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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/22/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but not all of the information referred to therein has been considered. More specifically, Foreign Patent Document Citation #1 (DE 202020105231 U1) has not been considered, because Applicant has not included a concise explanation of the relevance of this reference which is not in the English language.
The information disclosure statement filed 2/22/2023 further fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but not all of the information referred to therein has been considered. More specifically, Foreign Patent Document Citation #3 (JP 3141901 U) has not been considered, because Applicant has not included a copy of this cited foreign patent document. Rather, Applicant provided a machine translation of Foreign Patent Document Citation #3 (JP 3141901 U), but not a copy of the cited foreign patent document itself.
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 “centering recess” of claim 1, the “further centering recess” of claim 2, the “automatedly movable centering recess” of claim 13, the “centering recess” of claim 14, the “centering recess” of claim 15, and the “further centering recess” of claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. (Please note that on line 26 of page 15 of Applicant’s specification it is stated that the centering recess is “not shown”).
Furthermore, the combination of the “centering bolt and centering recess” of claim 1, the combination of the “further centering bolt and further centering recess” of claim 2, the combination of the “centering bolt and centering recess” of each of claims 13-15, and the combination of the “further centering bolt and further centering recess” of claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. (Again, please note that on line 26 of page 15 of Applicant’s specification it is stated that the centering recess is “not shown”). Furthermore, the “drawer” and the combination of the “at least one transfer device and drawer” of claim 18 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 a centering bolt and/or a centering recess for a submillimeter-precise horizontal orientation of the holding unit” in claim 1;
“at least one further form-fitting centering element, which is configured to interact with a centering bolt and/or a centering recess for a submillimeter-precise horizontal orientation of the holding unit” in claim 2;
“a position-fixing element for tool chucks” in claim 9;
“at least one form-fitting centering element” in claim 13;
“a further form-fitting centering element of the same holding unit” in claim 16;
“a holding unit identifying device…which is configured for an identification of individual holding units 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 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 4 of the claim, “a submillimeter-precise” should be changed to “[[a]] the submillimeter-precise”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 3-4 of the claim, “the” should be inserted before each of: “tools”, “tool assemblies”, and “tool chucks”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 3-4 of the claim, “the” should be inserted before each of: “tools”, “tool assemblies”, and “tool chucks”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “the” should be inserted before “tool chucks”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “it” should be replaced by “the holding unit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 11 of the claim, “the” should be inserted before “at least one form-fitting centering element”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 4-5 of the claim, “the” should be inserted before each of: “tools”, “tool assemblies”, and “tool chucks”. 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 1-20 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.
Lines 1-5 of claim 1 state, “A precision apparatus for placement into storage and/or removal from storage for an at least semiautomated placement into storage and/or removal from storage of tools, in particular tool assemblies, and/or of tool chucks into and/or out of a storage lift, with at least one holding unit for tools, in particular tool assemblies, and/or tool chucks, which is loadable by a handling robot and forms a plurality of storage bins.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because due to the formatting of the claim which features no paragraphs, coupled with the continued use of “and/or” and “in particular” in the body of the claim, it is unclear as to what the “precision apparatus” is being claimed as comprising. Does, for example, the “precision apparatus” comprise the “at least one holding unit” wherein the “at least one holding unit” in turn “forms a plurality of storage bins”?
Lines 1-3 of claim 1 state, “A precision apparatus for placement into storage and/or removal from storage for an at least semiautomated placement into storage and/or removal from storage of tools, in particular tool assemblies, and/or of tool chucks into and/or out of a storage lift.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it unclear as what is meant by the placement of the tool assemblies and/or tool chucks into and/or out of a storage lift is “at least semiautomated”. Is an operator, for example, able to manually deploy and retract a transfer surface (64) of the storage lift (16) such that the placement into storage is “at least semiautomated” rather than just fully automated, for example?
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" in each of lines 3 and 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) (“tool assemblies”) following the phrase (“in particular”) are part of the claimed invention.
Line 6 of claim 1 states, “the holding unit.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which of the “at least one holding unit” of line 4 of claim 1 that “the holding unit” is intended to reference.
Lines 6-7 claim 1 state, “at least one form-fitting centering element, which is configured to interact with a centering bolt and/or a centering recess.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because in the instance that there is a combination of “a centering bolt and a centering recess,” how is that the at least one form-fitting centering element even interacts with this combination? Moreover, how is that the at least one form-fitting centering element interacts with the centering recess? As can be seen in Figure 4, for example, the at least one form-fitting centering element (26) is an opening having a conical inner shape. How can, for example, one singular opening interact with the combination of “a centering bolt and a centering recess”? Also, how does the at least one form-fitting centering element (26), which again is an opening having a conical inner shape, interact with a centering recess? It wouldn’t appear that there can be any centering between two recesses, for example.
Lines 2-4 claim 2 state, “at least one further form-fitting centering element, which is configured to interact with a further centering bolt and/or a further centering recess.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because in the instance that there is a combination of “a further centering bolt and a further centering recess,” how is that the at least one further form-fitting centering element even interacts with this combination? Moreover, how is that the at least one further form-fitting centering element interacts with the further centering recess? As can be seen in Figure 4, for example, the at least one further form-fitting centering element (30) is an opening having a conical inner shape. How can, for example, one singular opening interact with the combination of “a further centering bolt and a further centering recess”? Also, how does the at least one further form-fitting centering element (30), which again is an opening having a conical inner shape, interact with a further centering recess? It wouldn’t appear that there can be any centering between two recesses, for example.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) (“viewed along a main extension direction of the holding unit”) following the phrase (“in particular”) are part of the claimed invention.
Line 3 of claim 4 states, “the storage bins.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which of the “plurality of storage bins” of line 5 of claim 1 that “the storage bins” is intended to reference.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) (“solid, metal element”) following the phrase (“preferably”) are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) (“different from a metal sheet”) following the phrase (“in particular”) are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) (“tool assemblies”) following the phrase (“in particular”) are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) (“tool assemblies”) following the phrase (“in particular”) are part of the claimed invention.
Line 2 of claim 9 states, “the storage bins.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which of the “plurality of storage bins” of line 5 of claim 1 that “the storage bins” is intended to reference.
Lines 2-3 of claim 11 state, “the holding unit is supported on the base plate in a floating manner.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by the base plate supporting the holding unit “in a floating manner.” If the base plate supports the holding unit from below, for example, how is it that the holding unit is supported “in a floating manner”? If the base plate does not support the holding unit from below, how or in what way is the holding unit supported “in a floating manner”? Is the holding unit, for example, supported from above or is the holding unit cantilevered in some manner?
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) (“polyvinyl chloride ”) following the phrase (“in particular”) are part of the claimed invention.
Lines 3-5 of claim 13 state, “with a storage lift comprising a plurality of precision apparatuses for placement into storage and/or removal from storage according to claim 1, which in each case have the at least one holding unit.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if each respective precision apparatus of the plurality of precision apparatuses comprises a respective one of “the at least one holding unit”, or if instead, the plurality of plurality of precision apparatuses as a collective comprise the same one of “the at least one holding unit”, for example.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) (“tool assemblies”) following the phrase (“in particular”) are part of the claimed invention.
Line 10 of claim 13 states, “holding units.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the “holding units” of line 10 are the same holding units as the “at least one holding unit” of line 5 of claim 13, or if instead, the “holding units” of line 10 are different holding units than the “at least one holding unit” of line 5 of claim 13.
Lines 11-12 of claim 13 state, “at least one form-fitting centering element of the holding units.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because noting that in claim 13 it is set forth that the precision system is “with a storage lift comprising a plurality of precision apparatuses for placement into storage and/or removal from storage of claim 1,” and also noting that in claim 1 it is set forth therein that “the holding unit comprises at least one form-fitting centering element,” it is unclear in claim 13 if the “at least one form-fitting centering element of the holding units” is the same centering element or is a different centering element than that previously set forth in claim 1. This limitation (“at least one form-fitting centering element of the holding units”) is further viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as written, it is unclear if the plural holding units of claim 13 collectively include the same “at least one form-fitting centering element” or if instead each holding unit of the plural holding units of claim 13 includes a respective one of the “at least one form-fitting centering element.”
Lines 8-11 claim 13 state, “with at least one centering device comprising an automatedly movable centering bolt and/or an automatedly movable centering recess for a submillimeter- precise horizontal orientation of holding units by generating a form-fit connection of the centering bolt and/or the centering recess with at least one form-fitting centering element.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because in the instance that there is a combination of “the centering bolt and the centering recess,” how is that the at least one form-fitting centering element even interacts with this combination? Moreover, how is that the at least one form-fitting centering element interacts with the centering recess? As can be seen in Figure 4, for example, the at least one form-fitting centering element (26) is an opening having a conical inner shape. How can, for example, one singular opening interact with the combination of “the centering bolt and the centering recess”? Also, how does the at least one form-fitting centering element (26), which again is an opening having a conical inner shape, interact with a centering recess? It wouldn’t appear that there can be any centering between two recesses, for example.
Lines 8-11 claim 13 state, “with a further centering device with a further centering bolt and/or with a further centering recess, which is configured for a form-fitting interaction with a further form-fitting centering element of the same holding unit.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because in the instance that there is a combination of the “further centering bolt and further centering recess,” how is that the further form-fitting centering element even interacts with this combination? Moreover, how is that the further form-fitting centering element interacts with the further centering recess? As can be seen in Figure 4, for example, the further form-fitting centering element (30) is an opening having a conical inner shape. How is it that, for example, one singular opening interact with the combination of the “further centering bolt and further centering recess”? Also, how does the further form-fitting centering element (30), which again is an opening having a conical inner shape, interact with the further centering recess? It wouldn’t appear that there can be any centering between two recesses, for example.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the same holding unit" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the several precision apparatuses" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “several” in claim 17 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. How many precision apparatuses must be present for there to constitute “several precision apparatuses”?
Lines 2-5 claim 17 state, “wherein the storage lift is configured to optionally provide respectively one of the several precision apparatuses for placement into storage and/or removal from storage / holding units comprises in the storage lift for an access of the handling robot.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because due to the use of the term, “optionally,” it is unclear if the limitation following “optionally” is even required by the storage lift. This limitation is further viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the “holding units” of claim 17 are the same holding units or are different holding units than, for example, the “at least one holding unit” of line 5 of claim 13.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) (“tool assemblies”) following the phrase (“in particular”) are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the several precision apparatuses" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “several” in claim 18 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. How many precision apparatuses must be present for there to constitute “several precision apparatuses”?
Lines 2-3 of claim 19 state, “the centering device.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular centering device of the “at least one centering device” of claim 13 that “the centering device” of claim 19 is intended to reference.
Regarding claim 19, the term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) (“the handling robot”) following the term (“preferably”) are part of the claimed invention.
Line 3 of claim 20 states, “the centering device.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular centering device of the “at least one centering device” of claim 13 that “the centering device” of claim 20 is intended to reference.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) (“allocated to the centering device”) following the phrase (“in particular”) are part of the claimed invention.
Line 4 of claim 20 states, “individual holding units of the storage lift.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the “individual holding units” are included amongst or are provided in addition to, for example, the “at least one holding unit” of claim 13.
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, 9-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 1: Figures 1-5 and 14 of Obrist show a precision apparatus (2, 9) for placement into storage (1) and/or removal from storage (1) for an at least semiautomated placement into the storage (1) and/or removal from the storage (1) of tools/tool assemblies [column 4, line 60] out of a storage lift (84). As can be seen in each of Figures 1-5 of Obrist, the precision apparatus (2, 9) is provided with at least one holding unit (2) for the tool/tool assemblies.
Next, as can be seen in at least Figure 14, the at least one holding unit (2) is loadable by a handling robot (76) [column 6, lines 1-6].
Attention is now directed to Figure 4, which shows the at least one holding unit (2) as forming a plurality of storage bins (4, 8).
Next, please be advised that line 6 of claim 1 sets 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 9-14 of Applicant's specification filed on 1/12/2023, as well as equivalents thereto.
With respect to the prior art and Obrist, Figure 1 shows the at least one holding unit (2) as comprising a centering cone (13) [column 5, line 63], which as can be seen in Figure 1 of Obrist, interacts with a centering recess (27) for submillimeter-precise horizontal orientation of the at least one holding unit (2). As such, the centering cone (13) of Obrist constitutes an equivalent of the “at least one form-fitting centering element.” This is because the centering cone (13) of Obrist carries out the function that is specified in line 7 of claim 1, said function being “interact with a…centering recess.” Also, the centering cone (13) isn't excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant's specification, and the centering cone (13) produces substantially the same result as the corresponding “form-fitting centering element (26)” of Applicant. Based on the foregoing, the centering cone (13) will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as “the at least one form-fitting centering element (13).” Thus, the at least one holding unit (2) of Obrist comprises the at least one form-fitting centering element (13), which is configured to interact with the centering recess (27) for the submillimeter-precise horizontal orientation of the at least one holding unit (2).
Claim 2: Be advised that lines 2-3 of claim 2 set 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 9-14 of Applicant's specification filed on 1/12/2023, as well as equivalents thereto, noting that the “at least one further form-fitting centering element” is (according to Applicant) implemented approximately identically to Applicant’s form-fitting centering element [see page 4, lines 23-24].
With respect to the prior art and Obrist, Figure 4 shows the at least one holding unit (2) as further comprising a lower centering element, which as can be seen in Figure 4, interacts with a further centering recess that is formed within a hub (10) for the submillimeter-precise horizontal orientation of the at least one holding unit (2). As such, the lower centering element of Obrist constitutes an equivalent of the “at least one further form-fitting centering element.” This is because the lower centering element of Obrist carries out the function that is specified in lines 3-4 of claim 1, said function being “interact with a…further centering recess.” Also, the lower centering element isn't excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant's specification, and the lower centering element produces substantially the same result as the corresponding “further form-fitting centering element (30)” of Applicant. Based on the foregoing, the lower centering element will hereinafter be referred to as “the at least one further form-fitting centering element.” Thus, the at least one holding unit (2) comprises the at least one further form-fitting centering element, which is configured to interact with the further centering recess of the hub (10) for the submillimeter-precise horizontal orientation of the at least one holding unit (2).
Claim 3: As can be seen in Figures 1 and 4, the at least one form-fitting centering element (13) and the at least one further form-fitting centering element are arranged in end regions of the at least one holding unit (2) which, for example, when viewed along a main extension direction of the at least one holding unit (2), are situated opposite each other.
Claim 9: Please be advised that lines 2-3 of claim 2 set 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. Please be advised that “a position-fixing element” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed on pages 6, line 25 – page 7, line 2 of Applicant's specification filed on 1/12/2023, as well as equivalents thereto.
With respect to the prior art and Obrist, Figure 3 shows a storage bin (4, 8) of the at least one holding unit (2) as comprising a disk magazine/bearer (4) and a plurality of storage places (6). Please be advised that each storage place (6) has a radial incision (7) [column 5, lines 1-3]. Note that each radial incision (7) corresponds in structure to “a position-fixing element” of Applicant, noting that each radial incision (7) is itself a recess, and per Applicant, “a position-fixing element” is realized as a recess (pages 6, line 25 – page 7, line 2 of Applicant's specification). Thus, each respective radial incision (7) of the plurality of storage places (6) constitutes a respective “position-fixing element [7]” and will thus be referred to as such. Based on the foregoing, at least one of the storage bins (4, 8) comprises a position-fixing element (7). Please note that each position-fixing element (7) of Obrist can be used for the intended use of “for tool chucks” simply by providing such tool chucks and storing, for example, each provided tool chuck within a corresponding position-fixing element (7) of Obrist.
Claim 10: The precision apparatus (2, 9) of Obrist is shown in at least Figure 4 as comprising a planar base plate (9) carrying the at least one holding unit (2). Please be advised that said planar base plate (9) provides for horizontal displacement of the at least one holding unit (2) along rollers (40) of a conveyor system (39) (see Figure 3, for example) [column 6, lines 33-42].
Claim 11: As can be seen in Figure 4, the at least one holding unit (2) is supported on the planar base plate (9) in a floating manner by a lower centering element of the rotating support (3) of the at least one holding unit (2), wherein the lower centering element interacts with, for example, a further centering recess that is formed within a hub (10).
Claim 13: Figure 14 of Obrist show a precision system for placement into storage (1) and/or removal from storage (1), the precision system comprising a storage lift (84) which in turn comprises a plurality of precision apparatuses (2, 9) according to claim 1 for placement into the storage (1) and/or removal from the storage (1). As can be seen in each of Figures 1-5 of Obrist, the precision apparatus (2, 9) is provided with at least one holding unit (2).
Figure 14 further shows the precision system as comprising the handing robot (76) for loading the storage lift (84) with tools/tool assemblies. The handling robot (76) providing the tools/tool assemblies to the at least one holding unit (2) of one of the plurality of precision apparatuses (2, 9), and moving the one of the plurality of precision apparatuses (2, 9) back into the storage lift (84) after having been loaded, results in the handing robot (76) having carried out the intended use of “for loading the storage lift with tools, in particular tool assemblies.”
Next, as it pertains to the plurality of precision apparatuses (2, 9) according to claim 1, Examiner reiterates that in claim 1 it was advised that the at least one holding unit (2) of Obrist comprises the at least one form-fitting centering element (13), which is configured to interact with the centering recess (27) for the submillimeter-precise horizontal orientation of the at least one holding unit (2).
Noting the above, the precision system further comprises at least one centering device, comprising the (automatically movable) centering recess (27) for the submillimeter-precise horizontal orientation of the at least one holding unit (2). Please be advised that is achieved by generating a form-fit connection of the centering recess (27) (which is a conic center hole) [Obrist, column 5, line 45] with the at least one form-fitting centering element (13), which is embodied as a centering cone [Obrist, column 5, line 63], of the at least one holding unit (2). Lastly, it is noted that the centering recess (27) is “automatically movable” by means of a pressurized working cylinder (28) (see Figure 1 of Obrist) [Obrist, column 5, lines 47-65].
Claim 14: The centering recess (27) of the at least one centering device has a conical inner shape as it is a conic center hole [Obrist, column 5, line 45] (see Figure 1 of Obrist).
Claim 15: The centering recess (27) of the at least one centering device is automatically movable along a vertical direction by means of the pressurized working cylinder (28) (please see Figure 1 of Obrist) [Obrist, column 5, lines 47-65].
Claim 16: At least Figures 1 and 5-7 of Obrist show therein the precision system as further comprising a further centering device with a further centering bolt (21), which is configured for a form-fitting interaction.
Next, 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 “a further form-fitting centering element” is being interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed on page 16, lines 9-14 of Applicant's specification filed on 1/12/2023, as well as equivalents thereto, noting that the “further form-fitting centering element” is (according to Applicant) implemented approximately identically to Applicant’s form-fitting centering element [see page 4, lines 23-24].
Regarding the prior art and Obrist, Figures 1 and 4 shows the at least one holding unit (2) as further comprising a hub (10) with a recess (12) interfacing with the further centering bolt (21) for a form-fitting interaction. As such, the hub (10) of Obrist constitutes an equivalent of the “further form-fitting centering element.” This is because the hub (10) of Obrist (via the aforesaid recess (12) thereof) carries out the function that is specified in lines 3-4 of claim 16, said function being “a form-fitting interaction.” Also, the hub (10) isn't excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant's specification, and the hub (10) produces substantially the same result as the corresponding “further form-fitting centering element (30)” of Applicant. Based on the foregoing, the hub (10) will hereinafter be referred to as “the further form-fitting centering element (10).” Thus, the precision system comprises the further centering bolt (21), which is configured for a form-fitting interaction with the further form-fitting centering element (10). Lastly, please note the further centering bolt (21) corresponds to four working cylinders (22) (please see Figure 1), which vertically adjusts an elevating platform (17) to which the further centering bolt (21) is mounted [column 5, lines 28-42]. Noting this, through synchronized actuation of the four working cylinders (22) with the pressurized working cylinder (28) of the precision system, the form-fitting interaction (between the further centering bolt (21) and the further form-fitting centering element (10)) is synchronized with the centering recess (27) of the at least one centering device.
Claim 17: With regards to the storage lift (84), said storage lift (84) is configured to provide respectively one of the plurality of precision apparatus (2, 9) that were comprised in the storage lift (84) for placement into the storage (1) and/or removal from the storage (1) for an access of the handling robot (76). This can be seen in Figure 14.
Claim 18: As can be seen between Figures 12 and 14, the storage lift (84) comprises at least one transfer surface (86), which carries the at least one holding unit (2) of the plurality of precision apparatus (2, 9) (that are comprised in the storage lift (84)) for the placement into the storage (1) and/or removal from the storage (1). Please note that the when the at least one holding unit (2) incurs placement or removal, for example, the tools/tool assemblies thereof are moved into or out of the lift (84) along with the at least one holding unit (2). Noting this, at least during the placement into the storage (1) and/or removal from storage (1), the storage lift (84) carries the tools/tool assemblies and the corresponding at least one holding unit (2) for the placement into the storage (1) and/or removal from the storage (1).
Claim 19: The storage lift (84), the handling robot (76), and the at least one centering device, which comprises the (automatically movable) centering recess (27), are all disposed within a transfer zone of the precision system. Please be advised that the transfer zone corresponds to that area located outside of a processing device (75) of the precision system (see Figure 14). Please further be advised that each of the centering device, the storage lift (84), and the handling robot (76) are firmly fixed on the ground. The storage lift (84) is firmly fixed on the ground when it is stopped/braked on the induction loop (85). The centering device is firmly fixed on the ground via the frame of the storage (1), and the handling robot (76) is firmly fixed on the ground between the processing device (75) and storage lift (84), for example.
Claim 20: Next, 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 of the storage lift.” 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 19-26 of Applicant's specification filed on 1/12/2023, as well as equivalents thereto.
With respect to the prior art and Obrist, Figure 2 shows a reading device (38) which is configured for an identification of individual holding units (2) of the storage lift (84). That is to say configured for an identification of individual holding units (2) provided, for example, from the storage lift (84) to the storage (1). This identification is achieved by the reading device (38) reading an electronic storage device (27) of the holding unit (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 2-4 of claim 20, said function being “identification of individual holding units of the storage lift.” 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).” Thus, the precision system of Obrist comprises the holding unit identifying device (38) for an identification of individual holding units (2) that were provided, for example, from the storage lift (84) to the storage (1). Lastly, the holding unit identifying device (38) of Obrist is “allocated to the centering device.” This is because the centering device comprises the centering recess (27), and further comprises, for example, the shaft end (26) (in which is formed the centering recess (27)) and the frame of the storage (1) to which at least the shaft end (26) is mounted. Noting this, as can be seen in Figure 5, the holding unit identifying device (38) is allocated to the centering device via the frame thereof.
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 Obrist (U.S. Patent No. 5,242,359 A) in view of Babel et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,356,620 A).
Claim 4: The claim is directed to a product (i.e. at least a portion of the holding unit which forms the storage bins is embodied as a…sheet metal part) constructed by a process comprising “lasered and/or riveted bent”. Therefore, the limitation concerning the “lasered and/or riveted bent” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. Please note 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 Obrist, each storage bin (4, 8) comprises a disk magazine/bearer (4) and a plurality of storage places (6) (see Figure 3). Obrist though, doesn’t provide disclosure on either the disk magazine/bearer (4) or the plurality of storage places (6) being a sheet metal part.
Figure 1 of Babel et al. though, shows a disk magazine (5) that comprises rings (10, 11) formed of sheet metal [column 2, lines 13-16]. Please be advised that sheet metal provides the disk magazine (5) with the advantage of being lightweight yet durable.
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 the disk magazine/bearer (4) of Obrist from sheet metal in accordance with the disclosure of Babel et al., so as to provide each storage bin (4, 8) with the advantage of a disk magazine/bearer (4) that is lightweight yet durable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obrist (U.S. Patent No. 5,242,359 A) in view of Zhu (China Publication No. CN 208179973 U).
Please be advised an EPO Machine Translation of Zhu is relied upon below.
Claim 5: As can be seen in Figures 1 and 4 of Obrist, a portion (3) of the at least one holding unit (2) comprises the at least one form-fitting centering element (13). Obrist though, does not provide disclosure on the portion (3) of the at least one holding unit (2) being a “metal element” which is “different from sheet metal.” Please be advised that the portion (3) is formed as a solid, support shaft (3) on which the storage bin (4, 8) is mounted.
With respect to Zhu, Figure 1 shows a holding unit comprising a solid, support shaft (2) on which a storage bin (1) is mounted. Per Zhu, the support shaft (2) is a metal material with a certain strength, such as steel [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0035].
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 the portion/solid support shaft (3) of the at least one holding unit (2) of Obrist from steel, in accordance with the disclosure of Zhu, so as to provide the at least one holding unit (2) of Obrist with the advantage of a portion/solid support shaft (3) that is strong and durable due to being implemented as steel. As such, the (modified) portion/solid support shaft (3) of Obrist which comprises the at least one form-fitting centering element (13) is implemented as solid, steel element which is different, for example, from sheet metal.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obrist (U.S. Patent No. 5,242,359 A) in view of Ju (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0187681 A1).
Claim 6: As can be seen in Figures 1-5 of Obrist, the at least one holding unit (2) forms only one kind of storage bin (4, 8) in which tools/tool assemblies are placed and removed from a horizontal placement or removal direction. As such, Obrist does not teach, “wherein the holding unit forms at least two different kinds of storage bins.” Please be advised that each “second kind” of storage bin (4, 8) of Obrist is mounted to a support shaft (3) of the at least one holding unit (2).
Figure 4 of Ju though, shows a holding unit (1) which forms at least two different kinds of storage bins (41, 42, 51, 52). A second kind of storage bin (41, 42) thereof provides for tools/ tool assemblies being placed and removed from a horizontal placement or removal direction, whereas a first kind of storage bin (51, 52) thereof provides for the tools/tool assemblies being placed and removed from a vertical placement or removal direction. As can be seen within Figure 4 of Ju, said second kind (41, 42) and said first kind of storage bins (51, 52) are each installed on a support shaft (30) such that the first kind of storage bin (51, 52) is spaced apart vertically from an upper side of the second kind of storage bin (41, 42) [paragraph 0084]. Due to this configuration of the holding unit (1), tools/tool assemblies are able to be stored in the holding unit (1) in both a horizontal orientation and a vertical orientation.
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 the at least one holding unit (2) of Obrist with the first kind of storage bin (51, 52) of Ju so as to provide the at least one holding unit (2) of Obrist with the advantage of being able to store tools/tool assemblies therein in both a horizontal orientation and a vertical orientation. In making this modification, it is noted that a first kind of storage bin (51, 52) of Ju is mounted to the support shaft (3) of Obrist so as to be spaced apart vertically from an upper side of a corresponding second kind of storage bin (41, 42) of Obrist in accordance with the disclosure of Ju. Thus, the modified at least one holding unit (2) of Obrist forms at least two different kinds of storage bins, the second kind (4, 8) (as shown in at least Figure 3 of Obrist) and the first kind (51, 52) as disclosed by Ju (and as shown in Figure 4 of Ju).
Claim 7: As stated above in the rejection of claim 6, the modified at least one holding unit (2) comprises the first kind of storage bin (51, 52) as disclosed by Ju. This first kind of storage bin (51, 52) is implemented for a placement into storage and/or a removal from storage of tools/tool assemblies from a vertical placement or removal direction (please see Figures 9-11 of Ju in which a machining tool (8) is removed from the first kind of storage bin (51, 52) by in a vertical removal direction).
Claim 8: As can be seen between at least Figures 3-4 of Obrist, each second kind of storage bin (4, 8) of Obrist is mounted to the support shaft (3) of the at least one holding unit (2). Noting this, each second kind of storage bin (4, 8) is implemented such that tools/tool assemblies are placed and removed from a horizontal placement or removal direction. Note that Figure 14 of Obrist shows therein the horizontal approach of the handling robot (76) toward the at least one holding unit (2) for tool/tool assembly placement and/or removal.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obrist (U.S. Patent No. 5,242,359 A).
Claim 12: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 10, the precision apparatus (2, 9) of Obrist is shown in at least Figure 4 as comprising the planar base plate (9) carrying the at least one holding unit (2) such that it (2) is horizontally displaceable. Obrist though, does not provide disclosure on the planar base plate (9) being “made of plastic, in particular of a 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 the planar base plate (9) of Obrist be made of plastic, in particular of a 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 (9) would be lightweight yet durable when made of plastic, in particular of a polyvinyl chloride, and thus suitable for the intended use of supporting the at least one holding unit (2) both during transport and within the storage (1) and for positioning the at least one holding unit (2) in various angular positions.
Conclusion
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