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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/21/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-20, drawn to “A precision apparatus” or to “A precision system”, depending upon the claim) in the reply filed on 11/4/2025 was previously acknowledged.
Claims 21-23 were previously withdrawn (and still are) from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/4/2025.
Drawings
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 “plurality of precision devices” of claims 1, 16-18, and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“at least one form-fitting centering element, which is configured to interact with the centering bolt or the centering recess for the submillimeter-precise horizontal orientation of the at least one holding unit” in claim 1;
“at least one further form-fitting centering element, which is configured to interact with a further centering bolt or with a further centering recess for the submillimeter-precise horizontal orientation of the at least one holding unit” in claim 2;
“a position-fixing element for the tool chucks” in claim 9;
“a further form-fitting centering element of the at least one holding unit of the plurality of precision devices for placement into storage or removal from storage respectively” in claim 16;
“a holding unit identifying device…which is configured for an identification of individual holding units from the at least one holding unit of the plurality of precision devices for placement into storage or removal of the storage lift” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 5 of the claim, a “:” should be inserted after “comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 14 of the claim, “the” should be inserted before “tools” and also before “tool chucks”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “the form-fitting centering element” should be amended to “the at least one form-fitting centering element”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “the centering device” should be amended to “the at least one centering device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “the centering device” should be amended to “the at least one centering device”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 and 14-20 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.
The term “several levels” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “several” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, it is unclear as to how many levels are encompassed by the term “several.” Does “several” levels mean, for example, at least two levels? Does “several” levels mean, for example, at least three levels?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the respective level" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests the following amendment to line so as to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: “a plurality of levels which are in each case configured for receiving one or more holding units, each holding unit of the one or more holding units being individually transferable from [[the]] a respective one of the plurality of levels into a transfer zone of the precision system”.
Lines 17-19 of claim 1 state, “wherein the at least one of the holding units of each of the plurality of precision devices for placement into storage or removal from storage respectively forms a plurality of storage bins for the tool or the tool chucks.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as claimed, it is unclear if each respective holding unit of “the at least one of the holding units” respectively forms the claimed “plurality of storage bins,” or if instead, the at least one of the holding units as a collective forms the claimed “plurality of storage bins.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the at least one holding unit" in each of lines 2 and 5 thereof. Likewise, claim 3 recites the limitation "the at least one holding unit" in each of lines 3 and 4 thereof. Also, claim 5 recites the limitation "the at least one holding unit" in line 2, and claim 6 recites the limitation "the at least one holding unit" in line 2. Furthermore, claim 10 recites the limitation "the at least one holding unit" in line 3, claim 11 recites the limitation "the at least one holding unit" in line 2, claim 16 recites the limitation "the at least one holding unit" in line 5, claim 17 recites "the at least one holding unit" in line 4, claim 18 recites "the at least one holding unit" in lines 4-5, and claim 20 recites "the at least one holding unit" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each recitation of this limitation in the corresponding claim. Please be advised that Applicant previously set forth, “at least one of the hold units” (not “at least one holding unit”, for example) in line 14 of claim 1.
Lines 2-4 of claim 17 state, “the stationary storage lift is configured to selectively provide respectively one of the plurality of precision devices for placement into storage or removal from storage the at least one holding unit comprises in the stationary storage lift for access of the handling robot.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as claimed, it is unclear as to what element is selectively being provided. Is the at least one holding unit being selectively provided to one of the plurality of precision devices? Or is the one of plurality of precision devices being provided to the at least one holding unit?
The term “tightly screwed” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, it is unclear as to how tight is considered to be “tightly screwed.” At what point is it considered to be tightly screwed as opposed to not tightly screwed, for example?
Lines 2-6 of claim 19 state, “wherein the stationary storage lift with the at least one centering device and the stationary robot module with the handling robot, are tightly screwed, glued, fixedly cemented, welded on the common base or on the ground.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as claimed, it is unclear if the stationary storage lift and the stationary robot module are one of tightly screwed, glued, fixedly cemented, and welded, or are all of tightly screwed, glued, fixedly cemented, and welded.
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 1-12 and 14-20 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.
Lines 9-14 of claim 1 state, “a plurality of precision devices for placement into storage or removal from storage that are configured for an automated placement into storage or removal from storage of the tools or of the tool chucks out of the stationary storage lift, wherein each of the plurality of precision devices for placement into storage or removal from storage has at least one of the holding units for tools or tool chucks.” This limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
With respect to the specification filed on 1/12/2023 and on 4/20/2026, at no point therein does Applicant disclose a precision device let alone a plurality of precision devices. Precision devices are never mentioned in the specification, and as such, there is no disclosure for, “a plurality of precision devices for placement into storage or removal from storage that are configured for an automated placement into storage or removal from storage of the tools or of the tool chucks out of the stationary storage lift, wherein each of the plurality of precision devices for placement into storage or removal from storage has at least one of the holding units for tools or tool chucks.”
With respect to the drawings filed on 8/17/2022 and on 4/20/2026, “a plurality of precision devices” are never shown. While the at least one of the holding units (24) is shown in at least Figure 2, the claimed plurality of precision devices (that are set forth by Applicant as being “for placement into storage or removal from storage” and that are further set forth by Applicant as having the “at least one of the holding units”) are never shown by Applicant in the figures. Based on the foregoing, the drawings do not provide disclosure for, “a plurality of precision devices for placement into storage or removal from storage that are configured for an automated placement into storage or removal from storage of the tools or of the tool chucks out of the stationary storage lift, wherein each of the plurality of precision devices for placement into storage or removal from storage has at least one of the holding units for tools or tool chucks.”
Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the Applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Line 17 of claim 1 states, “the at least one of the holding units of each of the plurality of precision devices.” Line 24 of claim 1 states, “the at least one of the holding units of the plurality of precision devices.” Line 27 of claim 1 states, “the at least one of the holding units of each of the plurality of precision devices.” Line 5 of claim 16 states, “the at least one of the holding units of the plurality of precision devices.” Lines 4-5 of claim 18 state, “the at least one of the holding units of the plurality of precision devices.” Lines 4-5 of claim 20 state, “the at least one of the holding units of the plurality of precision devices.” Each of these limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
With respect to the specification filed on 1/12/2023 and on 4/20/2026, at no point therein does Applicant disclose a precision device let alone a plurality of precision devices. Precision devices are never mentioned in the specification, and as such, there is no disclosure for, “the at least one of the holding units of each of the plurality of precision devices” or for “the at least one of the holding units of the plurality of precision devices.”
With respect to the drawings filed on 8/17/2022 and on 4/20/2026, “a plurality of precision devices” are never shown. While the at least one of the holding units (24) is shown in at least Figure 2, the claimed plurality of precision devices are never shown by Applicant in the figures. Based on the foregoing, the drawings do not provide disclosure for, “the at least one of the holding units of each of the plurality of precision devices” or for “the at least one of the holding units of the plurality of precision devices.”
Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the Applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Lines 2-4 of claim 17 state, “wherein the stationary storage lift is configured to selectively provide respectively one of plurality of precision devices for placement into storage or removal from storage the at least one holding unit comprised in the stationary storage lift for an access of the handling robot.” This limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
With respect to the specification filed on 1/12/2023 and on 4/20/2026, at no point therein does Applicant disclose a precision device let alone a plurality of precision devices. Precision devices are never mentioned in the specification, and as such, there is no disclosure for, “wherein the stationary storage lift is configured to selectively provide respectively one of plurality of precision devices for placement into storage or removal from storage the at least one holding unit comprised in the stationary storage lift for an access of the handling robot.”
With respect to the drawings filed on 8/17/2022 and on 4/20/2026, “a plurality of precision devices” are never shown. Based on the foregoing, the drawings do not provide disclosure for, “wherein the stationary storage lift is configured to selectively provide respectively one of plurality of precision devices for placement into storage or removal from storage the at least one holding unit comprised in the stationary storage lift for an access of the handling robot.”
Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the Applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Durst (Swiss Publication No. CH 696524 A5).
Claim 1: Figure 1 of Durst shows a precision system (1) comprising a stationary storage lift (3) and a handling robot (58) for loading the stationary storage lift (3). With regards to the stationary storage lift (3), it comprises several levels for receiving one or more holding units (59). Said storage lift (3) of Durst is “stationary” because it (3) standing still/not moving at least when the support frame (2) (to which the storage lift (3) is mounted, see Figure 1) is held in place.
Be advised that at least Figure 1 of Durst shows workpieces (60) being received on the one or more holding units (59). Regarding the handling robot (58), it is disclosed by Durst as being controllable via several axes through which workpieces (60) can be fed to a machining center or the like, and through which the workpieces (60) can be placed back on the storage lift (3) after machining [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0002]. Noting this, the precision system (1) of Durst is inherently capable of “for placement into storage and/or removal from storage of tools or tool chucks” simply by supplying (as opposed to the workpieces (60)) tools or tool chucks to be placed into the stationary storage lift (3) and to be removed from storage lift (3). Likewise, the handling robot (58) of Durst is inherently capable of “loading the stationary storage lift with the tools or the tool chucks” simply by supplying (as opposed to the workpieces (60)) tools or tool chucks for the handling robot (58) to load into the stationary storage lift (3).
Please note that the precision system (1) is drawn to an apparatus with an intended use of “for placement into storage and/or removal from storage of tools or tool chucks,” and said precision system (1) is blind as to the type of element being stored and/or removed. As such, upon supplying tools or tool chucks to the precision system (1), said precision system (1) is capable of functioning to place into the storage lift (3) and/or remove from the storage lift (3) the supplied tools or tool chucks. Moreover, the handling robot (58) is drawn to an apparatus with an intended use of “loading the stationary storage lift with the tools or the tool chucks,” and said handling robot (58) is blind as to the type of element that is to be loaded onto the stationary storage lift (3). As such, upon supplying tools or tool chucks to the handling robot (58), said handling robot (58) is capable of loading the stationary storage lift (3) with the supplied tools or tool chucks. Indication for such capability corresponds to the disclosure of the handling robot (58) being controllable via several axes through which workpieces (60) can be fed to a machining center, and through which the workpieces (60) can be placed back on the stationary storage lift (3) after machining [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0002]. (Please be advised that in at least claim 1 Applicant never positively recites the precision system (1) as comprising the tools or tool chucks, for example. Rather, all recitation of the claimed tools and tool chucks is set forth with intended use).
Next, as was stated above, the stationary storage lift (3) of Durst comprises several levels (35/1-35/9) for receiving one or more holding units (59). Each level (35/1-35/9) is defined by two guide rails (38, 39). Noting this, each holding unit (59) of the one or more holding units (59) is individually transferrable from a respective level (35/1-35/9) into a transfer zone (34/8-34/14) of the precision system (1). In order to explain this, Examiner directs attention to Figure 4. Figure 4 shows the precision system (1) as comprising a plurality of precision devices (4, 5) for placement into storage or removal from storage. Each holding unit (59) is capable of being pushed by the handling robot (58) from the top level, e.g. 35/1 (see Figure 6), of a first one (5) of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5) onto the transfer zone, e.g. 34/8 (see Figure 6), of a second one (4) of said plurality of precision devices (4, 5). Thus, each holding unit (59) is individually transferable by means of the handling robot (58) from “the respective level into a transfer zone of the precision system.”
As was noted above, the precision system (1) comprises the plurality of precision devices (4, 5) for placement into storage or removal from storage. The plurality of precision devices (4, 5) are configured for an “automated placement into storage or removal from storage of the tools or of the tool chucks into or out of the stationary storage lift.” This will now be explained. Each of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5) of Durst is formed from two corresponding circulating chain conveyors (6 and 7; 8 and 9) [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0038]. By automatically moving one or more holding units (59) in the direction of arrow 77 (see Figure 5) from a lowermost transfer zone from the second one (4) of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5) to an empty level of the several levels (35/1-35/9) of the first one (5) of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5) with a sliding device (67), and by subsequently automatically moving the several levels (35/1-35/9) upwards through circulation of corresponding guide rails (38 and 39) through the actuation of the two circulating chain conveyors (8 and 9), the plurality of precision devices (4, 5) are working in tandem to bring one or more holding units (59) into the uppermost position of the first one (5) of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5). The one or more holding units (59) are now accessible for automated storage into or removal therefrom of provided tools or tool chucks by means of the handling robot (58). Thus, in at least this way, the plurality of precision devices (4, 5) are configured for an “automated placement into storage or removal from storage of the tools or of the tool chucks into or out of the stationary storage lift.”
Next, by virtue of each precision device (4, 5) receiving one or more holding units (59), each of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5) for placement into storage or removal from storage “has at least one of the holding units for [the] tools or [the] tool chucks.”
Further, the at least one holding units (59) of each of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5) is loadable by the handling robot (58). Per Durst, “the workpieces located on the uppermost workpiece storage 59/1 can now be fed to a machining center or the like by the robot arm 58, which is also not shown in Fig. 6, and after their machining can be precisely positioned and placed back on the uppermost workpiece storage 59/1” [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0061]. This shows that the at least one holding units (59) is “loadable” by the handling robot (58).
Durst also discloses that each holding unit (59) has a type of receiving tray (75) in its inner area, and various inlets (76) can be inserted into this receiving tray (75) in which workpieces (60) to be processed can be placed in a positionally accurate manner [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0061]. Each inlet (76) is a respective storage bin (76). Thus, the at least one of the holding units (59) of each of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5) for placement into storage or removal from storage respectively forms a plurality of storage bins (76). Please be advised that the plurality of storage bins (76) are inherently capable of “for the tools for the tool chucks” simply by supplying (as opposed to the workpieces (60)) the tools or the tool chucks to be placed into the plurality of storage bins (76). That is to say that the plurality of storage bins (76) are blind as to what they receive, and each bin (76) will receive whatever element is provided to it. Thus, in the instance that the tools or the tool chucks are supplied as opposed to the workpieces (60), then the plurality of storage bins (76) are “for the tools for the tool chucks.”
The precision system (1) for placement into storage and/or removal from storage of the tools or the tool chucks further comprises at least one centering device (see Figure 4) comprising an automatedly movable centering bolt (72) for a submillimeter-precise horizontal orientation of the at least one holding units (59) of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5) for placement into storage or removal from storage respectively by generating a form-fit connection of the centering bolt (71). Please be advised that the at least one centering device is hydro-pneumatic drive for vertically adjusting the centering bolt (72) thereof [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0055].
Next, be advised that lines 28-29 of claim 1 set forth therein, “at least one form-fitting centering element.” Noting this, “at least one form-fitting centering element” is being interpreted by Examiner 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. Please be advised that “at least one form-fitting centering element” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed on page 16, lines 8-16 of Applicant's specification filed on 4/20/2026, as well as equivalents thereto.
With respect to the prior art, Figure 4 of Durst shows an exemplary holding unit (59). Each holding unit (59) is provided with a centering bore (82) that is configured to interact with the centering bolt (72) for the submillimeter-precise horizontal orientation of the at least one holding units (59). Thus, the centering bore (82) of Durst is an equivalent of the “at least one form-fitting centering element.” This is because the centering bore (82) carries out the function specified in lines 28-29, said function being “interact with the centering bolt or the centering recess.” Also, the centering bore (82) of Durst is not excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification, and said centering bore (82) produces substantially the same result as the corresponding “at least one form-fitting centering element [26]” of Applicant.
Based on the foregoing, the centering bore (82) of Durst will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as “the at least one form-fitting centering element (82).” Noting this, the at least one holding units (59) of each of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5) for placement into storage or removal from storage respectively comprises at least one form-fitting centering element (82), which is configured to interact with the center bolt (72) for the submillimeter-precise horizontal orientation of the least one holding units (59).
Next, Figure 1 of Durst shows the handling robot (58) as being mounted to an upper end of the stationary storage lift (3) by means of a mounting frame/stationary robot module. Noting this, the stationary storage lift (3), the at least one centering device (comprising the centering bolt (72)) which is also mounted to the stationary storage lift (3) but by bearing blocks (27), and the stationary robot module comprising the handling robot (58) are fixed in position relative to one another by being fixed to, for example, a common base (2) either directly or via the stationary storage lift (3).
Claim 2: Be advised that line 3 of claim 2 sets forth therein, “at least one further form-fitting centering element.” Noting this, “at least one further form-fitting centering element” is being interpreted by Examiner 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. Please be advised that “at least one further form-fitting centering element” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed on page 16, lines 8-16 of Applicant's specification filed on 4/20/2026, as well as equivalents thereto, noting that the “at least one further form-fitting centering element” is (per Applicant) implemented approximately identically to Applicant’s form-fitting centering element, or implemented differently, or complementary to the form-fitting centering element (please see page 4, lines 20-24).
With respect to the prior art, Figure 4 of Durst shows the exemplary holding unit (59). Each holding unit (59) is provided with a further centering bore (83) that is configured to interact with a further centering bolt (71) for the submillimeter-precise horizontal orientation of the at least one holding units (59). Thus, the further centering bore (83) of Durst is an equivalent of the “at least one further form-fitting centering element.” This is because the further centering bore (83) carries out the function specified in lines 28-29, said function being “interact with a further centering bolt or the centering recess.” Also, the further centering bore (83) is not excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification, and said further centering bore (83) produces substantially the same result as the corresponding “at least one further form-fitting centering element [26]” of Applicant.
Based on the foregoing, the further centering bore (83) of Durst will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as “the at least one further form-fitting centering element (83).” Noting this, the at least one holding units (59) further comprises the at least one form-fitting centering element (83), which is configured to interact with the center bolt (71) for the submillimeter-precise horizontal orientation of the least one of the holding units (59).
Claim 3: As can be seen in Figure 4 of Durst, the form-fitting centering element (82) and the further form-fitting centering element (83) are arranged in end regions of the at least one of the holding units (59). When viewed along a diagonally extending main extension direction, the form-fitting centering element (82) and the further form-fitting centering element (83) are situated opposite each other, for example.
Claim 6: As broadly claimed, the least one of the holding units (59) forms at least two different kinds of storage bins (76). Noting that each storage bin (76) is configured to receive whichever element is provided thereto.
A first kind of storage bin (76), for example, is one in which tools or tool chucks are received, whilst a second kind of storage bin (76), for example, is one in which workpieces (60) are instead received.
Additionally/Alternatively, a first kind of storage bin (76), for example, is one in which tools are received, whilst a second kind of storage bin (76), for example, is one in which tool chucks (rather than tools) are received.
Claim 7: Be advised that claim 7 is first rejected with respect to the interpretation in which the first kind of storage bin (76), for example, is one in which tools or tool chucks are received, and the second kind of storage bin (76), for example, is one in which workpieces (60) are instead received.
When a given holding unit (59) is disposed at the top level, e.g. 35/1 (please see Figure 6) of the first one (5) of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5), said first kind of storage bin (76) of the given holding unit (59) is implemented for a placement into storage or removal from storage of the tools or of the tool chucks from an at least partially vertically placement or removal direction.
Please be advised that claim 7 is next rejected with respect to the interpretation in which the first kind of storage bin (76), for example, is one in which tools are received, and the second kind of storage bin (76), for example, is one in which tool chucks (rather than tools) are received
When a given holding unit (59) is disposed at the top level, e.g. 35/1 (please see Figure 6) of the first one (5) of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5), said first kind of storage bin (76) of the given holding unit (59) is implemented for a placement into storage or removal from storage of the tools from an at least partially vertically placement or removal direction.
Claim 8: Please be advised that claim 8 is rejected with respect to the interpretation in which the first kind of storage bin (76), for example, is one in which tools are received, and the second kind of storage bin (76), for example, is one in which tool chucks (rather than tools) are received
When a given holding unit (59) is disposed at any level below the top level, e.g. 35/2-35/8 (please see Figure 6) of the first one (5) of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5), said second kind of storage bin (76) of the given holding unit (59) is implemented for a placement, e.g. a manual placement, into storage or removal from storage of the tool chucks from a horizontal placement or removal direction. Note that the second kind of storage bin (76) is “implemented for placement into storage or removal from storage” in that the second kind of storage bin (76) is shaped and sized such that it (76) is doesn’t impede and/or prevent tool chucks from moving into the corresponding level (35/2-35/8) from the horizontal placement or removal direction for subsequent insertion into the confines of said second kind of storage bin (76). (Please be advised that claim 8 is broadly set forth in that it doesn’t set forth any specific geometry of the claimed second kind of storage bin, and claim 7 on which claim 8 directly depends is broadly set forth in that it doesn’t set forth any specific geometry of the claimed first kind of storage bin).
Claim 10: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, each level (35/1-35/9) is defined by two guide rails (38, 39). Each guide rail (38, 39) in and of itself is a planar base plate (38, 39) that carries the at least one holding unit (59) such that the at least one holding unit (59) is horizontally displaceable.
Claim 11: The at least one holding unit (59) is supported on the planar base plate (38, 39) so as to be freely movable relative to said base plate (38, 39) in directions parallel to the base plate (38, 39).
Claim 15: The centering bolt (72) of the at least one centering device is automatedly movable along a vertical direction by means of a hydro-pneumatic drive [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0055].
Claim 16: In addition to the at least one centering device comprising the centering bolt (72), the precision system (1) of Figure 1 of Durst further comprises a further centering device with a further centering bolt (71), the further centering device embodied as a further hydro-pneumatic drive [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0055].
Be advised that line 4 of claim 16 sets forth therein, “a further form-fitting centering element.” Noting this, “a further form-fitting centering element” is being interpreted by Examiner 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. Please be advised that “further form-fitting centering element” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed on page 16, lines 8-16 of Applicant's specification filed on 4/20/2026, as well as equivalents thereto, noting that the “further form-fitting centering element” is (per Applicant) implemented approximately identically to Applicant’s form-fitting centering element, or implemented differently, or complementary to the form-fitting centering element (please see page 4, lines 20-24).
With respect to the prior art, Figure 4 of Durst shows the exemplary holding unit (59). Each holding unit (59) is provided with a further centering bore (83) configured to interact with the further centering bolt (71) for a form-fitting interaction. Thus, the further centering bore (83) of Durst is an equivalent of the “further form-fitting centering element.” This is because the further centering bore (83) carries out the function specified in line 4 of the claim, said function being “a form-fitting interaction.” Also, the further centering bore (83) is not excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification, and said further centering bore (83) produces substantially the same result as the corresponding “further form-fitting centering element [26]” of Applicant.
Based on the foregoing, the further centering bore (83) of Durst will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as “the further form-fitting centering element (83).” Noting this, the at least one holding units (59) of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5) further comprises the further form-fitting centering element (83), which is configured to interact with the further centering bolt (71) for the form-fitting interaction with the further centering bolt (71) of the further centering device.
Please be advised that the when the at least one centering device/hydro-pneumatic drive and the further centering device/further hydro-pneumatic drive are actuated at the same time, the result is form-fitting interaction between the further form-fitting centering element (83) and the further centering bolt (71) being synchronized with a form-fitting interaction between the at least one form-fitting centering element (82) and the centering bolt (72).
Claim 17: The stationary storage lift (3) is configured to selectively provide the at least one holding unit (59) comprised therein to a respective one of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5) for an access of the handling robot (58). For example, by automatically moving one or more holding units (59) in the direction of arrow 77 (see Figure 5) from a lowermost transfer zone from the second one (4) of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5) to an empty level of the several levels (35/1-35/9) of the first one (5) of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5) with the sliding device (67), and by subsequently automatically moving the several levels (35/1-35/9) upwards through circulation of corresponding guide rails (38 and 39) through the actuation of the two circulating chain conveyors (8 and 9) into the uppermost position of the first one (5) of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5), the stationary storage lift (3) has selectively provided the one or more holding units (59) for the access of the handling robot (58).
Claim 18: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, the stationary storage lift (3) of Durst comprises several levels (35/1-35/9) for receiving one or more holding units (59). Each level (35/1-35/9) is defined by two guide rails (38, 39). Each guide rail (38, 39) in and of itself is a transfer surface (38, 39), which – at least during a placement into storage or removal from of the tools or of the tool chucks into out of the stationary storage lift (3) – carries the at least one holding unit (59) of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5) for placement into storage or removal from storage comprises in the stationary storage lift (3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durst (Swiss Publication No. CH 696524 A5) in view of Marschak (U.S. Patent No. 3,970,199 A).
Claim 4: The claim is directed to a product (i.e. at least a portion of the at least one holding unit which forms the plurality of storage bins is embodied as a…sheet metal part) constructed by a process comprising “lasered or riveted bent”. Therefore, the limitation concerning the “lasered or riveted bent” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. Please be advised that product-by-process limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). See MPEP section 2113.
With respect to Durst, the portion of the at least one of the holding units (59) which forms the plurality of bins (76) is the receiving tray (75). Durst though, does not provide disclosure on the receiving tray (75), which again is the portion forming the plurality of bins (76), being embodied as “a sheet metal part.”
Figure 1 of Marschak though, shows a plurality of trays (12), each of which being disclosed as being implement as a sheet metal part [column 1, line 66 – column 2, line 5]. Please be advised that sheet metal provides each of the plurality of trays (12) with the advantage of being a lightweight yet durable part.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed each receiving tray (75) (which again is the portion forming the plurality of bins (76)) of Durst from sheet metal in accordance with the disclosure of Marschak, so as to provide each receiving tray (75) of the at least one of the holding units (59) with the advantage of being lightweight yet durable part.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durst (Swiss Publication No. CH 696524 A5).
Claim 5: Each respective holding unit (59) of the least one of the holding units (59) comprises a frame-shaped element in which is disposed a receiving tray (75). Please be advised that the frame-shaped element is the portion of the least one of the holding units (59) which comprises the at least one form-fitting centering element (82). Durst though, does not provide disclosure on the portion of the least one of the holding units (59) comprising the at least one form-fitting centering element (82) being “implemented as a metal element, which is different from a sheet metal.” However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the portion of the least one of the holding units (59) comprising the at least one form-fitting centering element (82) be made of a metal element, which is different from a sheet metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this instance, the least one of the holding units (59) comprising the at least one form-fitting centering element (82) being implemented as a metal element, which is different from a sheet metal, would be durable such that it would both withstand deformation and wear from repeated interfacing with the at least one centering device (72).
Claim 12: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 10, each guide rail (38, 39) in and of itself is a planar base plate (38, 39) that carries the at least one holding unit (59) such that the at least one holding unit (59) is horizontally displaceable. Durst though, does not provide disclosure on the planar base plate (38, 39) being “made of polyvinyl chloride.” However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made each planar base plate (38, 39) of Durst be made of polyvinyl chloride, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this instance, the planar base plate (38, 39) would be lightweight yet durable when made of polyvinyl chloride, and thus suitable for the intended use of supporting the at least one holding unit (59) during lifting of the at least one holding unit (59) and during horizontal displacement of the at least one holding unit (59) relative to the base plate (38, 39).
Claim 19: The stationary storage lift (3) (with the at least one centering device) and the stationary robot module and the fixedly connected to one another. Please be advised that the stationary robot module is the mounting frame disposed on the upper end of the stationary storage lift (3) to which the handling robot (58) is mounted. Please be advised that the stationary storage lift (3) is directly connected to the common base (2), whereas the stationary robot module is connected to the common base (2) via the stationary storage lift (3). Durst though, does not disclose the type of connection between the stationary storage lift (3) and the common base (2), and likewise does not disclose the type of connection between the stationary storage lift (3) and the stationary robot module. Please be advised that the stationary robot module, the stationary storage lift (3), and the common base (2) are all embodied as respective frame members.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that screwing/tightly screwing frame members to one another is well-known and widely-used in the art, and such results in frame members being secured in a releasable manner to one another, and thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have screwed/tightly screwed the stationary storage lift (3) and the stationary robot module of Durst to one another and to have screwed/tightly screwed the stationary storage lift (3) and the common base (2) of Durst to one another, for the purpose of ensuring that the stationary storage lift (3) and the stationary robot module are secured in a releasable manner to one another and further ensuring that the stationary storage lift (3) and the common base (2) are secured in a releasable manner to one another. Resultantly, the stationary storage lift (3) and the stationary robot module are screwed/tightly screwed on the common base (2).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durst (Swiss Publication No. CH 696524 A5) in view of Tsuchida (Japan Pub. No. JP 2012051087 A).
Please be advised that a Machine Translation of Tsuchida is relied upon below.
Claim 9: Please be advised that line 3 of claim 9 sets forth therein, “a position-fixing element.” Noting this, “a position-fixing element” is being interpreted by Examiner 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. Be advised that “a position-fixing element” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed on page 6, lines 23-26 of Applicant's specification filed on 4/20/2026, as well as equivalents thereto.
With respect to the prior art, it is reiterated that Durst discloses that each holding unit (59) has a type of receiving tray (75) in its inner area, and various inlets (76) can be inserted into this receiving tray (75) in which workpieces (60) to be processed can be placed in a positionally accurate manner [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0061]. Each inlet (76) is a respective storage bin (76). Thus, the at least one of the holding units (59) of each of the plurality of precision devices (4, 5) for placement into storage or removal from storage respectively forms a plurality of storage bins (76). Durst though, does not provide disclosure on “at least one of the plurality of storage bins comprises a position-fixing element for the tool chucks.”
Figures 4A and 4C of Tsuchida though, shows a tool holder (40b) that is formed by a plurality of blocks (30a-30e), each of the plurality of blocks (30a-30e) having at least one respective through hole (38a-38f). Be advised that each through hole (38a-38f) corresponds in structure to the “position-fixing element” of Applicant noting that each through hole (38a-38f) is a realized as a recess like the “position-fixing element” of Applicant. Based on the foregoing, the at least one respective through hole (38a-38f) will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as the at least one respective position-fixing element (38a-38f). Thus, the tool holder (40b) of Tsuchida is formed by the plurality of blocks (30a-30e), and each block (30a-30e) has at least one respective position-fixing element (38a-38f). Due to being formed as a recess, each of the aforesaid at least one respective position-fixing elements (38a-38f) is configured to engage/receive therein a given tool chuck. When the given tool chuck is received in a correspondingly sized one of the at least one respective position-fixing elements (38a-38f), said given tool chuck is position-fixed in that said given tool chuck is prevented from incurring lateral movement, for example, within the confines of the recess, and/or is prevented from end-over-end rotational movement, for example, within the confines of the recess.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided at least one of the plurality of storage bins (76) of Durst with a corresponding tool holder (40b) of Tsuchida, so as to provide the precision system (1) of Durst with the advantage of being able to secure tool chucks therein such that said tool chucks are secured so as to be position fixed when received in correspondingly sized one of the at least one respective position-fixing elements (38a-38f) of said tool holder (40b).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durst (Swiss Publication No. CH 696524 A5) in view of Obrist (U.S. Patent No. 5,242,359 A).
Please be advised that Obrist was cited by Applicant on the IDS filed on 2/22/2023.
Claim 14: Durst does not provide disclosure on the centering bolt (72) of the at least one centering device having “a conical outer shape.”
Figure 5 of Obrist though, shows a centering cone (13) of a centering device having a conical outer shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the centering bolt (72) of the at least one centering device of Durst to have at its distal end the conical outer shape of the centering cone (13) of Obrist, so as to provide the centering bolt (72) of Durst with the advantage of being able to gradually align and center the at least one holding unit (59) because the smaller diameter of the conical outer shape of the modified centering bolt (72) will insert first into the centering bore (82) of the at least one holding unit (59) prior to the maximum diameter of said centering bolt (72) interfacing with said centering bore (82).
Claim 20: Please be advised that lines 2-4 of claim 20 set forth therein, “a holding unit identifying device…which is configured for an identification of individual holding units.” Noting this, “a holding unit identifying device” is being interpreted by Examiner 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. Please be advised that “a holding unit identifying device” is being interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed on page 10, lines 14-20 of Applicant's specification filed on 4/20/2026, as well as equivalents thereto.
Durst though, does not provide disclosure on the precision system (1) comprising, “a holding unit identifying device, which is allocated to the at least one centering device, and which is configured for an identification of individual holding units from the at least one holding unit of the plurality of precision devices for placement into storage or removal from storage of the stationary storage lift.”
Obrist though, shows Figure 2 shows a reading device (38) which is configured for an identification of individual holding units (2) provided from at least one holding unit (2). This identification is achieved by the reading device (38) reading an electronic storage device (37) of the individual holding units (2) [column 6, lines 8-13].
As such, the reading device (38) of Obrist constitutes an equivalent of the “holding unit identifying device.” This is because the reading device (38) of Obrist carries out the function that is specified in lines 4-5 of claim 20, said function being “identification of individual holding units from the at least one holding unit.” Also, the reading device (38) isn't excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant's specification, and the reading device (38) produces substantially the same result as the corresponding “holding unit identifying device (70)” of Applicant. Based on the foregoing, the reading device (38) of Obrist will hereinafter be referred to as “the holding unit identifying device (38).”
The holding unit identifying device (38) of Obrist is “allocated” (as broadly claimed) to the at least one centering device. Noting that the at least one centering device comprises a centering recess (27) (please see Figure 1), and further comprises, for example, a shaft end (26) (in which is formed the centering recess (27)), the holding unit identifying device (38) and the at least one centering device are connected via the frame of the storage lift (1) of Obrist. Through their shared connection to the same frame, the holding unit identifying device (38) is allocated to the at least one centering device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided each individual holding unit (59) of Durst with a respective electronic storage device (37) of Obrist and to have allocated to the at least one centering device of Durst (via the frame of the stationary storage lift (3)) the holding unit identifying device (38) of Obrist, so as to provide the precision system (1) of Durst with the advantage of being able to identify each individual holding unit (59) that is provided for placement into storage or removal from storage of the stationary storage lift (3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-8, and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For the sake of completeness, be advised that Obrist (U.S. Patent No. 5,242,359 A), which was previously applied by Examiner as a 102(a)(1) reference in rejecting claim 1 and as the base/primary reference in the 103 rejections of claim 4-8 and 12, has been applied in the current office action as modifying reference in the above rejection of claim 14 due to Obrist’s teaching of at least one centering device having a conical outer shape. Obrist has also been applied in the current office action as modifying reference in the above rejection of claim 20 due to Obrist’s teaching of a holding unit identifying device. Having said that, Examiner agrees with Applicant that Obrist does not disclose the limitations of amended claim 1. As such, Obrist is not being utilized in the current office action as a base/primary reference in any 103 rejection. Again, in the current office action, Obrist is simply being applied as modifying reference in the above rejection of claim 14 due to Obrist’s teaching of at least one centering device having a conical outer shape, and also as a modifying reference in the above rejection of claim 20 due to Obrist’s teaching of a holding unit identifying device. None of Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/21/2026 correspond to claim 14 or to claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights