DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on or after March 2, 2026 has been entered. Claims 14-17 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment to claim 15 overcomes the previously set forth rejection in view of 112b, and this rejection is subsequently withdrawn. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action and references are provided.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
The previous rejection does not address the limitation recited by Claim 14 as amended: The examiner agrees that the applicant has introduced limitations via amendment that require a revised rejection in view of Gerhan. However, the examiner does not agree that the introduced limitations are not taught by the prior art. The limitations of the amendments are addressed in the section regarding Claim 14.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations as follows:
“a holding apparatus which is adapted to hold the electrode at a first holding position” in Claim 14 further defined by the applicant’s specifications as having a “carrying arm” Pg 17, a lifting unit” Pg. 7 and “clamping or gripping unit, for instance a clamping jaw” Pg. 5 Therefore, the holding apparatus will be interpreted in light of the specifications.
“a sensor apparatus, which is adapted to detect at least a region from an upper electrode end” in Claim 14. The specifications state that the sensor apparatus “may for example be a camera, a laser sensor, a photoelectric barrier or a sensor apparatus” Pg 15. Therefore, the sensor apparatus will be interpreted in light of the specifications.
“A processing apparatus…adapted to verify that the electrode is being supported on a supporting apparatus” in Claim 14 further defined by the applicant’s specifications as follows: “the processing apparatus and the control apparatus are configured as software modules, which may for example be executed by a working means. The working means may for example be a computer, in particular a personal computer, a programmable logic controller, an (application-specific) integrated circuit (ASIC) and/or the like.” Pg 17 Therefore, the limitations will be interpreted in light of the applicant’s specifications.
“a control apparatus which is adapted to induce repositioning of the holding apparatus” in Claim 14 further defined by the applicant’s specifications as such “the processing apparatus and the control apparatus are configured as software modules, which may for example be executed by a working means. The working means may for example be a computer, in particular a personal computer, a programmable logic controller, an (application-specific) integrated circuit (ASIC) and/or the like” Pg 17 Therefore, the limitations will be interpreted in light of the applicant’s specifications.
“A Supporting Apparatus” in Claim 14 further defined in the claims as a “table” Pg 6 or a similar structure. Therefore, the supporting apparatus will be defined in light of the specifications.
“a pressure measuring apparatus” in Claim 17 further defined as a “pressure sensor” Pg 8. Therefore, the pressure measuring apparatus will be defined in light of the specifications.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gerhan (US 6,804,582 B1):
PNG
media_image1.png
431
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
709
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
725
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14: Gerhan teaches a system to compensate for the burn-off of an electrode in an electric arc furnace (“system…for recording information relating to the condition of the electrodes in arc electric arc furnace” Abstract), the electrode including a predetermined connecting position (V) (Figure 3 Element 82 “Joint” Col 8) at which two segments (El, E2) of the electrode are connected to one another (Figure 1 Elements 52 (“Uppermost” Section Col 8) and 54 (“Lowermost Section” Col 8)) of the electrode (Figure 3 Element 18), and a predetermined connecting region (B) (See Figure 3 “Predetermined Connection Region”) adjacent the predetermined connecting position(Shown in Figure 3) , the system comprising:
a supporting apparatus (“Slip Stand” Col 5 Line 7 Figure 3 Element 30) that supports the electrode (“a position like that shown in Figure 3 wherein the electrode column is supported upon the slip stand Col 4 Lines 35-40);
a holding apparatus (“Electrode Arm” Col 4 Line12 Figure 3 Elements 24 illustrates one example among the plurality of holding apparatuses (Shown in Figure 1 Elements 24, 25, and 26). The arms each have a clamp component (illustrated by example in Figure 3 Element 46 “clamp and applicable to all holder arms), which is adapted to hold the electrode at a first holding position(H1) (the prior art further teaches that the electrode arm holds the electrode at a “first holding position” Figure 3), and is repositionable along the electrode ("Electrode arm is …repositioned along the electrode column….[the clamp of which] can be released from the electrode column and moved to a new position upon the electrode column" Col 3-4 Lines 65-5) relative to the first holding position to a second holding position (Figure 3 “second holding position”) while the electrode is supported by the supporting apparatus( "each of the arms 24 may be… movable through a range between a position like that shown in figure 2 wherein the electrode column is in place within the furnace 12 and a position like that shown in Figure 3 wherein the electrode column is supported upon the slip stand" Column 4 Lines 35-40 and furthermore the "Electrode arm is …repositioned along the electrode column….[the clamp of which] can be released from the electrode column and moved to a new position upon the electrode column" which indicates that this repositioning can occur while the electrode is on the slip stand )
a sensor apparatus (a series of “digital camera[s]” Figure 1 Elements 62, 68, and 88 Col 5-6 Pg 8 and an additional position sensor Figure 1 Element 71 which monitors the ”mast position and open/closed status of the clamp ”which indicates the presence and status of the electrode column to the controller and processing unit], which is adapted to detect at least a region from an upper electrode end as far as the first holding position (H1) (the prior art further teaches that the sensors detect the upper electrode end of Element 18 up to the first holding position shown in Figure 3);
a processing apparatus (“programmable logic controller” Figure 5 Element 69 Col 5 Line 52), which is adapted to verify that the electrode is being supported on the supporting apparatus (the prior art further teaches that the programmable logic controller an additional position sensor Figure 1 Element 71 which monitors the ”mast position and open/closed status of the clamp ”which indicates the presence and status of the electrode column (on the slip stand or in the furnace as shown in Figure 3 and 2 respectively ) to the programmable logic controller) prior to repositioning the holding apparatus ("Electrode arm [can be] repositioned along the electrode column” at any time. As such, the repositioning may occur after the assessment of the status of the electrode Col 3-4 Lines 65-5), the processing apparatus furthermore being adapted to determine the second holding position (Figure 3 “second holding position”) that avoids overlap with the predetermined connecting position (V) on the basis of the data generated during the detection by the sensor apparatus, the predetermined connecting position (V) and the predetermined connecting region (B), the data generated including at least the upper electrode end position and the first holding position (Given that the processing apparatus determines each of the holding positions of the electrode and the predetermined connecting region and position and induces repositioning accordingly, the device is capable of positioning to avoid an overlap as claimed).
and a control apparatus (the prior art further teaches that the “programmable logic controller” Figure 5 Element 69 Col 5 Line 52 and the “computer” Col 5), which is adapted to induce repositioning of the holding apparatus along the electrode and relative to the electrode from the first holding position to the second holding position (the prior art further teaches that the controller can induce the“ electrode clamp on its distal end, that can be released from the electrode column and moved to a new position upon the electrode column” such as between the first holding position and the second holding position as shown in Figure 3)
Regarding Claim 15: Gerhan further teaches that the system wherein two or more of electrodes (“first, second, and third electrode columns” Figure 1 Elements 18,20, and 22 Col 5 Line 38) are held with the aid of the holding apparatus (“Holder Arms” Col 3 Line 41 Figure 1 Elements 24,26, and 28) with a clamps (illustrated by example in Figure 3 Element 46 “clamp and applicable to all holder arms) and a “crane” Col 4 Line 36 which collectively lift the electrode into position), and the sensor apparatus has a corresponding number of cameras (a series of “digital camera[s]” Figure 1 Elements 62, 68, and 88 Col 5-6 Pg 8).
Regarding Claim 16: Gerhan further teaches that the sensor apparatus has a camera or a laser sensor (a series of “digital camera[s]” Figure 1 Elements 62, 68, and 88 Col 5-6 Pg 8).
Regarding Claim 17: Gerhan further teaches the processing apparatus is adapted to verify by data of the sensor device that the electrode is being supported on the supporting apparatus (the prior art further teaches that the programmable logic controller an additional position sensor Figure 1 Element 71 which monitors the ”mast position and open/closed status of the clamp ”which indicates the presence and status of the electrode column to the programmable logic controller) before the holding apparatus is repositioned from the first holding position to the second holding position (The prior art further teaches that the determination occurs prior to holding apparatus moving to a “new position” Col 4 Line 1 on the electrode)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights