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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “a plurality of pairs of one unit of the rod-shaped tool and one unit of the annular structure” is semantically confusing because “of one unit of rod-shaped tool” already composed of two units and saying one unit of tool within a pair is contradictory and redundant.
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:
“a transporter to transport the workpiece” in claim 9.
“a controller configured or programmed to control operations of the rod-shaped tool” in claims 13-15.
“transporting the workpiece by a transporter” in claim 16.
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.
“a transporter” (claim 9) is interpreted as “The transporter 200 includes a carriage 210, a plate 220, and a plurality of workpiece holders 230.” (para.0055 of instant publication application).
“a controller” (claims 13-15) is interpreted as “a computer” (para.0112-0113 of instant publication application).
“a transporter” (claim 16) is interpreted as “The transporter 200 includes a carriage 210, a plate 220, and a plurality of workpiece holders 230.” (para.0055 of instant publication application).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 9-15 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 9 recites “a laser head to perform boring machining by irradiating a laser beam along an outline of a hole to be formed in the workpiece on the table” at lines 5-6. However, claim 9 further recites “a transporter to transport the workpiece that has undergone laser machining” at line 7 and “the workpiece is transported by the transporter until the hole formed by the boring machining is arranged at a processing position” at lines 10-11. It is unclear if the boring machining is the same or different from laser machining.
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(s) 9, 13-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoi (JP 2018089632 A) and Nagae (JP 2015223608 A).
Regarding claim 9, Aoi discloses “a laser machining tool” (embodiment fig.10) that performs laser machining on “a plate- shaped workpiece” ([0014], i.e., a plate-shaped workpiece W), the laser machining tool comprising:
“a laser head” ([0049], i.e., a CO2 laser combined machine or a fiber laser combined machine may be used.) “to perform boring machining by irradiating a laser beam” ([0051], i.e., The control unit 113 executes the pilot hole forming step ST01, the countersink forming step ST02, and the through hole forming step ST03 shown in FIG. 1 or FIG. In the pilot hole forming step ST01, the laser head 203 is moved to a second position P2 (see FIG. 1) on the workpiece W, and then a laser beam is emitted to form the pilot hole 10) along an outline of a hole to be formed in the workpiece
“a transporter” ([0050], i.e., The slider 206 is provided with a plurality of clamp devices 205, and the workpiece W is held by these clamp devices 205 and is movable in the X direction as the slider 206 moves) to transport “the workpiece” (W) that has undergone laser machining; and
“a rod-shaped tool to force out slag remaining in the hole” ([0051], i.e., The control unit 113 executes the pilot hole forming step ST01, the countersink forming step ST02, and the through hole forming step ST03 shown in FIG. 1). FIG. 4 is a diagram showing a state in which the workpiece W is machined in the through-hole forming step);
wherein “the workpiece is transported by the transporter until the hole formed by the boring machining is arranged at a processing position including a discharge space for the slag, [0050], i.e., The slider 206 is provided with a plurality of clamp devices 205, and the workpiece W is held by these clamp devices 205 and is movable in the X direction as the slider 206 moves. [0052], i.e., The workpiece W is positioned in the X direction by a slider 206. The positioning of the workpiece W in the Y direction is performed by moving the workpiece W in the Y direction or by moving the punch position P in the Y direction. After the third position P3 (see FIG. 1) or the first position P1 (see FIG. 7) of the workpiece W is positioned at the punch position P, the tapered portion 32 and the flat portion 21 are formed as shown in FIG. Next, in the through hole forming process ST03, the second punch 7 and the second die 8 are selected at the punch position P in the press processing unit 202, and the first position P1 (see Figure 1) of the workpiece W is positioned at the punch position P, and then the through hole 31 is formed as shown in Figure 4. Examiner noted that the clamping device fig.10, 205 moves the workpiece from laser processing area 201 to the press area 202 to form through hole (fig.4) via second punch. Fig.4 shows the through hole forced out by the rod-shaped tool 7. Fig.4 shows a processing position including a discharge space (where slag falls by gravity) outside and below the table (fig.10 shows the press area) outside the laser processing area).
Aoi is silent regarding a table that includes a plurality of protrusions and that supports the workpiece on upper ends of the protrusions; the workpiece on the table; a discharge space for the slag, outside and below the table as seen in a plan view.
Nagae discloses “a table that includes a plurality of protrusions” (figs.1-3, 13 includes protrusions 13a and 13b) and that supports “the workpiece” (fig3, W) “on upper ends of the protrusions” (13b); “the workpiece” (W) on “the table” (13); “a discharge space” (17 includes 17a and 17b) for the slag, “outside and below the table as seen in a plan view” ([0044], i.e., transporting products that have fallen from the lid portion 17a to the outside of the first processing device 10. 17 is outside and below the table). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Aoi with Nagae, by adding Nage’s table to Aoi’s laser processing area, to provide sturdy and steady support to maintain a consistent focal distance, prevent material distortion and minimize charring or damage (fig.3, 13) as taught by Nagae.
Regarding claim 13, modified Aoi discloses “a controller configured or programmed to control operations of the rod- shaped tool; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to cause an operation of forcing out the slag by the rod-shaped tool to be executed for all of the holes formed in the workpiece” (Aoi, [0051], i.e., The control unit 113 executes the pilot hole forming step ST01, the countersink forming step ST02, and the through hole forming step ST03 shown in FIG. 1 or FIG. In the pilot hole forming step ST01, the laser head 203 is moved to a second position P2 (see FIG. 1) on the workpiece W, and then a laser beam is emitted to form the pilot hole 10. Examiner noted that the drilling the hole can be repeated on a workpiece).
Regarding claim 14, modified Aoi discloses “a controller configured or programmed to control operations of the rod-shaped tool; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to cause an operation of forcing out the slag by the rod-shaped tool to be executed for the hole in the workpiece” (Aoi, [0051], i.e., The control unit 113 executes the pilot hole forming step ST01, the countersink forming step ST02, and the through hole forming step ST03 shown in FIG. 1 or FIG. In the pilot hole forming step ST01, the laser head 203 is moved to a second position P2 (see FIG. 1) on the workpiece W, and then a laser beam is emitted to form the pilot hole 10.) “that is formed directly above one of the plurality of protrusions” (Fig.3 of Nagae location of the workpiece W is directly above one of protrusions).
Regarding claim 16, Aoi discloses “a workpiece machining method” (embodiment fig.10) “for machining a plate-shaped workpiece by laser machining” ([0014], i.e., a plate-shaped workpiece W), the method comprising:
“performing boring machining by irradiating a laser beam along an outline of a hole to be formed in the workpiece” ([0049], i.e., a CO2 laser combined machine or a fiber laser combined machine may be used. [0051], i.e., The control unit 113 executes the pilot hole forming step ST01, the countersink forming step ST02, and the through hole forming step ST03 shown in FIG. 1 or FIG. In the pilot hole forming step ST01, the laser head 203 is moved to a second position P2 (see FIG. 1) on the workpiece W, and then a laser beam is emitted to form the pilot hole 10)
“transporting the workpiece by a transporter until the hole formed by the boring machining is at a processing position including a discharge space for slag, [0050], i.e., The slider 206 is provided with a plurality of clamp devices 205, and the workpiece W is held by these clamp devices 205 and is movable in the X direction as the slider 206 moves. [0052], i.e., The workpiece W is positioned in the X direction by a slider 206. The positioning of the workpiece W in the Y direction is performed by moving the workpiece W in the Y direction or by moving the punch position P in the Y direction. After the third position P3 (see FIG. 1) or the first position P1 (see FIG. 7) of the workpiece W is positioned at the punch position P, the tapered portion 32 and the flat portion 21 are formed as shown in FIG. Next, in the through hole forming process ST03, the second punch 7 and the second die 8 are selected at the punch position P in the press processing unit 202, and the first position P1 (see Figure 1) of the workpiece W is positioned at the punch position P, and then the through hole 31 is formed as shown in Figure 4. Examiner noted that the clamping device fig.10, 205 moves the workpiece from laser processing area 201 to the press area 202 to form through hole (fig.4) via second punch. Fig.4 shows the through hole forced out by the rod-shaped tool 7. Fig.4 shows a processing position including a discharge space (where slag falls by gravity) outside and below the table (fig.10 shows the press area) outside the laser processing area).
Aoi is silent regarding supporting the workpiece on upper ends of a plurality of protrusions provided on a table; workpiece on the table; a discharge space for slag, outside and below the table as seen in a plan view.
Nagae discloses supporting the workpiece on upper ends of a plurality of protrusions provided on a table; workpiece on the table (figs.1-3, 13 includes protrusions 13a and 13b for support workpiece W on the table 13); a discharge space (17 includes 17a and 17b) for slag, outside and below the table as seen in a plan view ([0044], i.e., transporting products that have fallen from the lid portion 17a to the outside of the first processing device 10. 17 is outside and below the table). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Aoi with Nagae, by adding Nage’s table to Aoi’s laser processing area, to provide sturdy and steady support to maintain a consistent focal distance, prevent material distortion and minimize charring or damage (fig.3, 13) as taught by Nagae.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 10-12 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761