DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 03/10/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-20 have been amended; and no claims have been cancelled nor added. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 (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 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 1, 3, 5-8, 11-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortenjan (EP 1840448) in view of Trumpf (DE 202017107190) and Mabee (US 20150273641).
With regard to claim 1, Kortenjan teaches a compact cell having a protective enclosure (4) for welding operations and/or cutting operations (“a boom or a portal with a machining tool attached thereto, such as a drill or milling cutter”, pg. 3, ln. 16-18), the compact cell (FIGS. 2 & 5) comprising a protective enclosure (4) having at least one cell side wall (4d); and at least a first and a second working area (first working area: area within and adjacent to “left workpiece pair 6b”; second working area: area within and adjacent to “right -hand workpiece pair 6a”); wherein the protective enclosure (4) is configured to be at least in both directions movable and in a first position encloses the first working area (first position illustrated in FIG. 5), and exposes the second working area and in a second position encloses the second working area and exposes the first working area (second position illustrated in FIG. 2) (“on the worktable two workpieces 6a, 6b are placed on the right and left sides, of which the right pair 6a is currently being processed in the drawing. The protective cabin 4 surrounds the processing area of the processing unit 3 and prevents an operator from coming too close to the processing unit 3. After finishing the processing of the right-hand workpiece pair 6a, the processing machine 1 is instructed, for example by programming, to drive the processing unit 3 to the left to the second processing position and at the same time to set the protective area of the protective cabin 4 such that no danger to an operator is given at any time … Then, in an analogous manner, the right-hand wall 4d of the protective cabin, which is perpendicular to the direction of travel, is moved into the position required for machining the left workpiece pair 6b. The resulting state is shown in FIG. Now, the processing can be performed on the left pair of workpieces 6b, while on the right side of the chuck table 2 space for removal of the machined workpieces 6a and the armor of new workpieces is available”, pg. 4, ln. 3-15).
Kortenjan does not teach that the protective enclosure 4a has a cell roof with a side wall connected thereto; however, Trumpf which is directed toward the same field of endeavor related to a laser processing machine for machine workpieces with a work space and with a loading area teaches a protective enclosure 25 with side wall includes a roof (24) (FIG. 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kortenjan reference, to include a cell roof with a side wall connected thereto, as suggested and taught by Trumpf, for the purpose of providing enhanced protection to a user of the subject device by including a fully enclosed protective structure having a roof and sidewall during a machining operation (Trumpf: “radiation from the working space ( 6 ) shields in the environment of the laser processing machine, characterized in that the beam protection wall as a foldable beam protection wall ( 24 . 25 . 44 ) is formed and a plurality of wall elements ( 26 . 27 ; 29 . 30 ; 45 . 46 ),”, cl. 1).
Kortenjan does not teach laser processing related to welding and operations being performed by means of welding robots; however, Mabee which is directed toward the same field of endeavor related to a laser workstation with endless loop conveyor and coordinated access doors teaches the aforementioned limitations: “Embodiments of the present invention relate to laser processing units for performing a laser operation (e.g., cutting, welding, etc.) on a workpiece.”, para. [0023]; “one or more laser robots 24 performs a laser operation on the first workpiece”, para. [0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kortenjan reference, to include laser processing related to welding and operations being performed by means of welding robots, as suggested and taught by Mabee, for the purpose of providing laser welding operations in a precise manner at predetermined locations (Mabee: para. [0010]).
With regard to claim 20 which is directed toward a method for configuring a protective enclosure for welding operations and/or cutting operations by means of welding robots includes nearly identical limitations to those of independent claim 1 (which is directed toward a compact cell having a protective enclosure for welding operations and/or cutting operations by means of welding robots) except that claim 20 includes limitations directed toward method steps, and as such, it is respectfully submitted that with respect to the method step claimed (of claim 20), to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed, it will obviously perform the method steps as claimed. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01(I)".
With regard to claim 3, Kortenjan teaches a processing unit (3) is received on the protective enclosure (4) so it can be moved with it, in particular on the cell roof and/or on the cell side wall (see FIG. 2 in which processing unit 3 is attached to sidewalls of 4). However, Kortenjan does not teach that the processing unit is a robot; however, Mabee teaches a robot 24 within a protective enclosure 55 (FIG. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kortenjan reference, such that the robot of Mabee is used within a protective enclosure, as suggested and taught by Mabee, for the purpose of substituting Kortenjan’s processing unit with the robot of Mabee to expand the variety and/or types of processing operations that Kortenjan may perform.
With regard to claim 5, with regard to the limitation of the protective enclosure includes at least one roller shutter device and/or a welding robot which are received in the cell roof and/or on cell side walls (roller shutter device not provided patentable weight due to “and/or” limitation), Kortenjan teaches a processing unit (3) is received on the protective enclosure (4) so it can be moved with it, in particular on the cell roof and/or on the cell side wall (see FIG. 2 in which processing unit 3 is attached to sidewalls of 4). However, Kortenjan does not teach that the processing unit is a robot; however, Mabee teaches a robot 24 within a protective enclosure 55 (FIG. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kortenjan reference, such that the robot of Mabee is used within a protective enclosure, as suggested and taught by Mabee, for the purpose of substituting Kortenjan’s processing unit with the robot of Mabee to expand the variety and/or types of processing operations that Kortenjan may perform. With regard to the limitation of the protective enclosure the working area to be closed off on all sides, Kortenjan does not teach that the protective enclosure 4a has a cell roof with a side wall connected thereto; however, Trumpf which is directed toward the same field of endeavor related to a laser processing machine for machine workpieces with a work space and with a loading area teaches a protective enclosure 25 with side wall includes a roof (24) (FIG. 2A). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kortenjan reference, to include a cell roof with a side wall connected thereto, as suggested and taught by Trumpf, for the purpose of providing enhanced protection to a user of the subject device by including a fully enclosed protective structure having a roof and sidewall during a machining operation (Trumpf: “radiation from the working space ( 6 ) shields in the environment of the laser processing machine, characterized in that the beam protection wall as a foldable beam protection wall ( 24 . 25 . 44 ) is formed and a plurality of wall elements ( 26 . 27 ; 29 . 30 ; 45 . 46 ),”, cl. 1).
With regard to claim 6, with regard to the limitation of the compact cell is set up for an alternating welding operation, Mabee teaches welding as detailed above (“Kortenjan does not teach laser processing related to welding and operations being performed by means of welding robots; however, Mabee which is directed toward the same field of endeavor related to a laser workstation with endless loop conveyor and coordinated access doors teaches the aforementioned limitations: “Embodiments of the present invention relate to laser processing units for performing a laser operation (e.g., cutting, welding, etc.) on a workpiece.”, para. [0023]; “one or more laser robots 24 performs a laser operation on the first workpiece”, para. [0026]. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kortenjan reference, to include laser processing related to welding and operations being performed by means of welding robots, as suggested and taught by Mabee, for the purpose of providing laser welding operations in a precise manner at predetermined locations (Mabee: para. [0010]).”). Furthermore, with regard to the limitation of the protective enclosure in the second position encloses the second working area for the processing operation and at the same time exposes the first working area, in particular for access by an operator for setting up or changing workpieces in other working areas, and wherein the protective enclosure can be moved at least from the second position into the first position for a change of working area, for enclosing the first working area, simultaneously exposing at least the second working area, Kortenjan teaches the limitation as detailed above: (“on the worktable two workpieces 6a, 6b are placed on the right and left sides, of which the right pair 6a is currently being processed in the drawing. The protective cabin 4 surrounds the processing area of the processing unit 3 and prevents an operator from coming too close to the processing unit 3. After finishing the processing of the right-hand workpiece pair 6a, the processing machine 1 is instructed, for example by programming, to drive the processing unit 3 to the left to the second processing position and at the same time to set the protective area of the protective cabin 4 such that no danger to an operator is given at any time … Then, in an analogous manner, the right-hand wall 4d of the protective cabin, which is perpendicular to the direction of travel, is moved into the position required for machining the left workpiece pair 6b. The resulting state is shown in FIG. Now, the processing can be performed on the left pair of workpieces 6b, while on the right side of the chuck table 2 space for removal of the machined workpieces 6a and the armor of new workpieces is available”, pg. 4, ln. 3-15).
With regard to claim 7, Kortenjan teaches at least a first, a second work area are arranged successively along a longitudinal axis, and the protective enclosure encloses the working area by moving the protective enclosure in a linear direction successively along the longitudinal axis (“on the worktable two workpieces 6a, 6b are placed on the right and left sides, of which the right pair 6a is currently being processed in the drawing. The protective cabin 4 surrounds the processing area of the processing unit 3 and prevents an operator from coming too close to the processing unit 3. After finishing the processing of the right-hand workpiece pair 6a, the processing machine 1 is instructed, for example by programming, to drive the processing unit 3 to the left to the second processing position and at the same time to set the protective area of the protective cabin 4 such that no danger to an operator is given at any time … Then, in an analogous manner, the right-hand wall 4d of the protective cabin, which is perpendicular to the direction of travel, is moved into the position required for machining the left workpiece pair 6b. The resulting state is shown in FIG. Now, the processing can be performed on the left pair of workpieces 6b, while on the right side of the chuck table 2 space for removal of the machined workpieces 6a and the armor of new workpieces is available”, pg. 4, ln. 3-15). With regard to the limitation of and at least a further working area, it is submitted that as first and second work areas are taught by the citation as detailed above, a further working area would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to add at least one further working area as an obvious duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.VI.B) to provide for additional processing locations for quicker removal and placement of processed workpiece parts and as no unexpected and/or unpredictable results would occur with such an adaptation.
With regard to claim 8, Kortenjan teaches a working area exposed by the protective enclosure is accessible from at least one side of the working area and from the top of the working area (see FIGS. 2 & 5; “on the worktable two workpieces 6a, 6b are placed on the right and left sides, of which the right pair 6a is currently being processed in the drawing. The protective cabin 4 surrounds the processing area of the processing unit 3 and prevents an operator from coming too close to the processing unit 3. After finishing the processing of the right-hand workpiece pair 6a, the processing machine 1 is instructed, for example by programming, to drive the processing unit 3 to the left to the second processing position and at the same time to set the protective area of the protective cabin 4 such that no danger to an operator is given at any time … Then, in an analogous manner, the right-hand wall 4d of the protective cabin, which is perpendicular to the direction of travel, is moved into the position required for machining the left workpiece pair 6b. The resulting state is shown in FIG. Now, the processing can be performed on the left pair of workpieces 6b, while on the right side of the chuck table 2 space for removal of the machined workpieces 6a and the armor of new workpieces is available”, pg. 4, ln. 3-15). The limitation of “in particular to enable the working area to be loaded by a crane from above” is not provided patentable weight as the claim relates to an apparatus and the claimed “workpiece” does not limit the claim (see MPEP 2115 – Material or Article Worked Upon by Apparatus does not limit an apparatus claim)
With regard to claim 11, it is submitted that Kortenjan teaches at least a first and a second work area (“on the worktable two workpieces 6a, 6b are placed on the right and left sides, of which the right pair 6a is currently being processed in the drawing. The protective cabin 4 surrounds the processing area of the processing unit 3 and prevents an operator from coming too close to the processing unit 3. After finishing the processing of the right-hand workpiece pair 6a, the processing machine 1 is instructed, for example by programming, to drive the processing unit 3 to the left to the second processing position and at the same time to set the protective area of the protective cabin 4 such that no danger to an operator is given at any time … Then, in an analogous manner, the right-hand wall 4d of the protective cabin, which is perpendicular to the direction of travel, is moved into the position required for machining the left workpiece pair 6b. The resulting state is shown in FIG. Now, the processing can be performed on the left pair of workpieces 6b, while on the right side of the chuck table 2 space for removal of the machined workpieces 6a and the armor of new workpieces is available”, pg. 4, ln. 3-15). With regard to the limitation of the working areas can be divided by at least one further partition wall into additional partial working areas, it is submitted that as first and second work areas are taught by the citation as detailed above, a further working area would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to add at least one further working area as an obvious duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.VI.B) to provide for additional processing locations for quicker removal and placement of processed workpiece parts and as no unexpected and/or unpredictable results would occur with such an adaptation. With regard to the limitation the at least one further partition wall is a roller shutter, it is submitted that roller shutters are well known in the art to provide a protective enclosure/divider within a given space (see CN 206812441: “Using double box integral type automatic telescopic roller shutter protective covers, it includes the first roller shutter box, for the roller shutter type protective cover Two roller shutter boxes and whole piece buffer zone, the roller shutter protective cover are arranged in the guiding mechanism main body, are protected in the roller shutter The roller shutter protective cover mounting and adjusting pad, the first seal and described second are set between cover and the guiding mechanism main body The distance between seal is less than the thickness of the roller shutter protective cover buffer zone to ensure good sealing”).
With regard to claim 12, with regard to the partial working areas are enclosed from all sides by the respective roller shutters of the roller shutter device and the partition wall of the protective enclosure and the roller shutters of the partial working areas are opened and closed independently of one another, it is submitted that independent control of roller shutters is well known in the art: (see CN 206812441: “Using double box integral type automatic telescopic roller shutter protective covers, it includes the first roller shutter box, for the roller shutter type protective cover Two roller shutter boxes and whole piece buffer zone, the roller shutter protective cover are arranged in the guiding mechanism main body, are protected in the roller shutter The roller shutter protective cover mounting and adjusting pad, the first seal and described second are set between cover and the guiding mechanism main body The distance between seal is less than the thickness of the roller shutter protective cover buffer zone to ensure good sealing”; “The process of roller shutter protective cover motion is driven in power spreading device in addition In, because buffer zone is not that an entirety can cause two buffer zones during installation in two roller shutter protective covers not exclusively to locate In on straight line, therefore seal can extrude buffer zone and cause cutting of the buffer zone to seal”).
With regard to claim 13, Kortenjan teaches each working area comprises at least one modular welding bench (2), wherein the modular welding bench includes a tabletop (uppermost portion of 2 with workpieces 6a thereon as illustrated in FIG. 5) with a perforated grid for precise positioning of workpieces, a manipulator (a manipulator 3 is included above the bench 2) and/or the welding robot (the term “and/or requires only one of the claimed options – the Examiner is providing patentable weight to “a manipulator”).
With regard to claim 15, Kortenjan teaches the invention as claimed; however, Kortenjan does not teach a welding robot is provided in one of the working areas; however, Mabee which is directed toward the same field of endeavor related to a laser workstation with endless loop conveyor and coordinated access doors teaches the aforementioned limitations: “Embodiments of the present invention relate to laser processing units for performing a laser operation (e.g., cutting, welding, etc.) on a workpiece.”, para. [0023]; “one or more laser robots 24 performs a laser operation on the first workpiece”, para. [0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kortenjan reference, to include laser processing related to welding and operations being performed by means of welding robots, as suggested and taught by Mabee, for the purpose of providing laser welding operations in a precise manner at predetermined locations (Mabee: para. [0010]). Further, with regard to the limtiations of “the welding robot is enclosed from all sides by the protective enclosure at least in the first position and/or by the protective enclosure in the second position”, Kortenjan teaches the claimed structure of a protective enclosure ((see FIGS. 2 & 5; “on the worktable two workpieces 6a, 6b are placed on the right and left sides, of which the right pair 6a is currently being processed in the drawing. The protective cabin 4 surrounds the processing area of the processing unit 3 and prevents an operator from coming too close to the processing unit 3. After finishing the processing of the right-hand workpiece pair 6a, the processing machine 1 is instructed, for example by programming, to drive the processing unit 3 to the left to the second processing position and at the same time to set the protective area of the protective cabin 4 such that no danger to an operator is given at any time … Then, in an analogous manner, the right-hand wall 4d of the protective cabin, which is perpendicular to the direction of travel, is moved into the position required for machining the left workpiece pair 6b. The resulting state is shown in FIG. Now, the processing can be performed on the left pair of workpieces 6b, while on the right side of the chuck table 2 space for removal of the machined workpieces 6a and the armor of new workpieces is available”, pg. 4, ln. 3-15)).
With regard to claim 16, Kortenjan teaches the invention as claimed; however, Kortenjan does not teach the welding robot is movable along at least one axis by a receptacle and the receptacle is provided on the tabletop or one the cell roof or the cell side wall; however, Mabee which is directed toward the same field of endeavor related to a laser workstation with endless loop conveyor and coordinated access doors teaches the aforementioned limitations: FIG. 9 illustrates a robot 24 which is operable to move in multiple axes to perform a laser operation and is connected to sidewall 55. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kortenjan reference, to include the welding robot is movable along at least one axis by a receptacle and the receptacle is provided on the tabletop or one the cell roof or the cell side wall, as suggested and taught by Mabee, for the purpose of providing laser welding operations in a precise manner at predetermined locations (Mabee: para. [0010]). With regard to the limitations of the receptacle is configured in such a way to position the welding robot in all working areas located in the protective enclosure, the receptacle comprising a linear guide and/or an excentric axis, Mabee teaches utilizing a linear flow of workpieces through the laser processing unit (“It is to be appreciated that the laser processing unit 10 can be operated to provide a linear flow of workpieces through the laser processing unit, or in a reciprocating manner. If operated in a reciprocating manner, the laser processing unit 10 can be configured to accommodate workpieces having different shapes, as discussed above. If operated to provide a linear flow of workpieces, all of the workpiece supports or shuttles would typically have a substantially similar configuration, to accommodate one type of workpiece at a time.”, para. [0038])
With regard to claim 17, Kortenjan does not teach the protective enclosure comprises at least one linear guide rail for movement and the guide rail is provided on the underside of the cell roof and rests on at least one guide device, it is submitted that guide rails with a corresponding guide device are well known in the art for furthering movement of a subject device. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Trump is cited herein for its teachings related to the aforementioned limitations: “For folding the first foldable radiation protection wall 24 and the further foldable radiation protection wall 25 becomes the driver 34 by means of the pneumatic piston-cylinder unit 32 along the guide rail 33 towards the workroom 6 postponed. Together with the driver 34 they move over the driver 34 on the guide rail 33 guided wall elements 26 . 27 . 29 . 30 the first foldable radiation protection wall 24 and the further foldable radiation protection wall 25 , wherein the adjacent wall elements 26 . 27 ; 29 . 30 around the respective pivot axis 28 . 31 perform pivoting movements relative to each other. In the fully folded state ( 1d ) are the wall elements 26 . 27 . 29 . 30 the first foldable radiation protection wall 24 and the further foldable radiation protection wall 25 each pushed together into a compact package.”, pg. 8, ln. 30-35. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kortenjan reference, to include the protective enclosure comprises at least one linear guide rail for movement and the guide rail is provided on the underside of the cell roof and rests on at least one guide device, as suggested and taught by Trumpf, for the purpose of providing a movable mechanism to a protective enclosure.
With regard to claim 19, Kortenjan teaches the cell roof comprises at least one extraction opening (protective enclosure 4 has an opening as illustrated in FIG. 2) and/or a movable extraction device which can be moved along by the movement of the protective enclosure.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortenjan (EP 1840448), Trumpf (DE 202017107190), and Mabee (US 20150273641) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Saotome et al. (US 4943724).
With regard to claim 2, Kortenjan as modified by Trumpf and Mabee teaches the invention as detailed above, and Korenjan further teaches an open position allowing access to the working area enclosed by the protective enclose and in a closed position closes off the working area as detailed above (FIGS. 2 & 5; “on the worktable two workpieces 6a, 6b are placed on the right and left sides, of which the right pair 6a is currently being processed in the drawing. The protective cabin 4 surrounds the processing area of the processing unit 3 and prevents an operator from coming too close to the processing unit 3. After finishing the processing of the right-hand workpiece pair 6a, the processing machine 1 is instructed, for example by programming, to drive the processing unit 3 to the left to the second processing position and at the same time to set the protective area of the protective cabin 4 such that no danger to an operator is given at any time … Then, in an analogous manner, the right-hand wall 4d of the protective cabin, which is perpendicular to the direction of travel, is moved into the position required for machining the left workpiece pair 6b. The resulting state is shown in FIG. Now, the processing can be performed on the left pair of workpieces 6b, while on the right side of the chuck table 2 space for removal of the machined workpieces 6a and the armor of new workpieces is available”, pg. 4, ln. 3-15). However, Kortenjan does not teach utilizing a roller shutter device to further said movement; however, Saotome directed toward the same problem of moving respective elements between multiple locations teaches the aforementioned limitation: drive rollers 327 are situated at the top of a case 307 with said rollers 327 providing movement of a component 320 (FIG. 11A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kortenjan reference, to include a roller shutter device, as suggested and taught by Saotome, for the purpose of providing enhanced movement to the protective enclosure 4 of Kortenjan.
With regard to claim 4, Kortenjan teaches the protective enclosure device as claimed; however, the citation does not teach adjacent to the cell side wall, at least a cell front side with a front roller shutter device and a cell rear side with a rear roller shutter device, and wherein the protective enclosure can at least partially be closed by the front and/or rear roller shutter device. However, it is submitted that it is well known in the art to utilize rollers for actuation or movement of a subject component. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Saotome is cited herefor for teaching a first roller section 40 and a second roller section 50 with the first and second roller sections 40/50 being situated at respective front and rear portions of the enclosure 1 (see FIG. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kortenjan reference, to include adjacent to the cell side wall, at least a cell front side with a front roller shutter device and a cell rear side with a rear roller shutter device, and wherein the protective enclosure can at least partially be closed by the front and/or rear roller shutter device, as suggested and taught by Saotome, for the purpose of providing actuation and/or movement of a subject component at one or more predetermined locations.
With regard to claim 9, Kortenjan teaches the protective enclosure device as claimed; however, the citation does not teach the roller shutter device comprises at least one roller shutter capable of completely closing the front or rear of the protective enclosure; and the roller shutters of the roller shutter device can be interconnectable to further divide the working areas into sub-working areas. However, it is submitted that it is well known in the art to utilize rollers for actuation or movement of a subject component. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Saotome is cited herein for teaching a first roller section 40 and a second roller section 50 with the first and second roller sections 40/50 being situated at respective front and rear portions of the enclosure 1 (see FIG. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kortenjan reference, to include roller shutter device comprises at least one roller shutter capable of completely closing the front or rear of the protective enclosure; and the roller shutters of the roller shutter device can be interconnectable to further divide the working areas into sub-working areas, as suggested and taught by Saotome, for the purpose of providing actuation and/or movement of a subject component at one or more predetermined locations.
With regard to claim 10, Kortenjan teaches the protective enclosure device as claimed; however, the citation does not teach the roller shutter device comprises at least one roller shutter mount and the roller shutter mount is provided on the inside in the cell roof, wherein the roller shutter mount moves a roller shutter from the cell roof to the floor of the working area to close the protective enclosure and from the floor of the working area to the cell roof to open the protective enclosure. However, it is submitted that it is well known in the art to utilize rollers for actuation or movement of a subject component. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Saotome is cited herein for teaching a first roller section 40 and a second roller section 50 with the first and second roller sections 40/50 being situated at respective front and rear portions of the enclosure 1 (see FIG. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kortenjan reference, to include the roller shutter device comprises at least one roller shutter mount and the roller shutter mount is provided on the inside in the cell roof, wherein the roller shutter mount moves a roller shutter from the cell roof to the floor of the working area to close the protective enclosure and from the floor of the working area to the cell roof to open the protective enclosure, as suggested and taught by Saotome, for the purpose of providing actuation and/or movement of a subject component at one or more predetermined locations.
With regard to claim 14, Kortenjan teaches the protective enclosure device as claimed; however, the citation does not teach the limitation of the protective enclosure comprises at least one roller shutter device on each of three sides; however, it is submitted that it is well known in the art to utilize rollers for actuation or movement of a subject component. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Saotome is cited herefor for teaching a first roller section 40 and a second roller section 50 with the first and second roller sections 40/50 being situated at respective front and rear portions of the enclosure 1 (see FIG. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kortenjan reference, to include at least one roller shutter device on each of three sides, as suggested and taught by Saotome, for the purpose of providing actuation and/or movement of a subject component at one or more predetermined locations. With regard to the limitations of on each of four sides, and the roller shutter devices completely close the three sides or four sides of the protective enclosure by at least one roller shutter in each case, so that the roller shutters and the cell side wall enclose the working area located under the protective enclosure from all sides, it is submitted that the limitation of roller shutter devices is well known in the art as detailed above, and furthermore, the duplication of roller shutters to cover respective sides of a predetermined location would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious duplication of parts to achieve a desired closure within the predetermined location (see MPEP 2144.04 VI.B Duplication of Parts).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/26 have been fully considered and are addressed hereafter. At pg. 10 of the Applicant’s office action response, it is asserted: “specifically, the teachings of Kortenjan in view of Trumpf do not refer to the field of welding or welding work but a remote technical field. Welding has particular boundary restrictions, such as temperature, heating of the air/atmosphere in the cabin/roof, exhaust air, light emissions, etc, which are very specific and should be considered. Accordingly, a skilled person in the search for a solution to the technical problem would therefore not have been led to consult those documents in the first place. These documents are particularly unsuitable with regard to the implementation of a roof for the optimized supply of welding gases into a corresponding extraction system…” As an initial matter, with regard to Applicant’s comments regarding “a corresponding extraction system”, it is respectfully submitted that the independent claim does not recite an ”extraction system”, and as such, it is respectfully submitted that the aforementioned features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, it appears that the Applicant is furthering a non-analogous art argument regarding the secondary citation Trumpf; however, it is respectfully submitted that Trump is cited herein for teaching a protective enclosure with a cell roof with side walls connected thereto. Furthermore, Trump is directly analogous to the subject invention of the instant application, as Trump’s application title is “laser processing machine for machining workpieces, with a work space and with a loading area”, and additionally, as the independent claim of the instant patent application recites that the protective enclosure is directed to “welding operation and/or cutting operations”, Trumpf explicitly teaches: “In the workroom 6 inside the enclosure 5 is one in the 1a to 1d unrecognizable laser processing device, in the illustrated example, a laser cutting device for the cutting processing of pipes housed” (emphasis added), it is respectfully submitted that Trumpf is indeed an analogous prior art citation.
At pg. 11 of Applicant’s office action response, it is asserted: “moreover, the concepts of Kortenjan, which according to the examiner offers the most similarities with the claimed subject-matter, are incompatible with those of Trump and Mabee. Only the former has several stationary working areas, with the latter using a conveyor belt system, which is substantially different.” It is respectfully submitted that the secondary citations are cited for specific teachings (e.g., Trumpf is cited for teaching a protective enclosure having a cell roof with a sidewall connected thereto, and Mabee is cited for its teachings related to laser processing related to welding and operations being performed by means of welding robots), and as such, the secondary prior art references in their entirety are not being employed in furthering the subject obviousness rejections, but instead specific teachings from said secondary prior art citations are being employed to further the subject obviousness rejections. It must be stressed that the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex particularly emphasized: "’the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,’Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that ‘[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.’Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. The Supreme Court stated that there are ‘[t]hree cases decided after Graham [that] illustrate this doctrine.’ Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (1) ‘In United States v. Adams, . . . [t]he Court recognized that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.’ Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (2) ‘In Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., . . . [t]he two [pre-existing elements] in combination did no more than they would in separate, sequential operation.’Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (3) ‘[I]n Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., the Court derived . . . the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.’ Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96 (Internal quotations omitted.). The principles underlining these cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent application claiming the combination of elements of prior art would have been obvious. The Supreme Court further stated that: When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396…..”
At pgs. 11-12 various comments are presented regarding the asserted combination of Kortenjan with Mabee. The Applicant identifies various structural limitations of Mabee (the secondary prior art citation) indicating in essence that these structural features would render the primary prior art citation (Kortenjan) inoperable for its intended purpose. However, again as stated above, Mabee is cited for two specific teachings, namely its teachings related to laser processing related to welding and operations being performed by means of welding robots. The Examiner has cited Mabee in the above obviousness rejections for its teachings related to these two elements within the independent claim.
At pg. 12 the Applicant furthers comments related to various teachings within the written description of the instant patent application in relation to the independent claim; however, as stated above and again herein, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). If the Applicant desires a specific claim interpretation, the claims should explicitly recite these specific limitations.
At pgs. 12-13 the Applicant furthers various comments regarding Mabee’s laser workstation in essence which appears to further an argument that the prior art citations are not physically combinable (e.g., “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Kortenjan’s movable protective cabin with Mabee’s laser workstation because doing so would require abandoning either Kortenjan’s movable enclosure concept or Mabee’s coordinated door and conveyor system”. It is respectfully submitted that ““It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)) (see MPEP 2145.III – Arguing that Prior Art Devices Are Not Physically Combinable).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights