DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 now defines over Kawaura because the claim has been amended to require that the slide mechanism be configured to cause the workpiece platform to slide in the approaching direction from the initial position, and argues that Kawaura’s workpiece platform and first workpiece would be fixed because clamp 22 is fixed (pp. 7–8).
The Office understands Applicant’s point, but Applicant’s arguments rely on an assumption that Kawaura’s fixed clamp 22 and movable clamp 23 must both clamp the workpiece at the same time. Kawaura does not explicitly disclose whether both clamps would have to clamp the workpiece at the same time. The Office now rejects claim 1 under § 103 in view of Kawaura, arguing that it would have been obvious to render each clamp independently operable as part of allowing the apparatus to be more controllable for common purposes, e.g. permitting testing the operability of one clamp independently of the other.
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.
Claim 4–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 ends by reciting “the force acquisition section,” which lacks antecedent basis, and should clearly be amended to accommodate for how that limitation has been replaced by “the processor” elsewhere in the claim.
Claim 5 also recites “the force acquisition section” in an analogous section on line 15, and should also be amended to accommodate for how that limitation has been replaced by “the processor” elsewhere in the claim.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected due to dependency upon a rejected claim.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaura et al. (JP 2000-094248, document and translation provided by Applicant).
Claim 1: Kawaura discloses an industrial machine comprising:
a workpiece platform (23) on which a first workpiece (W1) is placed;
a pair of positioners (14, 15) configured to clamp the first workpiece placed on the workpiece platform (14 moves along linear guide 12, and 15 moves along linear guide 13, see fig. 1), one of the pair of positioners being movable toward and away from the other of the pair of positioners (ibid.); and
a slide mechanism (13) configured to support the workpiece platform slidably in an approaching direction in which the one of the pair of positioners approaches the other of the pair of positioners (23 is capable of sliding on 13 in both directions, while 14 and 15 both slide on 12 and 13, respectively, in both directions),
wherein the slide mechanism is configured to:
allow the workpiece platform to slide in the approaching direction from a predetermined initial position (either end of the slide positions able to be taken by 23 can fairly constitute a predetermined initial position from which the workpiece platform can slide in what can be considered the approaching direction), while it restricts the workpiece platform from sliding in a direction opposite to the approaching direction from the initial position (being at either end of the slide positions able to be taken by 23 would prevent it from sliding in the opposite direction).
Kawaura does not explicitly disclose that its slide mechanism is configured to cause the workpiece platform to slide in the approaching direction from the initial position together with the first workpiece, when the one of the pair of positioners pushes the first workpiece in the approaching direction in order to clamp the first workpiece by the pair of positioners. This is essentially because it’s not clear if fixed clamp 22 and movable clamp 23 are designed to clamp the workpiece together or independently. If fixed clamp 22 could be inactive while movable clamp 23 was active, the workpiece platform and the first workpiece could move together in the approaching direction.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to render each clamp 22 and 23 independently operable as part of allowing the apparatus to be more controllable for common purposes, e.g. permitting testing the operability of one clamp independently of the other.
Claim 8: Kawaura discloses that each of the pair of positioners includes a rotary table configured to rotate the clamped first workpiece about an axis parallel to the approaching direction (14a–14c and 14e, and 15a–15c and 15e).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5–7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The subject matter of claims 3 and 4 were previously rejected with a citation to Nijakowski. However, the subject matter of now-canceled claim 2 has been incorporated into claim 1 from which claims 3 and 4 each depend, and Nijakowski does not disclose those limitations, nor would it have been obvious to combine Kawaura and Nijakowski to arrive at the claimed invention given the significant differences between Kawaura and Nijakowski.
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 John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights