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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to a “replacing apparatus”, and in Category A (configuration of plural processing apparatuses with respect to storage), species (ia) (a first subspecies, depicted in Figure 1: plural processing apparatuses, common tool storage shared by the plural processing apparatuses, traveling mechanism travels in such a system), and in Category B (configuration of replacing apparatus), species (ib) (a second subspecies, depicted in Figure 8), in the reply filed on December 8, 2025, is acknowledged.
It is noted that Applicant has identified claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13, 14, and newly-added claim 16 as being encompassed by Group I, Category A – (ia), and Category B (ib). However, such does not appear to be entirely accurate.
In particular, it is noted that claim 3 recites a travel controller configured to control the travelling mechanism, and indicates that “the processing apparatus includes multiple processing apparatuses, and the processing tool is stored in a storage provided outside each of the multiple processing apparatuses individually”, and then indicates that the travel controller controls the traveling mechanism to allow the traveling table to travel between a position where the processing tool is stored and a position where the processing tool is replaced. That said, it is noted that a position where the processing tool is stored and a position where the processing tool is replaced (between which positions the “travel controller controls the traveling mechanism to allow the traveling table to travel”) for the system having the processing apparatus that “includes multiple processing apparatuses, and the processing tool is stored in a storage provided outside each of the multiple processing apparatuses individually” does not read on the elected species re Category A, species ia (re Figure 1), but rather, is specific to the non-elected Category A, species iia, re Figure 2.
Claims 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 8, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. In particular, to the extent that the discussion of “International Publication No. 2019-177444” in paragraphs 0002-0003 of the specification is intended to reference WO 2019-177444, then it is noted that WO 2019/177444 is not of record. (It is, however, noted that Japanese Patent Document JP 2019-177444 A was cited on the Information Disclosure Statement filed 10/31/2022. In the event that this is the document that the specification intended to reference in paragraphs 0002-0003 of the specification, Applicant may wish to consider changing “International” in paragraph 0003 to –Japanese—for clarity.)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed July 28, 2025 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. In particular, it is noted that full copies of the cited JP 2006-334700 A and JP 6735843 B references were not provided. It appears that translations of both of these JP references were provided, but that many of the text pages of the references are incomplete. That said, both of these references have been lined through on the accompanying copy of the 7/28/2025 IDS. It is noted, however, that JP 2006-334700 A is being cited on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) accompanying this Office Action, and that JP 6735843 B is in the same patent family as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0375065, which U.S. ‘065 was cited on the 7/28/2025 IDS.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
in paragraph 0090, it appears that “sub-housing 44b” should be –sub-housing 44c—in order to be consistent with the rest of the specification and with, for example, Figure 9 (noting that elsewhere in the specification, including in paragraphs 0090-0091, element 44b is the “main housing”, and 44c is the sub-housing).
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“processing mechanism” in at least claims 1, 11, 14, and 16;
“replacing mechanism” in at least claims 1, 9, 13-14, and 16;
“moving mechanism” in at least claims 1, 13-14, and 16;
“traveling mechanism” in at least claims 1-2, 14, and 16;
“holding mechanism” in at least claims 6-7;
“rotation stopping mechanism” in at least claim 9; and
“manipulating mechanism” in at least claim 11.
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.
However, it is noted that the limitation “processing mechanism” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f) in claim 9, because claim 9 recites sufficient structure (the spindle shaft) to perform the claimed function(s).
However, it is noted that the limitation “replacing mechanism” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f) in claims 6-7, because claims 6-7 recite sufficient structure (the “holding mechanism”) to perform the claimed function(s).
However, it is noted that the limitation “replacing mechanism” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f) in claim 11, because claims 11 recites sufficient structure (the “manipulating mechanism”) to perform the claimed function(s).
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 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “traveling mechanism” (in at least claims 1-2, 14, and 16) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely teaches the function of the traveling mechanism 74. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed function of “allowing the traveling table to travel” as set forth in claim 1 (or the similar functions set forth in claims 2, 14, and 16). As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect the allowance (or causing) of travel. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In claim 2, the claim recites “[T]he replacing apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising:…wherein the processing apparatus includes multiple processing apparatuses, and the processing tool is stored in a common storage shared by the multiple processing apparatuses”. That said, it is noted that claim 1 is directed to a “replacing apparatus” with an intended use or function with a “processing apparatus” having various elements (recited in lines 2-6 of claim 1, for example). That said, in claim 2, it is unclear as claimed whether the recited “common storage” is intended to be part of the claimed “replacing apparatus”, or whether the “common storage” is merely being set forth in a more specific functional or intended use limitation. Thus, it is unclear as claimed whether the common storage mentioned in claim 2 is required in order to meet the claim, or whether all that is necessary to meet claim 2 re the common storage is for the functional/intended use thereof to be met (i.e., whether all that is necessary to meet claim 2 re the common storage is for the replacing apparatus to be merely capable of use with a processing apparatus/multiple processing apparatuses that share a common storage).
In claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the processing apparatus includes multiple processing apparatuses, and the processing tool is stored in a common storage shared by the multiple processing apparatuses”. That said, it is noted that claim 1 previously set forth a replacing apparatus “configured to replace a processing tool in a processing apparatus including a holder configured to hold a processing target object, a processing mechanism to which the processing tool configured to process the processing target object held by the holder is installed in a replaceable manner, and an exterior cover accommodating therein the holder and the processing mechanism, the replacing apparatus comprising: a replacing mechanism configured to install the processing tool to the processing mechanism, or separate the processing tool from the processing mechanism; a moving mechanism configured to move the replacing mechanism from an outside of the exterior cover to an inside thereof through an entrance opening of the exterior cover; a traveling table supporting the moving mechanism; and a traveling mechanism configured to allow the traveling table to travel”. That said, it is noted that claim 1 previously set forth that the replacing apparatus has a number of (claimed) functions/intended uses with a particular processing apparatus having a number of structural elements that are mentioned in claim 1. It is unclear as set forth in claim 2 in the limitation “wherein the processing apparatus includes multiple processing apparatus” how the redefined plural processing apparatuses are configured and what specific functions or intended uses the claimed replacing apparatus must have with each of the plural processing apparatuses set forth in claim 2.
Claim limitation “holding mechanism” (in at least claims 6-7) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely teaches the function of the holding mechanism 71a (for example, “configured to hold the grinding tool D” in paragraph 0063, or performing the function of holding a container F for accommodating therein the grinding tool D as taught in paragraph 0063). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed holding. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect the holding of a tool, either by holding the tool itself or by holding a container in which the tool is provided. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In claim 13, the claim sets forth “wherein multiple sets of the replacing mechanism and the moving mechanism are provided and controlled independently”. However, it is noted that claim 13 depends from claim 1, and that claim 1 previously recited “the replacing apparatus comprising: a replacing mechanism configured to install the processing tool to the processing mechanism, or separate the processing tool from the processing mechanism; a moving mechanism configured to move the replacing mechanism from an outside of the exterior cover to an inside thereof through an entrance opening of the exterior cover; a traveling table supporting the moving mechanism; and a traveling mechanism configured to allow the traveling table to travel”. It is unclear as set forth in claim 13 what features of the replacing mechanism, moving mechanism, and the intended use/function(s) thereof that were set forth in claim 1 are intended to be required by claim 13. For example, it is unclear whether each “set” of replacing mechanism and moving mechanism must be supported on the same traveling table, or whether only the one moving mechanism set forth in claim 1 must be supported on the traveling table. For example, it is unclear whether each replacing mechanism of the plural “sets” of “replacing mechanism” and “moving mechanism” must be capable of installing the (same) processing tool to the (same) processing mechanism (or separating the same processing tool from the same processing mechanism). For example, noting that claim 13 appears to require plural moving mechanisms, it is unclear what replacing mechanism those moving mechanisms must be capable of moving (since “configured to move the replacing mechanism” as set forth in claim 1 only refers to one replacing mechanism, whereas claim 13 requires plural replacing mechanisms). For example, it is unclear as set forth in claim 13 whether all of the moving mechanisms must be capable of moving all of the replacing mechanisms through a common entrance opening of a cover. The foregoing are just a few examples of clarity issues that arise in claim 13. Applicant may wish to consider (in claim 13) instead reciting an additional replacing mechanism and an additional moving mechanism, and reciting whatever (if any) features and functions Applicant wishes the additional replacing mechanism and additional moving mechanism to have, i.e., rather than reciting multiple sets of the replacing mechanism and the moving mechanism (i.e., rather than per se reciting multiple sets of elements that were set forth in the singular in a prior claim).
In claim 14, the claim recites “controlling the traveling mechanism to allow the traveling table to travel to a set position outside the exterior cover, after receiving the replacement instruction”. However, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as occurring “after receiving the replacement instruction”, i.e., the “controlling” of the traveling mechanism, the “allowing” the traveling, or the travel (re the infinitive “to travel”) of the traveling table to a set position outside the exterior cover.
In claim 14, the claim recites “controlling the moving mechanism to move the replacing mechanism from the outside of the exterior cover to the inside thereof through the entrance opening of the exterior cover, when the replacing apparatus detects that the entrance opening of the exterior cover is opened”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether “when the replacing apparatus detects that the entrance opening of the exterior cover is opened” is intended to refer to a time period while these actions are actively occurring (i.e., during the action of opening of the entrance opening of the exterior cover), or whether “when the replacing apparatus detects that the entrance opening of the exterior cover is opened” is instead intended to refer to a time period after these actions have been completed (i.e., when/once the entrance opening of the exterior cover has been opened).
In claim 16, lines 5-6, the limitation “the replacement instruction created in the processing apparatus” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, noting that no replacement instruction of any kind was previously recited, and specifically, no replacement instruction that was “created in the processing apparatus” was previously recited.
In claim 16, the claim recites “controlling the traveling mechanism to allow the traveling table to travel to a set position outside the exterior cover, when the replacing apparatus receives the replacement instruction created in the processing apparatus”. However, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as occurring “when the replacing apparatus receives the replacement instruction created in the processing apparatus”, i.e., the “controlling” of the traveling mechanism, the “allowing” the traveling, or the travel (re the infinitive “to travel”) of the traveling table to a set position outside the exterior cover.
In claim 16, the claim recites “controlling the traveling mechanism to allow the traveling table to travel to a set position outside the exterior cover, when the replacing apparatus receives the replacement instruction created in the processing apparatus”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether “when the replacing apparatus receives the replacement instruction created in the processing apparatus” is intended to refer to a time period while these actions/this action are/is actively occurring (i.e., during the action of receiving the replacement instruction), or whether “when the replacing apparatus receives the replacement instruction created in the processing apparatus” is instead intended to refer to a time period after these actions have been completed (i.e., when/once the replacement instruction has been received).
In claim 16, the claim recites “controlling the moving mechanism to move the replacing mechanism from the outside of the exterior cover to the inside thereof through the entrance opening of the exterior cover, when the replacing apparatus detects that the entrance opening of the exterior cover is opened”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether “when the replacing apparatus detects that the entrance opening of the exterior cover is opened” is intended to refer to a time period while these actions are actively occurring (i.e., during the action of opening of the entrance opening of the exterior cover), or whether “when the replacing apparatus detects that the entrance opening of the exterior cover is opened” is instead intended to refer to a time period after these actions have been completed (i.e., when/once the entrance opening of the exterior cover has been opened).
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 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13-14, and 16 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.
Regarding claims 1-2, 14, and 16 and the “traveling mechanism configured to allow the traveling table to travel” set forth in the claims, as discussed above, this limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f). As described above in a rejection of claims 1-2, 14, and 16 (and any claim dependent therefrom) under 35 USC 112(b), the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of allowing the traveling table to travel (or the additional functions set forth in claims 2, 14, and 16). That said, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 6-7 and the claimed “holding mechanism”, as discussed above, this limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f). As described above in a rejection of claims 6-7 under 35 USC 112(b), the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of holding the processing tool or a container configured to accommodate the processing tool. That said, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
It is noted that claim 2 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 sets forth “[A] replacing apparatus configured to replace a processing tool in a processing apparatus including a holder configured to hold a processing target object, a processing mechanism to which the processing tool configured to process the processing target object held by the holder is installed in a replaceable manner, and an exterior cover accommodating therein the holder and the processing mechanism” in lines 1-6, and goes on to mention portions of the processing apparatus (particularly, the processing mechanism and the exterior cover) in lines 7-12 of the claim. That said, claim 2 attempts to redefine the processing apparatus mentioned in claim 1, rather than further limiting the processing apparatus mentioned in claim 1. See claim 2¸ lines 3-5, which sets forth “wherein the processing apparatus includes multiple processing apparatuses, and the processing tool is stored in a common storage shared by the multiple processing apparatuses”. Note that such is not the same thing as claim 2 indicating that there is an additional processing apparatus, or that the replacing apparatus is configured to replace a further processing tool in an additional processing apparatus, the additional processing apparatus comprising various structures, and the replacing apparatus having whatever functions/intended uses with the additional processing apparatus that Applicant may have intended, but rather, claim 2 appears to redefine the (i.e., one) processing apparatus mentioned in claim 1 as plural processing apparatuses. Thus, claim 2 does not clearly include all of the limitations of claim 1.
In claim 13, the claim sets forth “wherein multiple sets of the replacing mechanism and the moving mechanism are provided and controlled independently”. However, it is noted that claim 13 depends from claim 1, and that claim 1 previously recited “the replacing apparatus comprising: a replacing mechanism configured to install the processing tool to the processing mechanism, or separate the processing tool from the processing mechanism; a moving mechanism configured to move the replacing mechanism from an outside of the exterior cover to an inside thereof through an entrance opening of the exterior cover; a traveling table supporting the moving mechanism; and a traveling mechanism configured to allow the traveling table to travel”. As noted in a separate rejection of claim 13 above under 35 USC 112(b), it is unclear as set forth in claim 13 what features of the replacing mechanism, moving mechanism, and the intended use/function(s) thereof that were set forth in claim 1 are intended to be required by claim 13. For example, it is unclear whether each “set” of replacing mechanism and moving mechanism must be supported on the same traveling table, or whether only the one moving mechanism set forth in claim 1 must be supported on the traveling table. For example, it is unclear whether each replacing mechanism of the plural “sets” of “replacing mechanism” and “moving mechanism” must be capable of installing the (same) processing tool to the (same) processing mechanism (or separating the same processing tool from the same processing mechanism). For example, noting that claim 13 appears to require plural moving mechanisms, it is unclear what replacing mechanism those moving mechanisms must be capable of moving (since “configured to move the replacing mechanism” as set forth in claim 1 only refers to one replacing mechanism, whereas claim 13 requires plural replacing mechanisms). For example, it is unclear as set forth in claim 13 whether all of the moving mechanisms must be capable of moving all of the replacing mechanisms through a common entrance opening of a cover. The foregoing are just a few examples of clarity issues that arise in claim 13. Applicant may wish to consider (in claim 13) instead reciting an additional replacing mechanism and an additional moving mechanism, and reciting whatever (if any) features and functions Applicant wishes the additional replacing mechanism and additional moving mechanism to have, i.e., rather than reciting multiple sets of the replacing mechanism and the moving mechanism (i.e., rather than per se reciting multiple sets of elements that were set forth in the singular in a prior claim). That said, to the extent that claim 13 is intended to require fewer than all of the features and functions of the replacing mechanism and moving mechanism of claim 1, then claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 112(d) for failing to include all of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 13-14, and 16, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0306903 to Hediger.
It is noted that the publication date of Hediger is October 1, 2020, which is prior to the current effective filing date (April 7, 2021) of the present application, and thus, Hediger is available as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1). Additionally, it is noted that the filing date of the Swiss priority application of the Hediger reference is March 25, 2019, which is likewise prior to the current effective filing date (and as a side note, which is even prior to the earliest priority date for the current application), and thus, Hediger is also available as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(2).
Hediger teaches: a replacing apparatus (shown as a whole in Figure 1) configured to replace a processing tool (such as 15) in a processing apparatus (such as 18, for example) including a holder configured to hold a processing target object (while it is noted that the details of the processing apparatus structure set forth in claim 1 are not required in order to meet claim 1, noting that claim 1 is directed to a “replacing apparatus” with an intended use with such a processing apparatus, it is noted that some form of workpiece/target object holder is considered to be inherent re the milling, grinding, drilling, and turning/lathe type processing machines described in, for example, paragraph 0062, or else no machining processing of the workpiece could take place as the forces applied from the tool to a workpiece that is unsecured would result in the workpiece “flying”/moving away from the tool such that no machining would occur), a processing mechanism (see paragraph 0062; see also paragraph 0040, the teaching of the tool clamping system, and well as paragraph 0002 re the hydraulic tool clamping system of the milling machine; additionally, the particular processing machines described in paragraph 0062 inherently have a processing mechanism to which the removable tool is attached or else no processing such as the milling, grinding, drilling, or turning described in paragraph 0062 could occur; that said, again, though, it is noted that no such processing mechanism is required in order to meet claim 1, but rather, as long as the replacing apparatus is merely capable of performing the claimed function/intended use, the limitation is met) to which the processing tool (15) configured to process the processing target object held by the holder is installed in a replaceable manner (paragraphs 0007-0008, 0039-0041, 0046, for example), and an exterior cover (again, it is noted that claim 1 is directed to a replacing apparatus having an intended use/function with a particular processing apparatus, which processing apparatus includes an exterior cover, rather than being drawn to the combination of the replacing apparatus with the processing apparatus having the cover, such that the cover is not actually required in order to meet claim 1, so long as the replacing apparatus is merely capable of performing the claimed function(s)/intended use(s) re the processing apparatus/cover; in the instant case, however, it is noted that Hediger does expressly teach the cover; see Figure 2 and paragraphs 0046, 0076, and 0020-0021, noting the cover shown in Figure 2 of the processing apparatus 18 is described as having a loading opening 19) accommodating therein the holder and the processing mechanism (see Figure 2 and paragraphs 0046, 0076, 0020-0021, and 0062, for example), the replacing apparatus comprising:
a replacing mechanism (gripper/“holding mechanism” 3 re claims 1 and 6; see Figure 1 and at least paragraph 0038) “configured to” install the processing tool (15) to the processing mechanism, or separate the processing tool (15) from the processing mechanism (see Figures 1-2 and at least paragraphs 0038, 0041, 0043-0046, for example);
a moving mechanism (robot 2; see Figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0036, 0038, for example) “configured to” (“capable of”, e.g., via the various movement axes of the robot 2 that are driven by an electric motor, as described in at least paragraph 0038) move the replacing mechanism (3) from an outside of the (aforedescribed) exterior cover to an inside thereof through an entrance opening (such as, for example, 19) of the exterior cover (see Figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0046, 0076, and 0020-0021, for example, as well as paragraphs 0038 and 0041);
a traveling table (the base frame 1 on which at least elements 2 and 5 are provided; see Figures 1-2 and paragraph 0036) supporting the moving mechanism (2) (see Figure 1); and
a traveling mechanism (such as, for example, the wheels 9 and/or the drive 10 for driving the wheels 9; see Figure 1 and at least paragraph 0036) configured to allow the traveling table (1) to travel (Figures 1-2, paragraphs 0036, 0041-0042, for example).
Regarding claim 2, Hediger teaches a travel controller (such as 13, or alternatively, such as 28, for example; see Figures 1-2 and at least paragraphs 0036, 0039, 0045-0047, for example) configured to control the (aforedescribed) traveling mechanism,
wherein the processing apparatus includes multiple processing apparatuses, and the processing tool is stored in a common storage shared by the multiple processing apparatuses (it is noted that the limitation “wherein the processing apparatus includes multiple processing apparatuses, and the processing tool is stored in a common storage shared by the multiple processing apparatuses” appears to merely set forth a more specific intended use or intended function, and thus, as long as the claimed replacing apparatus is capable of performing the claimed function(s)/intended use(s), the claim is met whether or not the reference teaches the details of the plural processing apparatuses and common storage; that being said, it is noted that Hediger teaches the claimed function/intended use; see at least paragraphs 0047, 0055-0056, 0059, 0073 re the plural processing machines; see also the common “central” tool storage 24 in Figure 2; see also paragraphs 0039, 0041-0045, 0047-0048, and claims 1, 16, and 17 of the Hediger reference, for example), and
the travel controller (13 and/or 28) controls the traveling mechanism (9 and/or 10) to “allow” the traveling table (1) to travel “between” a position (such as a position proximate the central tool storage 24) where the processing tool (15) is stored and a position (such as a position proximate a processing machine 18) where the processing tool is replaced. See Figures 1-2 and at least paragraphs 0036, 0039, 0041-0043, and especially 0045-0046, for example.
Regarding claim 4, Hediger teaches a storage (such as 5, or alternatively, such as 6, or alternatively, such as 7) configured to store the processing tool (15) therein, wherein the storage (5 or 6 or 7) is moved along with the traveling table (1). See Figure 1 and at least paragraphs 0036 and 0041, for example.
Regarding claim 6, as noted above, the replacing mechanism comprises a holding mechanism (3) configured to hold the processing tool (15). See Figure 1 and at least paragraph 0038, for example.
Regarding claim 7, the holding mechanism (3) is holds a container configured to accommodate the processing tool therein. As broadly claimed, it is noted that the gripper (3) of the configuration depicted in Figure 1 is considered to be at least inherently capable of performing the claimed function or intended use of holding a “container” that is configured to accommodate the processing tool therein, simply by providing a such a container that is sized and shaped so as to be capable of being so gripped via the gripper (3), noting that the gripper (3) is blind as to what it grips, but rather, is inherently capable of gripping whatever appropriately sized/shaped object it comes into operative gripping contact with, including such a container. Alternatively/additionally, the gripper (3) is described by Hediger as gripping the processing tools 15. It is noted that the shown processing tools 15 each include a respective “container”/holder portion (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 1 below as “C1”) that receives a corresponding tool bit/processing tool (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 1 below as “TB”).
[AltContent: textbox (C1)]
[AltContent: textbox (TB)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
484
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, multiple “sets” of the replacing mechanism (which comprises the holding mechanism/gripper 3, for example) and the moving mechanism (2) are provided and controlled independently. See, for example, paragraphs 0047, 0057, 0060, and 0073, for example.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Hediger teaches a controller, wherein the controller (such as 13 and/or 12; see paragraph 0036 and Figures 1-2, for example) performs:
(re claim 14) receiving a replacement instruction created in the processing apparatus (such as in the control system 28 that can be considered part of the “processing apparatus”) (see paragraphs 0036, 0039, 0044-0046, and Figures 1-2, for example);
(re claims 14 and 16) controlling the traveling mechanism (9 and/or 10) to “allow” the traveling table (1) to travel to a set position (such as at the docking point 22; see Figure 2 and paragraph 0043) outside the (aforedescribed) exterior cover (i.e., the cover in which the loading opening 19 is provided), after receiving (re claim 14)/when the replacing apparatus receives (re claim 16) the replacement instruction (created in the processing apparatus re claim 16) (paragraphs 0036, 0039, 0044-0046, Figures 1-2);
(re claims 14 and 16) controlling the moving mechanism (2) to move the replacing mechanism (3) from the outside of the (aforedescribed) exterior cover to the inside thereof through the entrance opening (19) of the exterior cover, when the replacing apparatus (at least indirectly) detects that the entrance opening (19) of the exterior cover is opened (see paragraph 0046, claim 11 of the reference, and paragraphs 0076 and 0020-0021, as well as Figures 1-2); and controlling the replacing mechanism (3) to install the processing tool (15) to the processing mechanism (of 18), or separate the processing tool (15) from the processing mechanism (of 18) (Figures 1-2 and at least paragraphs 0036, 0041, 0043-0047, for example).
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, and 11, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 6,030,326 to Azuma et al. (hereinafter, “Azuma”).
Azuma teaches a replacing apparatus configured to replace (i.e., capable of replacing) a processing tool (17+18+31; see Figures 2, 3A, 3B) in a processing apparatus (such as a processing apparatus including a holder configured to hold a processing target object, a processing mechanism to which the processing tool configured to process the processing target object held by the holder is installed in a replaceable manner, and an exterior cover accommodating therein the holder and the processing mechanism; note that the claim does not actually require the processing apparatus/holder thereof/exterior cover thereof, and the replacing apparatus, but rather, merely requires that the replacing apparatus be capable of replacing a processing tool of such a processing apparatus), the replacing apparatus comprising:
a replacing mechanism (comprising, re claim 6, a holding mechanism such as 41, 41’ configured to hold the processing tool; see Figures 2, 4, and col. 5, lines 6-34, col. 6, lines 3-16, col. 6, lines 49-58, for example) configured to install the processing tool (17+18+31) to the processing mechanism (such as to tool spindle 11; see Figure 2, col. 4, lines 32-58, and col. 6, lines 55-67 and col. 7, lines 1-12, for example), or separate the processing tool (17+18+31) from the (tool spindle 11 of the) processing mechanism (col. 6, lines 1-16, for example, as well as Figures 2-4);
a moving mechanism (the pivotable “arm” formed by 44, 43, for example; see Figure 2, Figure 4, and col. 5, lines 14-46, for example) configured to move the replacing mechanism (that includes at least 41, 41’) from an outside of the exterior cover to an inside thereof through an entrance opening of the exterior cover (note that the claim does not actually require the exterior cover, and that the aforedescribed moving mechanism/pivotable arm and/or end thereof is inherently capable of being moved as claimed simply by carrying out the movements of 44, 43 from the position shown in solid lines in Figure 2 to the position shown in dashed lines in Figure 2 to move 44, 43 and/or portions thereof such as 43 through such a cover opening);
a traveling “table” (such as 45 and/or 47) supporting the moving mechanism (43, 44) (see Figure 2, Figure 4); and
a traveling mechanism (such as 50 and/or 49 and/or 48; see Figure 2, as well as at least col. 5, lines 35-46, for example) configured to allow the traveling table (45 and/or 47) to travel (see Figure 2 and col. 5, lines 35-46, for example).
Regarding claim 2, Azuma teaches a travel “controller” (as broadly claimed) configured to control the traveling mechanism (50 and/or 49 and/or 48),
the replacing apparatus is capable of being used with a processing apparatus that “includes multiple processing apparatuses”, and is inherently capable of being used with an arrangement in which the processing tool (17+18+31) is stored in a common storage shared by the multiple processing apparatuses, and
the travel controller “controls” (such as by turning such on or off) the traveling mechanism (50 and/or 49 and/or 48) to allow the traveling table (45 and/or 47) to “travel” between a position (such as the position shown in dashed lines in Figure 2) where the processing tool is stored (e.g., on one of the accommodating plates 71 or 72; see Figures 2, 5, and col. 5, lines 46-58, for example) and a position (such as the position shown in solid lines in Figure 2) where the processing tool (17+18+31) is “replaced” (i.e., the tool of the spindle 11 is replaced with a different tool; see Figure 2 and at least col. 5, line 59 through col. 7, line 22, for example).
Regarding claim 4, Azuma teaches a “storage” (such as 42, 42’) configured to (at least temporarily) store the processing tool therein, wherein the storage is moved along with the (aforedescribed) traveling table. See Figures 2 and 4, as well as at least col. 6, lines 56-58, for example.
Regarding claim 7 (noting that claim 6 was already addressed above), it is noted that the holding mechanism (41+41’) is considered to be inherently capable of performing the claimed function of holding a container configured to accommodate the processing tool therein. For example, note that alternatively, the processing tool can be considered to be elements 17+18, with element 31 constituting a “container” that “accommodates the processing tool” 17+18 therein (see Figures 3A-3B), and that the holding mechanism 41+41’ holds 31+17+18. See col. 5, lines 7-18, col. 6, lines 3-17, and col. 6, lines 56-58, for example. See also Figures 2-4.
Regarding claim 9, the replacing mechanism (which includes at least 41, 41’, for example, as described above) (also) comprises a rotation stopping mechanism (hexagon wrench 63) configured to stop rotation of a spindle shaft (11) of the processing mechanism. See, for example, col. 4, lines 63-66 and col. 5, lines 17-23, for example, as well as Figures 2-4.
Regarding claim 11, the replacing mechanism comprises a manipulating mechanism (hexagon wrench 63) configured to tighten or loosen a fastener configured to fasten the processing tool and the processing mechanism. See, for example, col. 4, lines 63-67, col. 5, lines 1-6, col. 5, lines 17-23, col. 6, lines 29-41, and col. 6, line 58 through col. 7, line 11, for example, as well as Figures 2-4.
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.
Claims 14 and 16 are alternatively (and as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0306903 to Hediger (hereinafter, “Hediger”).
Hediger teaches all the aspects of the claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon. See the above discussion of Hediger, particularly re claims 1, 14, and 16.
As noted above re claims 14 and 16, Hediger teaches (among other things) controlling the moving mechanism (2) to move the replacing mechanism (3) from the outside of the (aforedescribed) exterior cover to the inside thereof through the entrance opening (19) of the exterior cover, when the replacing apparatus (at least indirectly) detects that the entrance opening (19) of the exterior cover is opened (see paragraph 0046, claim 11 of the reference, and paragraphs 0076 and 0020-0021, as well as Figures 1-2); and controlling the replacing mechanism (3) to install the processing tool (15) to the processing mechanism (of 18), or separate the processing tool (15) from the processing mechanism (of 18) (Figures 1-2 and at least paragraphs 0036, 0041, 0043-0047, for example).
.However, in the alternative regarding claims 14 and 16, in the event that it is held that the aforedescribed teachings of Hediger are not sufficient to meet the limitation “wherein the controller performs:…controlling the moving mechanism to move the replacing mechanism from the outside of the exterior cover to the inside thereof through the entrance opening of the exterior cover, when the replacing apparatus detects that the entrance opening of the exterior cover is opened”, it is noted that Hediger expressly teaches that the sealable loading opening 19 may be controlled in such a way that the opening and closing thereof may be triggered by the robot or may be carried out automatically by the docking or coupling of the driverless base frame (paragraph 0021, 0046), and that after the loading opening 19 is automatically opened, the control system 28 commands the robot 2 to remove the unnecessary tool (from the processing machine 18) and place it on a free space of temporary magazine 5 (paragraph 0046), the robot 2 receives a command to load a necessary tool 15 from the temporary magazine 5 into the processing machine 18 (paragraph 0046), the control system 28 registers the details of the loaded and unloaded tools 15 with the machine controller 20, and the loading opening 19 is automatically closed, via a trigger/command from the control system 28 or the robot 2, for example. (See paragraph 0046). That being said, the replacing apparatus has to know or be told in some automatic manner that the loading opening 19 is open, or else the described actions of the robot 2 to change the tooling via the loading opening 19 would not be able to occur (i.e., without the robot 2 or gripper 3 “crashing” into the cover in which the opening 19 is provided). That said, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of sensors (in automated systems) to sense when a given movement of an object has been carried out, such as when an opening that is necessary for automatic passage of structure(s) has been opened, is extremely well-known and widely used so as to minimize the necessity for active operator intervention/input.
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 such a sensor (as is well-known) to the arrangement taught by Hediger, that senses that the opening 19 is open and lets the replacing apparatus know that the opening 19 is open (and thus “the replacing apparatus detects” that the opening 19 is open), for the purpose of achieving the well-known benefit of reducing/minimizing the need for the operator to let the system know that the opening 19 is open prior to performing tool change via the opening. (See also paragraph 0007 of Hediger, which teaches that the object of the invention is to achieve a “fully automated” supply/removal of tools. See also paragraph 0009 of Hediger, which indicates that it is desirable to carry out a tool change without manual intervention, and which Hediger teaches has advantages particularly during shift change.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, it is noted that CH 715996 A1 is the published version of the Swiss priority application re U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0306903 to Hediger, and a translation of CH 715996 A1 is also being made of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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) 272-3460. 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
February 19, 2026