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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits in response to election filed by Applicant on June 07, 2025. Claims 1-6 and 12 are elected without traverse and examined below. Claims 7-11, 13-20 are withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on is/are being considered by the examiner.
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:
arm tooling means for movement of mold pieces;
end of arm tooling means for cutting and/or welding mold pieces in claim 1.
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 § 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.
Claim 3 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the force/torque sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Mertins US2002/0174968 (“Mertins”) in view of Zhang et al. US2006/0048364 (“Zhang”).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 12. Mertins discloses a system for automated wax mold assembly (para. 1-para. 7, the invention is to provide an investment casting having features adapted to be engaged by a manipulator.) comprising:
an assembly cell frame (fig. 1); a base plate (plate T); one or more robots moveable with respect to the assembly cell frame, wherein the one or more robots comprise a robotic arm (fig. 1, robot arm);
wherein the one or more robots are in communication with a robot controller (control unit 100);
additionally comprising at least one of:
a laser measurement and/or displacement system (para. 48, The gripper device 60 includes a commercially available laser distance sensor 80 that directs a laser beam B downwardly in a direction that passes through the intersection of axis A1 and axis A2, FIG. 3B. The sensor 80 is used to determined the orientation of the particular surface area 41 of runner bar surface 40a where each pattern is to be attached as described below. A suitable laser sensor is available from Omron Electronics, One E Commerce Drive, Schaumburg, Ill. 60173.), end of arm tooling means for movement of mold pieces (FIGS. 3A and 3B are front and rear perspective views of the gripper devicehaving a radiant heating device and distance sensor.); and
wherein the system additionally comprises an automation system configured to direct the placement, fitting, cutting, and/or welding of mold pieces into a completed mold (para. 60-63, FIG. 10. The cast metallic articles 200 are each removed from solidified metal or alloy of the runner (that replicates runner bar 40) by a cut-off operation that cuts each gating region 16 off of the runner. Each cast article 200 also will include a plurality of datum locators illustrated as embossments 220a, 220b, 220c disposed in an array on gating region 216 to provide a datum reference system on each cast article by which each cast article can be held and positioned by a manipulator, such as for example a robotic gripper device similar to gripper device 60 employed to move the patterns 10.)
Mertins does not explicitly disclose end of arm tooling means for cutting and/or welding mold pieces.
Zhang teaches another robot manipulator that end of arm tooling means for cutting and/or welding mold pieces (abstract, para. 5-para. 7, FIG. 8 shows the results of the milling test where the upper graph shows the cutting force with only position control and the lower graph shows the cutting force with force control. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Mertins by incorporating the applied teaching of Zhang to improve the robot manipulator control for specific tasks since one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim(s) 2. Mertins in view of Zhang further teaches wherein the robots are inverted 6-axis robots (Mertins and Zhang: FIG. 1 shows a robot system with a 6-DOF industrial robot manipulator and a controller for the robot.).
Regarding claim(s) 3. Mertins in view of Zhang further teaches wherein the force/torque sensor is provided on one or more of the robots (Zhang: abstract, A force sensor provides the signal for deformation compensation. For CMRR the signal may be obtained from either a force sensor or the current flowing in the motor of the robot's spindle. The force sensor can be mounted either on the robot or together with either the tool or work piece adjacent to the robot.).
Regarding claim(s) 4. (Mertins in view of Zhang further teaches wherein the force-torque sensor is configured to detect a force or torque applied to a distal end of the robotic arm(Zhang: abstract, A force sensor provides the signal for deformation compensation. For CMRR the signal may be obtained from either a force sensor or the current flowing in the motor of the robot's spindle. The force sensor can be mounted either on the robot or together with either the tool or work piece adjacent to the robot.).
Regarding claim(s) 5. Mertins in view of Zhang further teaches wherein the force-torque sensor is in communication with the robot controller (Zhang: abstract, A force sensor provides the signal for deformation compensation. For CMRR the signal may be obtained from either a force sensor or the current flowing in the motor of the robot's spindle. The force sensor can be mounted either on the robot or together with either the tool or work piece adjacent to the robot.).
Regarding claim(s) 6. Mertins in view of Zhang further teaches wherein the robot controller is in communication with a programmable logic controller (PLC) (Mertins: computer controlled robotic device 30, FIG. 1, for assembly with another component of the pattern assembly. Zhang: Robot controller 150).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUC M DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5962. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramón Mercado, Ph.D. can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRUC M DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658