DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim status
Claims 1-12 are currently pending for examination.
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: “autonomous safety system configured to”, “safety sensor configured to – corresponding to element 8a in Fig. 1”, “inductive sensors configured to – corresponding to elements 3c in Fig. 3” in claims 2 and 10.
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.
Claims 1-11 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 “autonomous safety system configured to” in claim 1 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. 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.
Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1. Claims 2-11 are indefinite because they depend on a base claim that is indefinite.
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)(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, 3-4, 8-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marc et al. (Marc; EP 3770708A1; machine translation is used).
For claim 1, Marc discloses a system for controlling access to at least one nest of a production line [E.g. 0038: The robot cell 2 comprises a robot 3 and a cell 4 assigned to the robot 3.The cell 4 is closed at the rear with a rear wall 5 and at the sides with a side wall 6, 7 each. The front of cell 4 is open and forms an entrance for the driverless transport system 8. These walls are oriented perpendicular to a floor on which the driverless transport system 8 travels. The driverless transport system 8 must be moved into the cell 4 to deliver material for the robot 3], the nest comprising an inside space delimited by a barrier, a parts collection area and a vehicle access area [E.g. 0038: The robot cell 2 comprises a robot 3 and a cell 4 assigned to the robot 3.The cell 4 is closed at the rear with a rear wall 5 and at the sides with a side wall 6, 7 each. The front of cell 4 is open and forms an entrance for the driverless transport system 8. These walls are oriented perpendicular to a floor on which the driverless transport system 8 travels. The driverless transport system 8 must be moved into the cell 4 to deliver material for the robot 3], the production line comprising safety means configured to send signals of an incident when an incident is detected on the production line [E.g. 0057: The area distance sensor 9a on the rear wall 5 of the cell 4 monitors that no object 13 or person is present there. For this purpose, the area distance sensor 9a monitors a protective field 25 that covers the interior of the cell 4. The protective field 25, like the protective fields 26 - 29 of all other area distance sensors 9a - 9e, runs in a horizontal plane, i.e. parallel to the track of the driverless transport system 8. The light curtain 10c monitors within a protective field 26 whether an object 13 or a person enters the cell 4. The protective field 26 of the light curtain 10c runs in a vertical plane. The area distance sensor 9d on the front of the driverless transport system 8 monitors the area in front of the driverless transport system 8 within a protective field 27; 0058: Figure 4 shows the fault-free state of the arrangement, i.e. there is no object 13 in the protective fields 25, 26, 27. This means that, for example, working movements of the robot 3 can be released via the control unit 24. Furthermore, the driverless transport system 8 can move at the target speed, 0059: If an object intrusion is detected in protective field 25 or protective field 26, robot 3 is stopped. In addition, a signal is sent from the control unit 24 or one of the sensors of the robot cell 2 to the control unit 23 of the driverless transport system 8 that entry into the cell 4 is not permitted], the system comprising:
access request means, configured to send an access request signal to the nest when an automated guided vehicle intending to stock the nest with assembly parts reaches a predetermined distance from the vehicle access area [E.g. 0061: Then the driverless transport system 8 sends a request to enter cell 4. As Figure 6 shows, the transmitter unit 20b of the light barrier 10b sends its light beams 22 to the receiver unit 21b of the cell 4 on the rear wall 5. As soon as the receiver unit 21b has received the light beams 22, it sends corresponding information to the transmitter unit 20a of the light barrier 10a, which then sends its light beams 22 to the receiver unit 21a of this light barrier 10a on the driverless transport system 8 ( Figure 7 ). This acknowledgement signal authorizes the entry of the driverless transport system 8 into cell 4. Alternatively, communication can also take place directly via the control unit 23], the automated guided vehicle being provided with an autonomous safety system configured to prevent the vehicle from moving when the autonomous safety system detects the proximity of an obstacle [E.g. 0057: The area distance sensor 9a on the rear wall 5 of the cell 4 monitors that no object 13 or person is present there. For this purpose, the area distance sensor 9a monitors a protective field 25 that covers the interior of the cell 4. The protective field 25, like the protective fields 26 - 29 of all other area distance sensors 9a - 9e, runs in a horizontal plane, i.e. parallel to the track of the driverless transport system 8. The light curtain 10c monitors within a protective field 26 whether an object 13 or a person enters the cell 4. The protective field 26 of the light curtain 10c runs in a vertical plane. The area distance sensor 9d on the front of the driverless transport system 8 monitors the area in front of the driverless transport system 8 within a protective field 27; 0060: Figure 5 shows the driverless transport system 8 after approaching the robot cell 2, so that the area distance sensors 9b, 9c are located in the protective field 27. This means that the driverless transport system 8 stops. The driverless transport system 8 will of course also stop if other objects protrude into the protective field 27; 0059];
occupation detection means, configured to detect whether the space inside the nest is occupied, and to emit an inoccupation signal in the case that the space inside the nest is not occupied, and to emit an occupation signal in the case that the space inside the nest is occupied [E.g. 0057: The area distance sensor 9a on the rear wall 5 of the cell 4 monitors that no object 13 or person is present there. For this purpose, the area distance sensor 9a monitors a protective field 25 that covers the interior of the cell 4. The protective field 25, like the protective fields 26 - 29 of all other area distance sensors 9a - 9e, runs in a horizontal plane, i.e. parallel to the track of the driverless transport system 8. The light curtain 10c monitors within a protective field 26 whether an object 13 or a person enters the cell 4. The protective field 26 of the light curtain 10c runs in a vertical plane. The area distance sensor 9d on the front of the driverless transport system 8 monitors the area in front of the driverless transport system 8 within a protective field 27; 0059: If an object intrusion is detected in protective field 25 or protective field 26, robot 3 is stopped. In addition, a signal is sent from the control unit 24 or one of the sensors of the robot cell 2 to the control unit 23 of the driverless transport system 8 that entry into the cell 4 is not permitted];
connection means configured so that once an inoccupation signal is received from the occupation detection means, the automated guided vehicle be connected to the safety means of the production line and configured to stop the automated guided vehicle in case of receiving a signal of an incident from the safety means of the production line [E.g. 0051: The communication modules form a communication device via which information can be exchanged bidirectionally. In this case, a contactless communication device is provided, with the information being transmitted between the communication modules as radio signals. Accordingly, each communication module has a radio transmitter and a radio receiver; 0052: Alternatively, wired data transmissions can be provided; 0058: Figure 4 shows the fault-free state of the arrangement, i.e. there is no object 13 in the protective fields 25, 26, 27. This means that, for example, working movements of the robot 3 can be released via the control unit 24. Furthermore, the driverless transport system 8 can move at the target speed, 0059: If an object intrusion is detected in protective field 25 or protective field 26, robot 3 is stopped. In addition, a signal is sent from the control unit 24 or one of the sensors of the robot cell 2 to the control unit 23 of the driverless transport system 8 that entry into the cell 4 is not permitted]; and
means for opening and closing the parts collection area, connected to the connection means and configured to close the parts collection area before the vehicle enters the space inside the nest and to open the parts collection area when the vehicle has completed its access into the space inside the nest [E.g. 0065: Figure 12 shows the driverless transport system 8 when it has moved into its target position in cell 4.The target position is detected by the fact that the protective field 26 of the light curtain 10c is now free. The light barriers 10a, 10b are then deactivated. The area distance sensors 9b, 9c, 9e now monitor a common protective field 28, which includes the area in front of cell 4. This monitors access to cell 4. When the driverless transport system 8 is in the target position, the robot 3 can perform loading or unloading operations on the driverless transport system 8, as illustrated by the double arrow II].
For claim 3, Marc discloses wherein the access request means comprise a receiving photocell arranged in the vehicle access area and an emitting photocell arranged in the automated guided vehicle [E.g. 0047, 0061, 0062, 0066; see transmitter unit 20b and receiver unit 21b].
For claim 4, Marc discloses wherein the access request means comprise a receiving photocell arranged in the automated guided vehicle and an emitting photocell arranged in the vehicle access area [E.g. 0047, 0061, 0062, 0066; see receiver unit 21a, transmitter unit 20a].
For claim 8, Marc discloses wherein the occupation detection means are provided with a safety laser scanner housed in the space inside the nest [E.g. 0046: In the monitoring device 1 according to Figure 1, the following sensors are provided for danger area monitoring. A first surface distance sensor 9a is provided on the rear wall 5 of the cell 4, with which the interior of the cell 4 can be monitored. At the edges of the side walls 6, 7 bordering the entrance there are two further area distance sensors 9b, 9c, by means of which the area in front of the cell 4 can be monitored].
For claim 9, Marc discloses wherein the occupation detection means are provided with a photoelectric barrier arranged in the vehicle access area [E.g. 0047: On the rear wall 5 of the cell 4 there is a transmitter unit 20a which, together with a receiver unit 21a on the front side of the driverless transport system 8, forms a first light barrier 10a, i.e. the transmitter unit 20a comprises only one transmitter and the receiver unit 21a comprises only one receiver. On the rear wall 5 of the cell 4 there is also a receiver unit 21b, which forms a further light barrier 10b with a transmitter unit 20b on the front. At the edges of the cell 4 bordering the entrance there are a transmitter unit 20c and a receiver unit 21c of a light curtain 10c].
For claim 12, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 5, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Marc.
For claim 5, Although Yang fails to expressly disclose wherein the access request means comprise an emitting/receiving photocell arranged in the vehicle access area and an optical reflection device arranged in the automated guided vehicle, Marc teaches the access request means comprise an emitting/receiving photocell arranged in the vehicle access area and in the automated guided vehicle [0047, 0061, 0062, 0066]. However, having the access request means comprise an emitting/receiving photocell arranged in the vehicle access area and an optical reflection device arranged in the automated guided vehicle fails to yield unexpected results; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marc to include the access request means comprise an emitting/receiving photocell arranged in the vehicle access area and an optical reflection device arranged in the automated guided vehicle in order to satisfy system needs and/or environment requirement, also because such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentable distinguish over Marc.
For claim 7, Although Yang fails to expressly disclose wherein the access request means comprise two photocells, the beams of which cross at one point, situated at the predetermined distance to the vehicle access area, Marc teaches the access request means comprise two photocells situated at the predetermined distance to the vehicle access area [0047, 0061, 0062, 0066]. However, having the two photocells, the beams of which cross at one point, situated at the predetermined distance to the vehicle access area fails to yield unexpected results; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marc to include the two photocells, the beams of which cross at one point, situated at the predetermined distance to the vehicle access area in order to satisfy system needs and/or environment requirement, also because such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentable distinguish over Marc.
For claim 11, Although Yang fails to expressly wherein the connection means comprise a single beam emitter and a single beam receiver, Marc teaches the connection means comprise a beam emitter and a beam receiver [0047, 0061, 0062, 0065-0066]. However, having the beam emitter and the beam receiver as a single beams emitter and receiver fails to yield unexpected results; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marc to include a single beam emitter and a single beam receiver in order to satisfy system needs and/or environment requirement, also because such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentable distinguish over Marc.
14. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Marc in view of Official Notice.
For claim 6, Marc fails to expressly disclose wherein the access request means comprise at least one inductive sensor connected to a programmable logic controller and a portion of ferrous material.
However, examiner takes official notice that having access request means comprises at least one inductive sensor connected to a programmable logic controller and a portion of ferrous material is well-known in the art of access and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to offers high reliability, low maintenance, and flexibility.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 2 and 10 are 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.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is (571)270-3696. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. 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.
/MOHAMED BARAKAT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689