DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 6 and 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 “mechanical transfer unit” 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. The specification fails to describe what are the components of the mechanical transfer unit, or its equivalent. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbecke (WO 2019/238883 A1) in view of Reinhold et al. (DE 102017220064).
Regarding claim 1, Robbecke discloses a screwing device (10; Fig. 1) comprising a connection portion (6) configured to be detachably attached to a robot arm (16), a housing (18), a screw holding portion (5) fixed to the housing (18), wherein the screw holding portion (5) is configured to hold a screw (1; Fig. 2) in such a manner that the screw (1) can be brought into contact with a screw hole (9) of an object (2) arranged in a predefined position. Robbecke discloses an alert unit (15; pg. 6, 3rd paragraph) configured to allow the screw holding portion (5) to be moved away from a structure (2) when a force by which the structure (i.e., corresponding touch of an operator; not shown) presses against the screw holding portion (5) or the screw (1) held by the screw holding portion (5) exceeds a predefined level, the alert unit (15) is configured to interrupt the motion of the screwing device (10).
Regarding claim 9, Robbecke discloses a method for using a screwing device (10; Fig. 1), wherein the screwing device (10) comprises a connection portion (6) configured to be detachably attached to a robot arm (16) to conduct a safe screwing operation, a housing (18), a screw holding portion (5) fixed to the housing (18), wherein the screw holding portion (5) is configured to hold a screw (2) in such a manner that the screw (2) can be brought into contact with a screw hole (9) of an object (2) arranged in a predefined position.
Robbecke, however, does not disclose the following: a motor arranged to rotate the screw holding portion with respect to a longitudinal axis of movement of the screw holding portion; wherein the alert unit is configured to bring the screwing device into failure mode, in which the motor is turned off when the force exceeds the predefined level; allowing the screw holding portion to be moved away from a structure when a force by which the structure presses against the screw holding portion or the screw held by the screw holding portion exceeds predefined level; or bringing the screwing device into a failure mode, in which the motor is turned off when the force exceeds the predefined level.
Reinhold discloses a motor (i.e., drive motor; pg. 5, lines 31-33) arranged to rotate the screw holding portion (6) with respect to a longitudinal axis of movement of the screw holding portion (6). Reinhold discloses wherein an alert unit (32) is configured to bring the screwing device (10) into failure mode (pg. 7, line 35- pg. 8, line 4), in which the motor is turned off (pg. 8, lines 3-4) when the force (pg. 2, [0006]; pg. 4, [0012], lines 1-8; pg. 7, line 35- pg. 8, line 4) exceeds the predefined level. Reinhold discloses a control unit (30) connected to the sensor unit/alert unit (32) and the screw drive (12) which includes a drive motor and the screw holding portion (6). If the alert unit (32) senses any irregularities in the set parameters concerning force and distance regarding the screw drive (12), then the control unit (30) immediately interrupts/stops movement of the screw along the feed path which in this case in this longitudinal direction. Therefore, since the movement of the screw drive (12) is stopped one can readily assume the drive motor is turned off as well. Reinhold discloses allowing the screw holding portion (6) to be moved away (pg. 4, [0012], lines 1-8) from a structure (not shown) when a force (pg. 2, [0006]; pg. 4, [0012], lines 1-8; pg. 7, line 35 - pg. 8, line 4) by which the structure presses against the screw holding portion (6) exceeds predefined level, and bringing the screwing device (10) into a failure mode (pg. 7, line 35- pg. 8, line 4), in which the motor is inherently turned off when the force exceeds the predefined level.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to provide the automatic screwing device of Robbecke with a motor arranged to rotate the screw holding portion with respect to a longitudinal axis of movement of the screw holding portion, to configure the alert unit of Robbecke to bring the screwing device into failure mode, in which the motor is turned off when the force exceeds the predefined level, to allow the screw holding portion of Robbecke to be moved away from a structure when a force by which the structure presses against the screw holding portion exceeds predefined level, and to bring the screwing device of Robbecke into a failure mode, in which the motor is turned off when the force exceeds the predefined level, in light of the teachings of Reinhold, in order to improve the safety conditions of the worker collaborating or working with the screwing-in device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 3 of the response, filed 11/4/2025, with respect to “connection portion” and “screw holding portion” being interpreted as means plus function have been fully considered and are persuasive. The interpretation of “connection portion” and “screw holding portion” as means plus function has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/4/2025 with respect to the “mechanical transfer unit” being interpreted as means plus function have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states “Regarding the element "mechanical transfer unit," while the MPEP states that "unit" can be a generic placeholder, the Examiner has not cited any case law that states that the term "unit" is always a generic placeholder. Furthermore, the Examiner has not presented any reasoning why "mechanical transfer unit" is necessarily a means-plus-element. Accordingly, the Examiner has not met his burden and so the elements in question are not to be interpreted as means-plus-function elements.”
In response, the examiner maintains the “mechanical transfer unit” means plus function language. The “mechanical transfer unit” does impart any structure in claims 6 and 11. In addition, applicant’s specification fails to identify or describe any components of the mechanical transfer unit. Applicant is also directed to MPEP 2181 (I)(A) for further clarification regarding means plus function interpretation.
Also as cited previously in paragraph 3 above and again for applicant’s convenience,
“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.”
Applicant has failed to do either (a) or (b) and as such the examiner
maintains “the mechanical transfer unit” is means plus function.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-4 of the response, filed 11/4/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5 of the response, filed 11/4/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 9 under 35 USC 103 as being obvious in view of Robbecke and Clark have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Robbecke and Reinhold (DE 102017220064).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMIE E COZART whose telephone number is (571)272-4528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/JERMIE E COZART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
February 4, 2026