thorwarth ‘378, fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
915
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yoshiaki, in view of the teachings of Thorwarth ‘378, by using sheet metal, as taught by Thorwarth ‘378, for the sheet workpiece W, as taught by Yoshiaki, by using a driverless vehicle that has a positioning device 26, as taught by Thorwarth ‘378, instead of a work robot 252, as taught by Yoshiaki, in order to use an automated driverless vehicle to securely transport the work pallets, which can be adapted to type-specific metal workpieces such as different body types depending on the type of vehicle, for the advantage of enabling a highly flexible production line tailored for different manufacturing steps of different types of products (Thorwarth ‘378, paras 0012-0013, 0023, and 0025).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshiaki teaches wherein the workpiece carrier is transferrable between at least one of the first manufacturing machine and the second manufacturing machine, on the one hand, and the non-manufacturing station, on the other hand, by the transporting unit (column 17, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshiaki teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose a third manufacturing machine.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of automating the manufacturing of workpieces, Thorwarth ‘378 teaches a third manufacturing machine (three manufacturing stations 2, fig. 2; each station 2 includes a processing apparatus 13, fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yoshiaki, in view of the teachings of Thorwarth ‘378, by adding a third manufacturing station, as taught by Thorwarth ‘378, where the station included another laser beam machine 215 and work station 214, as taught by Yoshiaki in fig. 33, in order to add another station, which can be used to support various requirements (Yoshiaki, column 18, lines 16-22).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yoshiaki in view of Thorwarth ‘378 as set forth above regarding claim 3 teaches the invention of claim 4. Specifically, Yoshiaki teaches wherein the workpiece carrier (work pallet 211, fig. 33) is configured to arrange the sheet metal workpiece such that the third manufacturing machine performs a third manufacturing operation (“laser beam machining,” column 17, line 12) on the sheet metal workpiece while the sheet metal workpiece is stored by the workpiece carrier (“the work pallet 211 supporting the workpiece W is transported into the work station 214. Laser beam machining is done on the workpiece W by means of the laser beam machine 215,” column 17, lines 15-18; “the work pallet 211 supporting the workpiece W” is construed as the claimed “stored,” i.e. supporting the workpiece is the same storing the workpiece). Additionally, Thorwarth ‘378 teaches the third manufacturing machine (three manufacturing stations 2, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshiaki teaches comprising a further non-manufacturing station (temporary stocker 209, fig. 33, annotated) that is not configured to manufacture the sheet metal and that is configured to perform a further non-manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece (“storing a work pallet 211,” column 14, lines 12-13; storing is construed a non-manufacturing operation).
Yoshiaki, fig. 33 (annotated)
PNG
media_image3.png
558
933
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Yoshiaki teaches wherein the workpiece carrier (work pallet 211, fig. 33) is configured to arrange the sheet metal workpiece such that the further non-manufacturing station performs the further non-manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece while the sheet metal workpiece is stored by the workpiece carrier (column 17, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshiaki teaches wherein the workpiece carrier (work pallet 211, fig. 33) is configured to be transferred between the first manufacturing machine and the second manufacturing machine (annotated above) by the transporting unit (work robot 252 and passage 250, fig. 33; column 16, lines 66-column 17, line 1).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshiaki teaches wherein the workpiece carrier (work pallet 211, fig. 33) is configured to be transferred between the non- manufacturing station and the further non-manufacturing station (annotated in fig. 33 above) by the transporting unit (work robot 252 and passage 250, fig. 33; column 16, lines 40-48).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshiaki teaches wherein the workpiece carrier is configured to be transferred between at least one of the first manufacturing machine and the second manufacturing machine (annotated above), on the one hand, and at least one of the non-manufacturing station and the further non-manufacturing station (annotated above), on the other hand, by the transporting unit (“the work pallet 211 supporting the machined workpiece W is transported out from the work station 214 by means of the work robot 252 and stored in a certain temporary stocker 209,” column 17, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshiaki teaches wherein, the non-manufacturing station (temporary stocker 209, fig. 33) comprises:
a loading station having a loading position, wherein the workpiece carrier is configured to be loaded at the loading position with the sheet metal workpiece that is to undergo a manufacturing operation (not explicitly disclosed), and/or
an unloading station having an unloading position, wherein the workpiece carrier is configured such that the sheet metal workpiece or a sheet metal manufacturing product can be unloaded from the workpiece carrier at the unloading position (not explicitly disclosed), and/or
a storage station (“stored in a certain temporary stocker 209,” column 17; lines 22-23; the stocker 209 is construe as being a “storage station”) having a storage position (“located along the first side of the passage 250,” column 16, lines 61-63) in which the workpiece carrier is configured to be stored, together with the sheet metal workpiece or the sheet metal manufacturing product stored by the workpiece carrier (column 17, lines 17-23), and/or
a store-side handling station having a handling position, wherein the workpiece carrier is configured to be placed from the handling position into storage in a store or to be removed from storage in the store into the handling position (not explicitly disclosed), and/or
a servicing station (not explicitly disclosed) that is configured as:
a cleaning station having a cleaning position, wherein the workpiece carrier is accessible at the cleaning position for a cleaning operation (not explicitly disclosed), and/or
a maintenance and repair station having a maintenance position and/or repair position, wherein the workpiece carrier is configured to be maintained at the maintenance position and/or repaired at the repair position (not explicitly disclosed), and/or
an equipping station having an equipping position, wherein the workpiece carrier is configured at the equipping position for a subsequent operation on one of the first manufacturing machine and the second manufacturing machine (not explicitly disclosed), and/or
a supply station having a supply position, wherein the workpiece carrier is configured to be supplied at the supply position for use in the machine arrangement (not explicitly disclosed), and/or
a process follow-up station having a process follow-up position, wherein a sheet metal manufacturing operation is configured to be followed up on the sheet metal manufacturing product stored by the workpiece carrier at the process followed up position (not explicitly disclosed).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yoshiaki in view of Thorwarth ‘378 and as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 12. Specifically, Thorwarth ‘378 teaches wherein the transporting unit (conveyor means 22, fig. 1) is movable on rails (not explicitly disclosed) or the transporting unit (conveyor means 22, fig. 1) is movable freely (“move in arbitrary directions,” para 0048).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yoshiaki in view of Thorwarth ‘378 as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 13. Specifically, Thorwarth ‘378 teaches wherein the transporting unit (conveyor means 22, fig. 1) comprises a driverless transporting unit (“driverless,” para 0048) and/or
the transporting unit comprises a driverless transport vehicle (“driverless vehicles,” para 0048).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Yoshiaki in view of Thorwarth ‘378 as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 14. Specifically, Yoshiaki the workpiece carrier (work pallet 211, fig. 33) is configured to be detached from the transporting unit (work robot 252, fig. 33) and transferred between the transporting unit, on the one hand, each position at which the first manufacturing operation or the second manufacturing operation is configured to be performed by the first manufacturing machine or the second manufacturing machine, respectively, and/or a position at which the non-manufacturing operation is configured to be performed by the non-manufacturing station, on the other hand (column 17, lines 12-22). Additionally, Thorwarth ‘378 teaches wherein the transporting unit (conveyor means 22, fig. 1, and “clamping devices,” para 0025; “automated driverless vehicles, so-called AGV or FTS.,” para 0048) comprises a holding element (“clamping devices,” para 0025) configured to detachably secure the workpiece carrier (LSD 23, fig. 1; para 0025) to the transporting unit.
Regarding claim 15, Yoshiaki teaches further comprising a positioning device (clamping device 130, fig. 23) disposed on the transporting unit (not explicitly disclosed) and/or on the workpiece carrier (top surface of pallet frame F, fig. 23), wherein the positioning device is configured to arrange the workpiece carrier in a defined manner on the transporting unit (“clamps,” column 4, lines 54-5; construed such that the work pallet 211 clamps the workpiece in a defined manner of clamping while on the robot 252).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshiaki teaches the invention as described above but does not disclose in the fig. 33 embodiment further comprising an indexing apparatus configured to arrange the workpiece carrier in a defined manner such that the first manufacturing machine can perform the first manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece, such that the second manufacturing machine can perform the second manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece, and/or such that the non-manufacturing station can perform the non-manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece.
However, in the fig. 1 embodiment, Yoshiaki teaches further comprising an indexing apparatus (an “indexing apparatus” was determined not to invoke 112f because “indexing” was deemed to be a structural modifier, i.e., an indexing apparatus is an apparatus that uses rotation to move a part; secondary transport device 5 uses a swing lever 61 that rotates to move the pallet P, fig. 11) configured to arrange the workpiece carrier (pallet P, fig. 11) in a defined manner such that the first manufacturing machine can perform the first manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece (“a pallet P is transferred towards the work station 4,” column 7, lines 61-62), such that the second manufacturing machine can perform the second manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece (“a pallet P is transferred towards the work station 4,” column 7, lines 61-62), and/or such that the non-manufacturing station can perform the non-manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece (not explicitly disclosed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fig. 33 embodiment, in view of the teachings of the fig. 1 embodiment, by using a secondary transport device 5, as taught in fig. 1, to move the pallets 211 onto the work stations 214, as taught in fig. 33, in order to use a transport device that positively thrusts the pallet toward the work station so that transportation to and from the work station can be automated (Yoshiaki, column 7, lines 46-50 and column 13, lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 17, Yoshiaki teaches wherein at least one of the first manufacturing machine and the second manufacturing machine (work station 214 and laser beam machine 215, fig. 33) comprises: a laser manufacturing machine (laser beam machines 215, fig. 3) having a laser configured to manufacture the sheet metal workpiece (column 17, lines 12-13), and/or a shaping machine configured to shape the sheet metal workpiece, a separating machine configured to separate portions of the sheet metal workpiece from one another, a joining machine, and/or a coating machine (not explicitly disclosed).
Regarding claim 18, Yoshiaki teaches a mechanical method (“Laser Beam Machining Device And Laser Beam Machining Method,” title) for manufacturing sheet (sheet workpiece W, fig. 33), the method comprising:
moving a transporting unit (work robot 252 and passage 250, fig. 33; the “transporting unit” is interpreted under 35 USC 112f; Yoshiaki does not explicitly disclose a forklift, driverless vehicle, or a rail-bound conveyor) in a driven manner (column 17, lines 2-3) between:
a first manufacturing machine (work station 214 and laser beam machine 215, fig. 33, annotated above),
a second manufacturing machine (work station 214 and laser beam machine 215, fig. 33, annotated above), and
a non-manufacturing station (temporary stocker 209, fig. 33, annotated above),
wherein the first manufacturing machine and the second manufacturing machine are each configured to manufacture the sheet metal (“laser beam machining,” column 17, line 12),
wherein the non-manufacturing station is not configured to manufacture the sheet metal (“storing a work pallet 211,” column 14, lines 12-13; storing is construed a non-manufacturing operation),
wherein the transporting unit has a workpiece carrier (work pallet 211, fig. 33) configured to store a sheet metal workpiece (“a sheet workpiece W is mounted on the work pallet 211,” column 16, lines 49-50),
wherein the non-manufacturing station is configured to perform a non-manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece (“storing a work pallet 211,” column 14, lines 12-13; storing is construed a non-manufacturing operation),
wherein the workpiece carrier is configured to arrange the sheet metal workpiece such that the first manufacturing machine performs a first manufacturing operation (“laser beam machining,” column 17, line 12) on the sheet metal workpiece while the sheet metal workpiece is stored by the workpiece carrier (column 17, lines 15-19),
wherein the workpiece carrier is further configured to arrange the sheet metal workpiece such that the second manufacturing machine performs a second manufacturing operation (“laser beam machining,” column 17, line 12) on the sheet metal workpiece while the sheet metal workpiece is stored by the workpiece carrier (column 17, lines 15-19), and
wherein the workpiece carrier is further configured to arrange the sheet metal workpiece such that the non-manufacturing station performs the non-manufacturing operation on the sheet metal workpiece while the sheet metal workpiece is stored by the workpiece carrier (column 17, lines 19-22) and
transferring the workpiece carrier between the first manufacturing machine, the second manufacturing machine, and the non-manufacturing station (column 17, lines 12-22).
Yoshiaki does not explicitly disclose sheet metal and a transporting unit.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of automating the manufacturing of workpieces, Thorwarth ‘378 teaches sheet metal (para 0023) and a transporting unit (the conveyor means 22 can be “driverless vehicles,” para 0048, and is construed as the claimed “transporting unit”).
Regarding claim 21, Yoshiaki teaches comprising performing the first manufacturing operation (“laser beam machining,” column 17, line 12) on the sheet metal workpiece while the sheet metal workpiece is stored on the workpiece carrier with the first manufacturing machine and/or performing the second manufacturing operation (“laser beam machining,” column 17, line 12; construed such that the laser beam machining is performed at both laser machines 215) on the sheet metal workpiece while the sheet metal workpiece is stored on the workpiece carrier with the second manufacturing machine (column 17, lines 15-19); and performing the non-manufacturing operation (“storing a work pallet 211,” column 14, lines 12-13) on the sheet metal workpiece while the sheet metal workpiece is stored on the workpiece carrier with the non-manufacturing station (column 17, lines 19-22).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshiaki (US-5500507-A) in view of Thorwarth (US-20200324378-A1, hereinafter Thorwarth ‘378, effective filing date of 24 May 2016) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Geissler et al. (US-20210346998-A1, effective filing date of 30 August 2018).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshiaki teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein: the non-manufacturing station comprises a charging station that is assigned to one of the first manufacturing machine and the second manufacturing machine, the charging station has a charging position, the workpiece carrier configured to be loaded with the sheet metal workpiece and movable between the charging position and positions at which the first manufacturing operation and/or the second manufacturing operation are performed by the first manufacturing machine and/or second manufacturing machine, respectively, and the workpiece carrier is configured to be transferred between the charging station, on the one hand, and one of the first manufacturing machine and the second manufacturing machine, and/or the non-manufacturing station, on the other hand, by the transporting unit.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of automating the manufacturing of workpieces, Geissler teaches wherein: the non-manufacturing station comprises a charging station (“charging station,” para 0333) that is assigned to one of the first manufacturing machine and the second manufacturing machine (fig. 12c, para 0034), the charging station has a charging position (position shown in fig. 16b), the workpiece carrier (pallet 300, fig. 16b) configured to be loaded with the sheet metal workpiece and movable between the charging position (position shown in fig. 16b) and positions at which the first manufacturing operation and/or the second manufacturing operation are performed by the first manufacturing machine and/or second manufacturing machine (position of pallet 300 shown in fig. 12c is construed as being outside of the position shown in fig. 16b; para 0334), respectively, and the workpiece carrier is configured to be transferred between the charging station (“charging station,” para 0333), on the one hand, and one of the first manufacturing machine and the second manufacturing machine (fig. 12c, para 0034), and/or the non-manufacturing station (not explicitly disclosed), on the other hand, by the transporting unit (transport device 100, fig. 16b).
Geissler, fig. 16b
PNG
media_image4.png
906
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yoshiaki, in view of the teachings of Geissler, by using a charging station, as taught by Geissler, at a temporary stocker 209, as taught by Yoshiaki, to recharge the driverless vehicles, as taught by Thorwarth ‘378, in order to use docking receptacles to provide power from an energy source to the cart, for the advantage of enabling charging of the vehicle while it is docked to the storage racks (Geissler, paras 0333 and 0338).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 22 May 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Yoshiaki combined with Thorwarth ‘378.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mueller et al. (US-20020172580-A1) teach workpiece carriers.
Tanahashi et al. (US-20160250718-A1) teach a laser machining apparatus.
Baaij et al. (US-20230415288-A1) teach a driverless transport system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 9/15/2026
Prosecution Insights