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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 3 December 2025 has been entered.
The Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and claims have overcome most of the previous Drawing objections. Additionally, several of the Applicant’s arguments were found to be persuasive. However, some of the Applicant’s arguments were not found to be persuasive. Therefore, there are still grounds for objection in the drawings filed 3 December 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome every Claim objection. The Claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 112 rejections based on 35 USC 112(f) interpretation were fully considered but were not persuasive. Therefore, there are still grounds for 35 USC 112(a)/(b) rejections based on 35 USC 112(f) interpretation.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome several of the 35 USC 112(b) rejections. However, there are still grounds for 35 USC 112(b) rejections in the claims.
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 19-20 have overcome the 35 USC 112(d) rejections.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered. After conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which 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 3 December 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-11, 14-16, and 18 have been amended. Claims 19-20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following reasons:
In fig. 1d, the lines, the numbers, and the letters (e.g., “A (1:35)”) are not black, sufficiently dense, and well-defined to be rendered satisfactory for reproduction characteristics (referencing MPEP 608.02.V.l; evident in the publication of US20220371132A1). Instead using a black font, a grayscale font is used.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The “work area,” the “manufacturing position,” the “functional area,” and the “functional position” of claims 1 and 18 are not shown in any of the Drawings.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
“functional unit” in claims 1 and 18
The generic placeholder is “unit,” and the functional limitation is “functional.”
“manufacturing unit” in claims 1 and 18 as well as a “manufacturing units” in claim 3, and a “laser manufacturing unit” in claim 17
The generic placeholder is “unit,” and the functional limitation is “manufacturing.”
“manufacturing apparatus” in claims 1 and 18
The generic placeholder is “apparatus,” and the functional limitation is “manufacturing” and “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).
“secondary functional unit” in claims 1 and 18
The generic placeholder is “unit,” and the functional limitation is “functional” and “not configured to manufacture the sheet metal.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitations is a “store” (paragraph 0024 of the Specification).
“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).
“charging unit” in claim 10
The generic placeholder is “unit,” and the functional limitation is “charging.”
“loading unit,” “store-side handling unit,” “servicing unit,” “cleaning unit,” “maintenance and repair unit,” “equipping unit,” “supply unit,” and “process follow-up unit” in claim 11.
The generic placeholder is “unit” and the functional limitations are “loading,” “store-side handling,” “servicing,” “cleaning,” “maintenance and repair,” an “equipping,” a “supply,” and a “process follow-up.”
“unloading unit” in claim 11
The generic placeholder is “unit” and the functional limitation is “unloading.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a column and a pivot arm (paragraph 0085 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).
“positioning device” in the “work area” in claim 16
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitations are “positioning” and “configured to arrange the workpiece carrier.”
“shaping unit,” “shaping apparatus,” “joining unit,” “joining apparatus,” “coating unit,” “coating apparatus” in claim 17
The generic placeholder is “unit” or “apparatus,” and the functional limitations are “shaping,” “joining,” and “coating.”
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 18 recite “a functional unit,” but the Specification fails to disclose any structure in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to readily understand what “a functional unit” is or that the inventor possessed the claim subject matter at the time of filing.
Claims 1 and 18 recite “manufacturing units,” claim 3 recites “manufacturing units,” and claim 17 recites a “laser manufacturing unit,” but the Specification fails to disclose any structure in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to readily understand what “a functional unit” is or that the inventor possessed the claim subject matter at the time of filing. Although paragraph 0024 of the Specification discloses that “a manufacturing unit is provided for manufacturing sheet metal, that is to say for example for cutting, punching, bending, boring, forming threads in, welding, shaping etc. sheet metal,” none of these functions can be used as structure to the claimed functional limitations. Furthermore, although paragraph 0052 discloses a “laser,” the “laser” from this paragraph is used to cover the functional limitations attributed to the “manufacturing apparatus.” As a result, the “laser” cannot be used to cover the functional limitations attributed to the “manufacturing unit.”
Claim 10 recites a “charging unit,” but the Specification fails to disclose any structure in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to readily understand what “a charging unit” is or that the inventor possessed the claim subject matter at the time of filing.
Claim 11 recites a “loading unit,” a “store-side handling unit,” a “servicing unit,” a “cleaning unit,” a “maintenance and repair unit,” an “equipping unit,” a “supply unit,” and a “process follow-up unit,” but the Specification fails to disclose any structure in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to readily understand what these units are or that the inventor possessed the claim subject matter at the time of filing.
Claim 16 recites a “positioning device…in the work area,” but the Specification fails to disclose any structure in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to readily understand what “a positioning device…in the work area” is or that the inventor possessed the claim subject matter at the time of filing. Instead, the Specification describes an “indexing apparatus,” which cannot be used as structure to cover the functional limitations in claim 16.
Claim 17 recites “shaping unit,” “shaping apparatus,” “joining unit,” “joining apparatus,” “coating unit,” and “coating apparatus,” but the Specification fails to disclose any structure in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to readily understand what these units or apparatuses are or that the inventor possessed the claim subject matter at the time of filing.
Claims 2, 4-9, 12-15, and 19-20 are rejected based on their dependence to the independent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 limitations “functional unit” in claims 1 and 18, “manufacturing unit” in claims 1 and 18, “manufacturing units” in claim 3, a “laser manufacturing unit” in claim 17, “charging unit” in claim 10, “loading unit,” “store-side handling unit,” “servicing unit,” “cleaning unit,” “maintenance and repair unit,” “equipping unit,” “supply unit,” and “process follow-up unit” in claim 11, “positioning device…in the work area” in claim 16, and “shaping unit,” “shaping apparatus,” “joining apparatus,” “coating unit,” and “coating apparatus” in claim 17 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-18 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.
Claims 1 and 18 recite: “a workpiece carrier configured to store a sheet metal workpiece and/or to store a sheet metal manufacturing product.” The examiner understanders “and/or” such that “singular entity” can be selected “from the listed elements” (paragraph 0120 of the Specification). However, if the alternative “sheet metal manufacturing product” is selected instead of the “sheet metal workpiece,” then it is not clear if all of the limitations that attributed to the “sheet metal workpiece” are limiting on the claim. For example, claim 1 recites: “wherein the sheet metal workpiece is accessible by the manufacturing apparatus to manufacture the sheet metal.” But if the “sheet metal manufacturing product” is selected, then does this limitation still apply? Claim 18 has similar issues where an alternative between a “workpiece” and a “product” is permitted but then the limitations are only attributed to the “workpiece” and not the “product.”
Claim 3 recites: “….comprising four functional units, wherein the four functional units comprise three manufacturing units and the secondary functional unit.” However, the number of functional units is unclear. Claim 1 requires “three functional units.” Are the “four functional units” in claim 3 in addition to the “three functional units” required in claim 1 or do the “four functional units” of claim 3 include the “three functional units” required in claim 1? If only four functional units are required, does the additional “manufacturing unit” in the “three manufacturing units” of claim 3 require the same limitations for “each manufacturing unit” that is recited in claim 1? Recommend clarifying the relationships between the “manufacturing units” and the “functional units” recited in claim 3 with those recited in claim 1.
Claim 5 has a problem similar to that of claim 3, where “at least four functional units” and a “further secondary functional unit” are introduced, but it is unclear how this additional structure is intended to fit within the structure provided in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the workpiece carrier is transferrable between at least one of the manufacturing units, on the one hand, and at least one of the secondary functional units, on the other hand, by the transporting unit.” In other words, claim 9 requires the workpiece carrier to be transferrable between at least one of the manufacturing units and the secondary functional unit. However, claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, which recites “a transporting unit movable in a driven manner together with the workpiece carrier between the three functional units, thereby enabling the workpiece carrier to be transferred between the three functional units by the transporting unit” where the functional units comprise the two manufacturing units and the secondary functional unit. The scope of claim 9 in view of claim 1 is indefinite. Does the limitation in claim 9 apply to the “secondary functional unit” in claim 1? If so, does the workpiece carrier no longer need to be transferrable between the two manufacturing units and the secondary functional unit, as require in claim 1? If instead, the limitation from claim 9 refers to the “further secondary functional unit” of claim 5, then it is unclear what limitations from claim 1 are being passed to “further secondary functional unit” that is introduced in claim 5.
Claim 10 recites both the “sheet metal workpiece” as well as the “sheet metal manufacturing product.” However, 10 is dependent on claim 1, which recites “a workpiece carrier configured to store a sheet metal workpiece and/or to store a sheet metal manufacturing product.” The examiner understanders “and/or” such that “singular entity” can be selected “from the listed elements” (paragraph 0120 of the Specification). The scope of claim 10 is unclear because it appears that both the “workpiece” and the “product” are required, but claim 1 permits a construction where either the “workpiece” or the “product” is required.
Claims 2, 4, 6-8, and 11-17 are rejected based on their dependency to the independent claims.
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 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusaka et al. (JP-2016007682-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description) in view of Thorwarth (US-20200324378-A1, hereinafter Thorwarth ‘378, effective filing date of 24 May 2016) and Yoshiaki (US-5500507-A).
Regarding claim 1, Kusaka teaches a machine arrangement (workpiece machining transport system 10, fig. 1) for manufacturing sheet metal (workpieces “W,” fig. 2; a “sheet metal” is not explicitly disclosed), the machine arrangement comprising:
a workpiece carrier (skid pallet 21, fig. 9) configured to store a sheet metal workpiece (workpieces W1, W2, and W3, fig. 9) and/or to store a sheet metal manufacturing product (residual work WR1, WR2, and WR3, fig. 9), and
three spatially separate functional units (examiner is relying on paragraph 0089 of the Specification from the Instant Application to understand this limitation; “three spatially separate functional units” are not explicitly disclosed; Kusaka teaches two functional units, specifically a laser processing machine 24 and a pallet changer 38 as well as an automated warehouse 16, figs. 1 and 3),
wherein two of the three functional units each comprise a manufacturing unit (only one manufacturing unit is disclosed, specifically a laser processing machine 24 and a pallet changer 38, fig. 3) and a secondary functional unit (storage rack 12-2, fig. 1),
wherein each manufacturing unit (laser processing machine 24 and a pallet changer 38, fig. 3) comprises a manufacturing apparatus (laser processing machine 24, fig. 3) configured to manufacture the sheet metal (para 0070), and
wherein the secondary functional unit (storage rack 12-2, fig. 1; construed as equivalent to a store) is not configured to manufacture the sheet metal (“stored,” para 0054) and has a functional area (area of storage rack 12-2, fig. 2), wherein the workpiece carrier (pallet 21, fig. 2) is arrangeable in the functional area in a functional position (position S1, fig. 2; “pallet setting section,” para 0031; para 0077),
and the machine arrangement further comprising:
a transporting unit (cart 34, fig. 3) movable in a driven manner (para 0040) together with the workpiece carrier (pallet 21, fig. 3) between the three functional units (cart 34 is used to transport workpieces between rack 12-2, which is part of the automated warehouse 16, and the laser processing machine 24, figs. 5-6; ; in the below combination of Kusaka with Thorwarth where an additional laser processing machine is added, the cart 34 is construed as being movable and a pallet as being transferrable between a processing machine and a cart or vehicle; Kusaka teaches that the pallet 21 is transfers to the rack 12-2, fig. 6),
wherein the workpiece carrier (pallet 21, fig. 9) is arrangeable at the two manufacturing units in each manufacturing position (construed as the position where each laser processing machine 24 is located) and at the secondary functional unit in the functional position (para 0047; fig. 3).
Kusaka, fig. 3
PNG
media_image1.png
538
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kusaka does not explicitly disclose sheet metal; three spatially separate functional units, wherein the functional units comprise two manufacturing units; thereby enabling the workpiece carrier to be transferred between the three functional units by the transporting unit; wherein each manufacturing unit has a work area, wherein the workpiece carrier is arrangeable in the work area in a manufacturing position, and wherein the sheet metal workpiece is accessible by the manufacturing apparatus to manufacture the sheet metal in the manufacturing position.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of automating the manufacturing of workpieces, Thorwarth ‘378 teaches sheet metal (para 0023); three spatially separate functional units (three manufacturing stations 2, fig. 2), wherein the functional units comprise two manufacturing units (each manufacturing station 2 has a processing construed as processing apparatus 13, fig. 1; construed as being three of the laser processing machines 24 taught by Kusaka); thereby enabling the workpiece carrier (LSD 23, fig. 1) to be transferred between the three functional units by the transporting unit (the LSDs are construed as pallets and are transferred between the manufacturing stations 2 and the conveyor means 22 using a positioning device 26, para 0034; the conveyor means 22 can be “driverless vehicles,” para 0048).
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 Kusaka, in view of the teachings of Thorwarth ‘378, by using multiple manufacturing stations 2 and by using a driverless vehicle that has a positioning device 26 for positioning an “LSD” or a pallet, as taught by Thorwarth ‘378, instead of just one laser processing machine 24 and instead of using a cart 34, as taught by Kusaka, and by using sheet metal, as taught by Thorwarth ‘378, for the workpieces W, as taught by Kusaka, in order to use multiple manufacturing stations in which different process steps can be performed on the workpieces, for the advantage of enabling a highly flexible production line tailored for different manufacturing steps of a product, and for the advantage of using sheet metal workpieces, which are commonly used in the manufacturing of vehicles such as sedans, convertibles, and vans, and in order to use an automated driverless vehicle to securely transport LSDs to multiple manufacturing stations, where driverless vehicles can be programed to run in arbitrary directions on conveying routes, for the advantage of enabling a highly flexible production line tailored for different manufacturing steps of a product (Thorwarth ‘378, paras 0012-0013 and 0023).
Kusaka/ Thorwarth ‘378 do not explicitly disclose wherein each manufacturing unit has a work area, wherein the workpiece carrier is arrangeable in the work area in a manufacturing position, and wherein the sheet metal workpiece is accessible by the manufacturing apparatus to manufacture the sheet metal in the manufacturing position.
However, in the same field of endeavor of manufacturing sheet metal, Yoshiaki teaches wherein each manufacturing unit (machine body 9, fig. 1) has a work area (area on top of table 81, fig. 1), wherein the workpiece carrier (pallet P, fig. 1) is arrangeable in the work area in a manufacturing position (position of pallet P shown in fig. 1), and wherein the sheet metal workpiece is accessible by the manufacturing apparatus (laser beam machine 6, fig. 1) to manufacture the sheet metal in the manufacturing position (column 4, lines 28-39).
Yoshiaki, fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
474
660
media_image3.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 Kusaka, in view of the teachings of Yoshiaki, by using a work table 81, as taught Yoshiaki, in the laser processing machine 24, as taught by Kusaka, such there were multiple processing machines, as taught by Thorwarth ‘378, such that a pallet was used to move the workpiece into the laser processing machine, as taught by Yoshiaki, in order to use a work table that automatically transports a pallet to a machining position, for the advantage of achieving an unmanned and automated operation that does not require any manual labor (Yoshiaki, column 2, lines 21-28 and column 8, line 30-column 9, line 18).
Regarding claim 2, Kusaka teaches wherein the workpiece carrier (pallet 21, fig. 3) is transferrable between at least one of the manufacturing units (laser processing machine 24, fig. 3), on the one hand, and the secondary functional unit, on the other hand, by the transporting unit (cart 34 is used to transport workpieces between the laser processing machine 24 and rack 12-2, figs. 5-6; paras 0047-0051).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kusaka in view of Thorwarth ‘378 and Yoshiaki as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 3. Specifically, Kusaka teaches the secondary functional unit (storage rack 12-2, fig. 1). Additionally, Thorwarth ‘378 teaches comprising four functional units (three manufacturing stations 2, fig. 2, plus the storage rack 12-2 taught by Kusaka), wherein the four functional units comprise three manufacturing units (each manufacturing station 2 has a processing construed as processing apparatus 13, fig. 1; construed as being three of the laser processing machines 24 taught by Kusaka or two further manufacturing units in addition to the one taught by Kusaka).
Regarding claim 4, Kusaka teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the workpiece carrier is arrangeable at the further manufacturing unit(s) in each manufacturing position.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of automating the manufacturing of workpieces, Thorwarth ‘378 teaches wherein the workpiece carrier (load suspension device 23, fig. 1) is arrangeable at the further manufacturing unit(s) (manufacturing stations 2, fig. 2) in each manufacturing position (stop 24, fig. 1; para 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kusaka, in view of the teachings of Thorwarth ‘378, by using multiple manufacturing stations 2 each with a stop 24, as taught by Thorwarth ‘378, instead of just one laser processing machine 24, as taught by Kusaka, in order to use multiple manufacturing stations with positions for lifting off or positioning load suspension devices (LSDs), where different process steps can be performed on the workpieces at the multiple manufacturing stations, for the advantage of enabling a highly flexible production line tailored for different manufacturing steps of a product (Thorwarth ‘378, paras 0013 and 0034).
Regarding claim 5, Kusaka teaches comprising at least four functional units, and wherein the at least four functional units comprise at least two secondary functional units (storage rack 12-3, fig. 2; construed as equivalent to a “store;” further construed as at least four functional units, i.e., two laser processing machines 24 based on the combination of Kusaka and Thorwarth ‘378 as well as a storage rack 12-2 and a storage rack 12-3, as taught by Kusaka).
Regarding claim 6, Kusaka teaches wherein the workpiece carrier (pallet 21, fig. 2) is arrangeable at each of the two secondary functional units (storage rack 12-3, fig. 2, and storage rack 12-2, fig. 6) in the functional position of each of the two secondary functional units (station S1 is construed as extending into the storage rack 12-3, fig. 2, in addition to storage rack 12-2, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Kusaka teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the workpiece carrier is transferrable between the manufacturing units by the transporting unit.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of automating the manufacturing of workpieces, Thorwarth ‘378 teaches wherein the workpiece carrier (load suspension device 23, fig. 1) is transferrable between the manufacturing units (manufacturing stations 2, fig. 2) by the transporting unit (conveyer means 22, fig. 2; “automated driverless vehicles, so-called AGV or FTS,” para 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kusaka, in view of the teachings of Thorwarth ‘378, by using an automated driverless vehicles to transport load suspension devices (LSDs) between multiple manufacturing stations 2, as taught by Thorwarth ‘378, instead of using just one laser processing machine 24 and the cart 34, as taught by Kusaka, in order to use a driverless vehicle that can be programed to run in arbitrary directions on conveying routes, for the advantage of enabling a highly flexible production line tailored for different manufacturing steps of a product (Thorwarth ‘378, paras 0012-0013).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kusaka in view of Thorwarth ‘378 and Yoshiaki as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 8. Specifically, Kusaka teaches wherein the workpiece carrier (pallet 21, fig. 2) is transferrable between the secondary functional units (racks 12-2 and 12-3, fig. 2) by the transporting unit (cart 34, fig. 3; paras 0040 and 0051-0052). Additionally, Thorwarth ‘378 teaches the transporting unit (conveyor means 22, fig. 1; construed such that the conveyor means 22, as taught by Thorwarth ‘378, is capable of performing the same transportation of the cart 34, as taught by Kusaka).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kusaka in view of Thorwarth ‘378 and Yoshiaki as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically, Kusaka teaches wherein the workpiece carrier (pallet 21, figs. 5-6) is transferrable between at least one of the secondary functional units (rack 12-3, fig. 2; transfers via the transvers 14a and crane 14; paras 0051-0052), on the other hand, by the transporting unit (cart 34, fig. 6). Additionally, Thorwarth ‘378 teaches the workpiece carrier (LSD 23, fig. 1) is transferrable between at least one of the manufacturing units (the LSDs are construed as pallets and are transferred between the manufacturing stations 2 and the conveyor means 22 using a positioning device 26, para 0034), on the one hand by the transporting unit (conveyor means 22, fig. 1; construed such that the conveyor means 22, as taught by Thorwarth ‘378, is capable of performing the same transportation of the cart 34, as taught by Kusaka).
Regarding claim 11, Kusaka teaches wherein, the secondary functional unit comprises:
a loading unit (movement mechanism 42, fig. 3) having a loading position as the functional position (loading/ unloading station S1, fig. 5) of the workpiece carrier (pallet 21, fig. 5), wherein the workpiece carrier is capable of being loaded at the loading position with the sheet metal workpiece that is to undergo a manufacturing operation (para 0050), and/or
an unloading unit (traverser 14a, fig. 6) having an unloading position as the functional position (loading/ unloading station S1, fig. 6) of the workpiece carrier (pallet 21, fig. 6), wherein the workpiece carrier is capable of being unloaded therefrom the sheet metal workpiece and/or the sheet metal manufacturing product (para 0051), and/or
a storage unit (rack 12-2, fig. 6) having a storage position as the functional position (loading/ unloading station S1, fig. 6) of the workpiece carrier (pallet 21, fig. 6), wherein the workpiece carrier is storable (as shown in fig. 2), together with the sheet metal workpiece stored by the workpiece carrier (“pallet setting,” para 0031; as shown in fig. 2), and/or together with the sheet metal manufacturing product stored by the workpiece carrier (para 0029), and/or
a store-side handling unit (not explicitly disclosed) having a handling position as the functional position of the workpiece carrier, wherein the workpiece carrier is placeable from the handling position into storage in a store or is removable from storage in the store into the handling position, and/or
a servicing unit (not explicitly disclosed) that is configured as:
a cleaning unit (not explicitly disclosed) having a cleaning position as the functional position of the workpiece carrier, wherein the workpiece carrier is accessible at the cleaning position for a cleaning apparatus, and/or
a maintenance and/or repair unit (not explicitly disclosed) having a maintenance position and/or repair position as the functional position of the workpiece carrier, wherein maintenance and/or repair work is capable of being carried out on the workpiece carrier at the maintenance position and/or repair position, and/or
an equipping unit (not explicitly disclosed) having an equipping position as the functional position of the workpiece carrier, wherein the workpiece carrier is configured for a subsequent operation on one of the manufacturing units, and/or
a supply unit (not explicitly disclosed) having a supply position as the functional position of the workpiece carrier, wherein the workpiece carrier is suppliable at the supply position for use in the machine arrangement, and/or
process follow-up unit (not explicitly disclosed) having a process follow-up position as the functional position of the workpiece carrier, wherein a sheet metal manufacturing operation is capable of being followed up on the sheet metal manufacturing product stored by the workpiece carrier at the process followed up position.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kusaka in view of Thorwarth ‘378 and Yoshiaki 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 Kusaka in view of Thorwarth ‘378 and Yoshiaki 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) 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, Kusaka teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the transporting unit comprises a holding element configured to detachably secure the workpiece carrier to the transporting unit, and the workpiece carrier detached from the transporting unit is transferrable between the transporting unit, on the one hand, and each manufacturing position in the work area of at least one of the manufacturing units and/or the functional position in the functional area of the secondary functional units, on the other hand.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of automating the manufacturing of workpieces, 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, and
the workpiece carrier (LSD 23, fig. 1) detached (“lift off and position an LSD,” para 0034) from the transporting unit is transferrable between the transporting unit (conveyor means 22, fig. 1), on the one hand, and each manufacturing position (stops 24 and 25, fig. 1) in the work area of at least one of the manufacturing units (manufacturing stations 2, fig. 2; para 0034) and/or the functional position in the functional area of the secondary functional units (not explicitly disclosed), on the other hand.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kusaka, in view of the teachings of Thorwarth ‘378, by using an automated driverless vehicles to transport load suspension devices (LSDs) that are held to the vehicles using clamping devices between multiple manufacturing stations 2, as taught by Thorwarth ‘378, instead of using the cart 34 and pallet 21, as taught by Kusaka, in order to use an automated driverless vehicle to securely transport LSDs to multiple manufacturing stations, where driverless vehicles can be programed to run in arbitrary directions on conveying routes, for the advantage of enabling a highly flexible production line tailored for different manufacturing steps of a product (Thorwarth ‘378, paras 0012-0013).
Regarding claim 15, Kusaka teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a positioning device disposed on the transporting unit and/or on the workpiece carrier, wherein the positioning device is configured to arrange the workpiece carrier in a defined manner on the transporting unit.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of automating the manufacturing of workpieces, Thorwarth ‘378 teaches further comprising a positioning device (“positioning components,” para 0025; “clamping devices,” para 0025) disposed on the transporting unit (not explicitly disclosed) and/or on the workpiece carrier (“The LSD… can e.g. have positioning components,” para 0025), wherein the positioning device is configured to arrange the workpiece carrier in a defined manner (“fixed or exchangeable manner,” para 0025) on the transporting unit (conveyor means 22, 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 Kusaka, in view of the teachings of Thorwarth ‘378, by using an automated driverless vehicles to transport load suspension devices (LSDs) that are that are positioned on the vehicles using positioning components, between multiple manufacturing stations 2, as taught by Thorwarth ‘378, instead of using the cart 34 and pallet 21, as taught by Kusaka, in order to use an automated driverless vehicle to securely transport LSDs to multiple manufacturing stations, where driverless vehicles can be programed to run in arbitrary directions on conveying routes, for the advantage of enabling a highly flexible production line tailored for different manufacturing steps of a product (Thorwarth ‘378, paras 0012-0013).
Regarding claim 16, Kusaka teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a positioning device, wherein the positioning device is disposed in the work area of at least one of the manufacturing units and/or on the workpiece carrier, and the positioning device is configured to arrange the workpiece carrier in the working area of the manufacturing unit in a defined manner in the manufacturing position of the one manufacturing unit of the manufacturing units, and/or wherein the positioning device is disposed in the functional area of at least one of the secondary functional units, on the one hand, and/or on the workpiece carrier, on the other hand, and the positioning device is configured to arrange the workpiece carrier in the functional area of at least one of secondary functional units in a defined manner in the functional position.
However, in the same field of endeavor of manufacturing sheet metal, Yoshiaki teaches further comprising a positioning device (transport station 2 and work table 81, fig. 1), wherein the positioning device is disposed in the work area of at least one of the manufacturing units (table 81 is disposed in the work area of the machine body 9, fig. 1) and/or on the workpiece carrier (pallet P, fig. 1), and the positioning device is configured to arrange the workpiece carrier in the working area of the manufacturing unit in a defined manner in the manufacturing position (position of workpiece W, fig. 1) of the one manufacturing unit of the manufacturing units, and/or wherein the positioning device (transport station 2, fig. 1) is disposed in the functional area of at least one of the secondary functional units (area where the pallets P are unloaded onto the transport station 2, fig. 1), on the one hand, and/or on the workpiece carrier, on the other hand, and the positioning device is configured to arrange the workpiece carrier in the functional area of at least one of secondary functional units in a defined manner in the functional position (column 10, lines 30-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kusaka, in view of the teachings of Yoshiaki, by using a transport station 2 and a work table 81, as taught Yoshiaki, instead of using a moving mechanism 42 to transport a workpiece to a processing pallet 38, as taught by Kusaka, in order to use a transport station 2 and a work table 81 that automatically transport a pallet to a machining position, for the advantage of achieving an unmanned and automated operation that does not require any manual labor (Yoshiaki, column 2, lines 21-28 and column 8, line 30-column 9, line 18).
Regarding claim 17, Kusaka teaches wherein at least one of the manufacturing units (laser processing machine 24 and a pallet changer 38, fig. 3) comprises a laser manufacturing unit having a laser manufacturing apparatus (laser processing machine 24, fig. 3) as the manufacturing apparatus for manufacturing the sheet metal (para 0070), and/or
at least one of the manufacturing units comprises a shaping unit having a shaping apparatus as the manufacturing apparatus for manufacturing the sheet metal (not explicitly disclosed), and/or
at least one of the manufacturing units) is in the form of comprises a separating unit having a separating apparatus as the manufacturing apparatus for manufacturing the sheet metal (not explicitly disclosed), and/or
at least one of the manufacturing units comprises a joining unit having a joining apparatus as the manufacturing apparatus for manufacturing the sheet metal (not explicitly disclosed), and/or
at least one of the manufacturing units comprises a coating unit having a coating apparatus as the manufacturing apparatus for manufacturing the sheet metal (not explicitly disclosed).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusaka et al. (JP-2016007682-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description) in view of Thorwarth (US-20200324378-A1, hereinafter Thorwarth ‘378, effective filing date of 24 May 2016) and Yoshiaki (US-5500507-A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Geissler et al. (US-20210346998-A1, effective filing date of 30 August 2018).
Kusaka teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the secondary function unit comprises a charging unit that is assigned to one of the manufacturing units, wherein the workpiece carrier is transferrable from a position outside the work area of the manufacturing apparatus of one of the manufacturing units into at least one of the manufacturing positions, the charging unit has a charging position as the function position of the workpiece carrier, wherein the workpiece carrier loaded with the sheet metal workpiece is movable from the charging position into each manufacturing position, and the workpiece carrier loaded with the sheet metal manufacturing product is movable from each manufacturing position into the charging position, and the workpiece carrier is transferrable between the charging unit, on the one hand, and one of the manufacturing units and/or the secondary functional unit, 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 secondary function unit comprises a charging unit (“charging station,” para 0333) that is assigned to one of the manufacturing units (fig. 12c, para 0034), wherein the workpiece carrier (pallet 300, fig. 16b) is transferrable from a position (position shown in fig. 16b for pallet 300) outside the work area of the manufacturing apparatus (machine tool 1000, fig. 12c) of one of the manufacturing units into at least one of the manufacturing positions (position of pallet 300 shown in fig. 12c is construed as being outside of the position shown in fig. 16b; para 0334),
the charging unit (“charging station,” para 0333) has a charging position (position shown in fig. 16b) as the function position of the workpiece carrier (pallet 300, fig. 16b), wherein the workpiece carrier loaded with the sheet metal workpiece (para 0318) is movable from the charging position into each manufacturing position (para 0334), and the workpiece carrier loaded with the sheet metal manufacturing product (“chips,” para 0400) is movable from each manufacturing position into the charging position (para 0334), and
the workpiece carrier (pallet 300, fig. 16b) is transferrable between the charging unit (“charging station,” para 0333), on the one hand, and one of the manufacturing units (fig. 12c; para 0334) and/or the secondary functional unit (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 Kusaka, in view of the teachings of Geissler, by using a charging station, as taught by Geissler, at the rack 12-2, as taught by Kusaka, 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 cart while it is docked to the storage racks (Geissler, paras 0333 and 0338).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusaka et al. (JP-2016007682-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description) in view of Thorwarth (US-20200324378-A1, hereinafter Thorwarth ‘378, effective filing date of 24 May 2016).
Kusaka teaches a mechanical method (“process of supplying the material workpiece W to the laser processing machine 24 in the system 10” para 0047) for manufacturing sheet metal (workpieces “W,” fig. 2; a “sheet metal” is not explicitly disclosed), the method comprising:
moving a transporting unit (cart 34, fig. 3) in a driven manner (para 0040) between three spatially separate functional units (laser processing machine 24 and a pallet changer 38 as well as an automated warehouse 16, figs. 1 and 3; construed as two spatially separate functional units; a third one is not explicitly disclosed) of a machine arrangement for manufacturing the sheet metal (workpieces “W,” fig. 5), wherein the transporting unit has a workpiece carrier (pallet 21, fig. 3) configured to store a sheet metal workpiece (workpieces W1, W2, and W3, fig. 9) and/or to store a sheet metal manufacturing product (residual work WR1, WR2, and WR3, fig. 9), and
wherein two of the three functional units of the machine arrangement each comprise a manufacturing unit (only one manufacturing unit is disclosed, specifically a laser processing machine 24 and a pallet changer 38, fig. 3) and one of the three functional units comprises a secondary functional unit (storage rack 12-2, fig. 1),
wherein the two manufacturing units (laser processing machine 24 and a pallet changer 38, fig. 3) are each configured to manufacture the sheet metal (para 0070), each manufacturing unit having a work area (area of pallet changer 38, fig. 3), wherein the workpiece carrier (pallet 21, fig. 9) is arrangeable in each work area in a manufacturing position (top of processing pallet 38a, fig. 3; shown in fig. 9; para 0069), and wherein the sheet metal workpiece stored by the workpiece carrier arranged in the manufacturing position of a respective manufacturing unit of the two manufacturing units (laser processing machine 24 and a pallet changer 38, fig. 3) is accessible by a respective manufacturing apparatus of the respective manufacturing unit to manufacture the sheet metal (paras 0039 and 0045), and
wherein the secondary functional unit (storage rack 12-2, fig. 1; construed as equivalent to a store) is not configured to manufacture the sheet metal (“stored,” para 0054) and has a functional area (area of storage rack 12-2, fig. 2), wherein the workpiece carrier (pallet 21, fig. 2) is configured to be arranged in the functional area at a functional position (position S1, fig. 2; “pallet setting section,” para 0031; para 0077),
wherein the workpiece carrier (pallet 21, fig. 9) is arrangeable at the two manufacturing units in each manufacturing position and at the secondary functional unit in the functional position (para 0047; fig. 3), and
wherein the workpiece carrier is transferrable between each of the manufacturing positions and the functional position of the three functional units by the transporting unit (para 0040; figs. 3-6; in the below combination of Kusaka with Thorwarth where an additional laser processing machine is added, the cart 34 is construed as being movable and a pallet as being transferrable between a processing machine and a cart or vehicle; Kusaka teaches that the pallet 21 is transfers to the rack 12-2, fig. 6).
Kusaka does not explicitly disclose sheet metal; wherein, the functional units of the machine arrangement comprise two manufacturing units; transferring the workpiece carrier between the three functional units.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of automating the manufacturing of workpieces, Thorwarth ‘378 teaches sheet metal (para 0023); wherein, the functional units of the machine arrangement comprise two manufacturing units (each manufacturing station 2 has a processing construed as processing apparatus 13, fig. 1; construed as being three of the laser processing machines 24 taught by Kusaka); transferring the workpiece carrier (LSD 23, fig. 1) between the three functional units (the LSDs are construed as pallets and are transferred between the manufacturing stations 2 and the conveyor means 22 using a positioning device 26, para 0034; the conveyor means 22 can be “driverless vehicles,” para 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kusaka, in view of the teachings of Thorwarth ‘378, by using multiple manufacturing stations 2 and by using a driverless vehicle that has a positioning device 26 for positioning an “LSD” or a pallet, as taught by Thorwarth ‘378, instead of just one laser processing machine 24, as taught by Kusaka, and by using sheet metal, as taught by Thorwarth ‘378, for the workpieces W, as taught by Kusaka, in order to use multiple manufacturing stations in which different process steps can be performed on the workpieces, for the advantage of enabling a highly flexible production line tailored for different manufacturing steps of a product, and for the advantage of using sheet metal workpieces, which are commonly used in the manufacturing of vehicles such as sedans, convertibles, and vans and in order to use an automated driverless vehicle to securely transport LSDs to multiple manufacturing stations, where driverless vehicles can be programed to run in arbitrary directions on conveying routes, for the advantage of enabling a highly flexible production line tailored for different manufacturing steps of a product (Thorwarth ‘378, paras 0012-0013 and 0023).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 3 December 2025 have been fully considered.
Objections to the Drawings
The examiner acknowledges that most of the amended figures that were filed 3 December 2025 now show figures, arrows, numbers, and letters that are black, sufficiently dense, and well-defined to be rendered satisfactory for reproduction characteristics. However, the drawing in fig. 1d that was filed 3 December 2025 is not black. Instead, a grayscale color is used. As a result, the Drawing objection is being maintained for this specific figure.
The examiner also acknowledges that although MPEP 608.02.V.m strongly discourages using shading in two-dimensional cross sections, this MPEP section does not “prohibit” shading in two-dimensional figures. As a result, this drawing objection has been withdrawn.
The examiner further acknowledges that although claim 1 requires “workpiece carrier configured to store a sheet metal workpiece and to store a sheet metal manufacturing product” this limitation does not require that the workpiece carrier needs to be configured to store a sheet metal workpiece and a sheet manufacturing product simultaneously. As a result, this drawing objection has been withdrawn.
The examiner considered whether the “work area,” the “manufacturing position,” the “functional area,” and the “functional position” are sufficiently described in paragraphs 0074-0075 of the pre-grant publication, but there does not appear to be any description of these areas or positions in the paragraphs. Furthermore, respectfully submit that these areas and positions appear to be an important factor in how the Applicant is distinguishing their claimed invention over the prior art references (please see the Applicant’s arguments regarding the “manufacturing position” on page 20 of the arguments filed 3 December 2025).
The Applicant requests “clarification” from the Office as to what the Applicant should do. Respectfully suggest that the Applicant consider amending the specification by adding reference numbers for these areas and positions and then amending the drawings by using these reference numbers to then identify the claimed areas and positions in the drawings.
Regarding claim 11, the amendment to the claim clarifying that the “servicing unit” is the claimed “cleaning unit,” “maintenance and repair unit,” and “equipping unit” has overcome the drawing objection for claim 11, which has been withdrawn.
Interpretation of Claim Terms under 35 USC § 112(f)
Page 12 of the arguments suggests that the claims recite “additional structure, material or acts necessary for the functional units and manufacturing units.” However, the examiner cannot find any evidence of additional structure that has been added in the amendments to the claims that were filed on 3 December 2025.
Rejections under 35 USC § 112
Page 13 of the arguments suggest that “functional units,” “manufacturing units,” and a “secondary functional unit” should not invoke 35 USC 112f but instead should be considered to be “structure.” However, MPEP 2181.I.A states that a “unit” is a non-structural generic placeholder that invokes 35 USC 112f. Thus, the use of “unit” in a claim combined with functional limitations and without any additional structure causes interpretation under 35 USC 112(f).
Page 13 of the arguments also suggests that a “manufacturing apparatus” represents sufficient structure for all of the claimed “units.” However, the examiner is using a “laser” from the Specification to cover the functional limitations that are attributed to the claimed “manufacturing apparatus.” If the Applicant intends to claim only a laser, then recommend removing all of the “functional units” and “manufacturing units” from the claim and claiming instead a “manufacturing apparatus.” Moreover, the Applicant can avoid 35 USC 112(f) interpretation altogether by reciting a “laser” instead of a “manufacturing apparatus” in the claim 1.
Pages 14-15 of the arguments reference paragraphs 0063 and 0065 of the pre-grant publication for sufficient structure to cover the “manufacturing unit.” However, these paragraphs only describe “separating units,” a “laser flatbed machine,” a “punching machine,” a “laser machine,” and a “coating unit.” The term “unit” is a generic placeholder.” The terms “separating,” “punching,” and “coating” are functional limitations describing functions that the units perform. Although a “laser” is specific structure, the laser is being used for the “manufacturing apparatus.” These paragraphs also mention a “flatbed,” but it is unclear how a flatbed is able to perform the “manufacturing” function that is required by the “manufacturing unit.” A flatbed is where a sheet metal is placed and is not capable of manufacturing the sheet metal.
The bottom of page 14 of the arguments references paragraph 0054 for a “conventional pallet changer,” which is a structural object and suggests that a “conventional pallet changer” can be used as a “charging unit.” However, it is unclear how a conventional pallet changer is sufficient structure for a “charging unit” as required in claim 10. There should be structure sufficient for providing a charge, which a conventional pallet changer is not capable of performing.
The top of page 15 of the arguments references paragraph 0085 for “frame structure,” which is a structural object and suggests that “frame structure” can be used as a “loading unit.” However, it is unclear how frame structure is sufficient structure for a “loading unit” as required in claim 11. There should be structure sufficient for “loading,” which a frame structure is not capable of performing.
The bottom of page 15 of the arguments references paragraph 0060 for a “depression, an elevation, a wall, a stop,” which are structural objects and suggests that the “positioning device” can be one of these structural objects. Page 8 of the Office action filed 4 September 2025 acknowledged this structure as being sufficient structure for the “positioning device” in claim 15. However, the “positioning device” in claim 16 is required to be in the “work area” of the “manufacturing apparatus.” The Specification discloses the “depression, an elevation, a wall, a stop,” are part of an indexing apparatus 24. This indexing apparatus 24 is separate structure from the manufacturing apparatus, i.e., the laser, where the “work area” is located.
Page 16 of the arguments states that “the Office also appears to be improperly mixing the standards for written description and definiteness.” However, the MPEP clearly requires these standards to be linked when 35 USC 112(f) is invoked—"whether a claim reciting an element in means- (or step-) plus-function language fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because the specification does not disclose adequate structure (or material or acts) for performing the recited function is closely related to the question of whether the specification meets the description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph” (MPEP 2181.II.A). The examiner further submits that linking these two standards makes sense. If a specification lacks description to provide sufficient structure for a claimed limitation that invokes 112f, then one of ordinary skill in the art could not possibly know if they were infringing on the claimed limitation.
For example, if one of ordinary sill in the art invented a conveyor that included a laser, could this conveyor be considered a “manufacturing unit?” Looking at the specification, this inventor would see that “a manufacturing unit is provided for manufacturing sheet metal, that is to say for example for cutting, punching, bending, boring, forming threads in, welding, shaping etc. sheet metal.” A conveyor is not used “for cutting, punching, bending, boring, forming threads in, welding, shaping.” But what does the abbreviation “etc.” mean? What are the “rest” of the functions that are used to define a manufacturing unit? When 35 USC 112(f) is invoked, and there is insufficient structure in the specification to cover the functional limitations as required per 35 USC 112(a), then it follows that a 35 USC 112(b) rejection is proper since it is unclear what is being claimed.
Page 17 of the arguments references a mistake that was made by the examiner on page 10 of the Office action filed 4 September 2025. The examiner acknowledges that the last line of the 35 USC 112(a) rejection for claims 1 and 18 should have stated “manufacturing unit” instead of “manufacturing apparatus.” A correction has been made in the present Office action. However, this mistake does not change the basic thrust of the rejection—although there is sufficient structure in the specification for the claimed “manufacturing apparatus” (a laser is used from the specification to cover the “manufacturing apparatus”), respectfully submit that there is insufficient structure from the specification to cover the claimed “manufacturing unit.” More structure is needed.
Page 17 of the arguments suggests that a laser can be used to cover both a “manufacturing unit” and a “manufacturing apparatus.” However, the examiner disagrees. If the Applicant intends to just claim a laser, recommend deleting a “manufacturing unit” and a “manufacturing apparatus,” and adding a “laser” to the claim.
Page 17 of the arguments also refers to the drawings for structure for the coating unit 3, loading unit 6, and positioning device 27. However, it is not clear what structure is required from these units or devices in the drawings. Although the drawings show that the loading unit 6 has a frame, it is unclear how a frame accomplishes the claimed “loading” function. It is also unclear what structure is being depicted for the coating unit 3 and positioning device 27 in the drawings.
Rejections under 35 USC § 103
Page 20 of the arguments references paragraph 0040 of Kusaka (JP2016007682) and states that the carriage 34 travels only between the loading/unloading station S1 and the transverser 14a. However, in paragraph 0040, Kusaka actually teaches that “the work set cart 34 is configured to be able to travel by a predetermined drive mechanism so as to partially enter the work transport station S2 from within the work loading/unloading.” The “partial” entrance of cart 34 into the station S2 area is shown in figs. 3-4 of Kusaka’s drawings.
The examiner agrees with the description of Kusaka on page 20 that “the fork unit 36…is configured to travel between workpiece loading/unloading station S1 and the laser processing machine 24.” In paragraph 0047, Kusaka describes how the fork unit 36 supplies the workpiece to the laser processing machine 24.
The examiner further agrees that the carriage 34 is not “configured to travel between workpiece loading/unloading station S1 and the laser processing machine 24.” Instead, Kusaka teaches using the carriage 34 for transportation in the reverse order—between the laser processing machine 24 and the loading/unloading station S1. Referencing paragraph 0040 and figs. 5-6, Kusaka teaches that the cart 34 moves between laser processing machine 24 and the workpiece storage rack 12-2:
PNG
media_image5.png
786
680
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
763
680
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Thus, Kusaka teaches “a transport unit…movable between two of the three functional units,” as required in claim 1. Specifically, Kusaka teaches in figs. 5-6 that the cart 34 moves between the laser processing machine 24 and the pallet changer 38, which is construed as the claimed “manufacturing unit,” and the storage rack 12-2, which is construed as the claimed “secondary functional unit.”
Page 21 of the arguments requests more details on the combination of Kusaka combined with Thorwarth (US20200324378) with respect to claim 1. Specifically, the Applicant suggests that if multiple laser processing machines 24 were used in the invention taught by Kusaka, then the examiner would also need robots 15, 18, and 19 as well as conveyor tracks 22 and a working point 12. The examiner respectfully disagrees that robots 15, 18, and 19 are required. However, the examiner acknowledges that the driverless vehicles 22 are now required in the claims. This change was needed because the claims now require that the “workpiece carriers” or pallets must be transferrable between the “three functional units” that include the “manufacturing units.” Kusaka does not teach moving the pallets to the laser processing machine (Kusaka just moves the workpieces). However, Thorwarth teaches this arrangement. As a result, Thorwarth is now used to cover this limitation.
The Applicant appears to suggest in their arguments on page 21 that adding an additional laser processing machine 24 to the laser processing machine 24 that is already taught by Kusaka is a difficult modification for one of ordinary skill in the art. The examiner disagrees. Respectfully submit that based on the teachings of Thorwarth, adding multiple manufacturing stations to form a production line is routinely done by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Page 21 of the arguments also asks for more details with respect to the modifications that are needed in Kusaka with respect to claim 1. Specifically, does the fork unit 36 need to be modified? Are additional conveyors needed? The examiner submits that an additional laser processing machine 24 is required (Kusaka only teaches one machine 24; Thorwarth teaches multiple processing stations) and the driverless vehicles 22 (taught by Thorwarth) need to be used instead of the cart 34 (as taught by Kusaka) because the driverless vehicles 22 use positioning devices 26 for transferring pallets to the processing stations. As explained on the previous page, Kusaka does not teach moving the pallets to the laser processing machine but instead only moves the workpieces. Hopefully, this explanation satisfies the Applicant’s questions.
The Applicant’s argument on page 20 that Kusaka does not disclose a laser processing machine 24, which is able to manufacture the workpiece carrier in a manufacturing position has been fully considered but is moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Kusaka and Thorwarth combined with Yoshiaki.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
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 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 2/23/2026