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 .
Statement re Text of U.S. Code
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
in the event that such is intended via the language of claim 4, plural fastening portions that are (all/both) disposed at two opposite sides of the first positioning member (i.e., a single fastening portion) (noting that as shown, it is noted that the drawings do not show that are all disposed, such as by being large enough to extend to plural sides, for example, of the first positioning member 22; see Figure 2A).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
the specification does not provide (literal) antecedent basis for the claim terms “transporting device” (now recited in claims 1-2), “adjusting member” (now recited in claim 1), and “supporting component” (now recited in claim 2). Applicant may wish to consider amending the specification such that for one of the mentions of the “transport device”, the specification is amended to read –transport device, i.e., transporting device--, and such that for one of the mentions of the “adjustment member”, the specification is amended to read – adjustment member, i.e., adjusting member--, and such that for one of the mentions of the “support component”, the specification is amended to read – support component, i.e., supporting component--.
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:
“transporting device” in claim 1, lines 2, 7-8, and 23-24 (noting that as amended 7/25/2025, the limitation now utilizes the verb “transporting” coupled with the generic placeholder “device”);
“adjusting member” in claim 1, lines 16 and 19 (noting that as amended 7/25/2025, the limitation now utilizes the verb “adjusting” coupled with the generic placeholder “member”);
“gripping portion” in claim 2, lines 7-9;
“holding member” in claim 2, line 8;
“carrying portion” (“for arranging the gripping portion”) in claim 2, lines 8-9, 11, 12, and 15;
“a first positioning member” in claim 4;
“fastening portions” in claim 4;
a “driving member for driving the first support structure to displace, thereby driving the height milling component to move linearly to perform a height milling machining on the target object”, as set forth in claim 4;
“a second positioning member” in claim 7;
“a fastening portion” in claim 7;
“positioning member” in claim 9, lines 8-9;
“fastening structure” in claim 9, last two lines; and
“driving member” in claim 12, lines 6 and 9.
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.
It is noted that the term “transporting device” in claim 2 is not considered to invoke 35 USC 112(f), (i.e., 35 USC 112(f) is uninvoked in claim 2) because claim 2 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, noting that claim 2 further recites “wherein the transporting device comprises a supporting component and at least one picking and placing component displaceably disposed on the supporting component and cooperating with the supporting component to move the target object, thereby picking and placing the target object, wherein the supporting component includes two rod frames and a beam arranged on the two rod frames, the picking and placing component includes a gripping portion with a holding member and a carrying portion for arranging the gripping portion, wherein the beam is equipped with a sliding rail and a sliding base for guiding displacement of the picking and placing component, the sliding rail is fixed on the beam, the sliding base is fixed on the carrying portion, the sliding base and the carrying portion move linearly on the sliding rail, and wherein the beam is equipped with at least one rack and a gear that is pivotally connected to the picking and placing component, the rack is fixed on the beam, and wherein a servo motor and a speed reducer are fixed on the carrying portion, the servo motor actuates the gear to rotate and roll along the rack to linearly displace the picking and placing component, so that the picking and placing component is stably linearly displaced between the two rod frames via the sliding rail”.
It is noted that the newly-added term “supporting component” in claim 2 is not considered to invoke 35 USC 112(f), noting that claim 2 recites sufficient structure to perform the function of supporting (“wherein the supporting component includes two rod frames and a beam arranged on the two rod frames…”, for example).
Also, it is noted that the term “fastening structure” in claim 10 is not considered to invoke 35 USC 112(f), because claim 10 further recites that the fastening structure “is a physically pressing head or a vacuum adsorption head”, and thus recites sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
Additionally, it is noted that the term “driving member” in claim 14 is not considered to invoke 35 USC 112(f) because claim 14 further recites sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-19 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.
In claim 1, lines 11-13, the claim now recites “two first support structures, each of which has sliding rails disposed on surfaces of two opposite sides of the corresponding first support structure”. However, it is unclear how many sliding rails are required to be disposed on which/how many surfaces. For example, it is unclear as claimed whether, for each of the first support structures, each such first support structure having a respective two opposite sides, and each of the two opposite sides having one sliding rail, will meet the limitation in question, or whether each of the two opposite sides must include a respective plurality of sliding rails in order to meet the limitation.
In claim 1, lines 14-15, the claim recites “two carrying frames symmetrically disposed on two opposite sides of the first support structure”. However, noting that plural first support structures were previously recited, it is unclear as claimed how many carrying frames are required in order to meet this limitation, i.e., two carrying frames per first support structure for a total of four carrying frames, or two carrying frames for one of the first support structures for a total of two carrying frames.
Additionally, in claim 1, lines 15-16, it is unclear as claimed whether “an adjusting member are included” is intended to go with “each of which” (first support structures) “has an adjusting member”, or whether “an adjusting member are included” is instead intended to go with “a height milling component, in which…” (from lines 9-10 of claim 1). That said, it is further unclear how many adjusting members are intended to be required, i.e., just one adjusting member, total, for the height milling component (whether or not the adjusting member is included with one of the first support structures) vs. one adjusting member per first support structure (for a total of two adjusting members, each of which is included with the corresponding first support structure), vs. one adjusting member that is included with one of the first support structures.
There are several positively recited limitations that lack sufficient antecedent bases in the claims. Examples of this are as follows:
“the four corners” in claim 1, line 5 (noting that no corners were previously recited, and it is not inherent that the target object has four corners);
“the two opposite sides” (of the first support structure) in claim 1, lines 14-15, and in claim 3 (noting that plural sets of two opposite sides were previously recited, i.e., each of the two first support structures having two opposite sides, thus rendering it unclear which specific two opposite sides are intended to be referenced);
“the first support structure” in claim 1, line 15, in claim 3, and in claim 4 (plural first support structures previously recited, rendering it unclear which specific one of the first support structures is intended to be referenced);
“the sliding rails” in claim 1, lines 18 and 20 (in the event that plural sliding rails per side of each of two opposite sides of plural first support structures were intended to be recited in claim 1, lines 11-13, then referencing “the sliding rails” in lines 18 and 20 in the manner set forth in those lines renders it unclear which specific ones of the sliding rails previously recited are being referenced);
“the carrying frame” in claim 1, lines 18 and 19-20, and plural occurrences throughout claim 3 (noting that plural carrying frames were previously recited, thus rendering it unclear which specific carrying frame is intended to be referenced);
“the adjusting member” in claim 1, line 19 (in the event that plural adjusting members were intended to be previously recited in lines 15-16 of claim 1);
“the third motor” in at least claim 1, line 49, and in claim 19, lines 1, 5, and 7 (noting that previously, claim 1 recited “at least one third motor”, and it is thus unclear which specific third motor of the range “at least one third motor” is intended to be referenced via the recitation of “the third motor”, and also that claim 1 previously recited “a plurality of the third motors”, rendering it further unclear which specific third motor is intended to be referenced via the recitation of “the third motor”);
“the hole forming member” in at least claim 1, penultimate line, and lines 38-39, in at least claim 9¸ line 4, and in claim 19, lines 3, 5, and 8, (noting that previously, claim 1 recited “at least one hole forming member”, and it is thus unclear which specific hole forming member of the range “at least one hole forming member” is intended to be referenced via the recitation of “the hole forming member”);
“the sliding rail” in claim 1, lines 44 and 47 (note that plural “sliding rails” were previously recited in claim 1, though it is additionally noted that those sliding rails of claim 1 were part of the height milling device, rather than of the hole forming device);
“the sliding block” in claim 17, line 47 (noting that the claim previously recited “at least one sliding block”, and it is thus unclear which sliding block of the range “at least one sliding block” is intended to be referenced via the recitation of “the sliding block”),
“the plurality of third motors” in claim 1, lines 47-48 (plural pluralities of third motors were previously recited in the claim);
“the picking and placing component” in at least claim 2, lines 7, 10, 14, 17 (plural occurrences in line 17) (noting that previously, claim 2 recited “at least one picking and placing component”, and it is thus unclear which specific picking and placing component of the range “at least one picking and placing component” is intended to be referenced via the recitation of “the picking and placing component”);
“the rack” in at least claim 2, lines 14 and 16 (noting that previously, claim 2 recited “at least one rack”, and it is thus unclear which specific rack of the range “at least one rack” is intended to be referenced via the recitation of “the rack”);
“the sliding rails” in claim 3, last line (plural sets/groups/separate recitations of slide rails were previously recited, e.g., plural sliding rails per side of each of two opposite sides of plural first support structures were intended to be recited in claim 1, lines 11-13, “the sliding rails” in lines 18 and 20, as well as “the sliding rail” in claim 1, lines 44 and 47, for example, rendering it unclear which specific ones of the sliding rails previously recited are being referenced);
“the other end of the first shaft coupling” as set forth in claim 5, noting that no “other” end of the first shaft coupling was previously recited, and it is not inherent that a given coupling only has two ends (especially noting that any object in space has more than two ends, such as upper, lower, left, right, etc.);
“the rail” in claim 6, lines 4 and 5, noting that plural “rails” were previously recited (in claims 1, as well as the rail set forth in claim 6, line 3); and
“the sliding block” in claim 6, lines 4-5, for example, (noting that previously, claim 6 recited “at least one sliding block”, and additionally, a different “at least one sliding block” recitation was set forth in claim 1¸ line 44, and still further recitations of “the sliding block” were set forth in claim 1, line 47it is thus unclear which sliding block is intended to be referenced via the recitation of “the sliding block”);
“the direction corresponding to the discharge area” in claim 11 (no such direction was previously claimed, nor is it clear what direction constitutes such, noting that any given “area” would have an infinite number of axes/directions that pass therethrough);
“the target object in the machining area to be displaced to the discharging area” in claim 11 (note that no target object that is in the machining area and that is “to be displaced to the discharging area” was previously claimed);
“the other end of the second shaft coupling” as set forth in claim 18, noting that no “other” end of the second shaft coupling was previously recited, and it is not inherent that a given coupling only has two ends (especially noting that any object in space has more than two ends, such as upper, lower, left, right, etc.); and
“the other end of the third shaft coupling” as set forth in claim 19, noting that no “other” end of the third shaft coupling was previously recited, and it is not inherent that a given coupling only has two ends (especially noting that any object in space has more than two ends, such as upper, lower, left, right, etc.).
This is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of such occurrences. Applicant is required to review the claims and correct any other such occurrences of limitations lacking sufficient antecedent basis.
In claim 1, lines 10-11 the claim recites “a first motor directly driving the first milling tool by a first shaft coupling”. However, given that there is a “first shaft coupling” that connects the first motor(s) 26 to the first milling tool(s) 20, it is unclear how or in what regard the driving of the first milling tool via the first motor is to be considered to be “direct”, as claimed. The same lack of clarity exists (as to how or in what regard the claimed driving is to be considered to be “direct”, given that the claim recites connecting/coupling structure re the claimed shaft coupling via which the driving occurs) in claim 1, lines 28-30, which recites “a second motor disposed on the frame base for directly driving the second milling tool by a second shaft coupling”.
In claim 1¸ lines 14-16, the claim recites “wherein the adjusting member drives the first milling tool on the carrying frame to move linearly up and down along the sliding rails to reach a height required to process the foot bases”. However, noting that claim 1, lines 5-6, indicated that “each of the four corners of the second surface” (of the target object) “has a foot base”, it is unclear whether or not the claim intends to indicate that one first milling tool is configured to process all four foot bases.
In claim 1¸ lines 21-22, the claim recites “and wherein the first motor and the first milling tool are integrated in a linear manner”. It is unclear as claimed how or in what regard the “integration” of the first motor and first tool are to be considered to occur/be “in a linear manner” as claimed. Note that a line can be drawn between any two objects. It is unclear what configuration(s) of first motor and first milling tool is/are intended to be encompassed by the limitation vs. what configuration(s) of first motor and first milling tool is/are intended to be excluded by the limitation.
In claim 1, lines 26-27, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what “a second support structure for driving the second milling tool to displace linearly” is intended to go, i.e., “wherein the edge milling device comprises…”, or “an edge milling component comprising…”.
In claim 1, line 28, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as “for carrying the second milling tool”, i.e., the second support structure; the displaceable disposal of the frame base on the second support structure; or the frame base.
In claim 1, lines 27-28, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what “a frame base displaceably disposed on the second support structure for carrying the second milling tool” is intended to go, i.e., “wherein the edge milling device comprises…”, “an edge milling component comprising…”, or “machining apparatus, comprising…”.
In claim 1, lines 28-31, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what “and a second motor disposed on the frame base for directly driving the second milling tool by a second shaft coupling to cause the frame base and the second milling tool to move close to or away from the target object” is intended to go, i.e., “wherein the edge milling device comprises…”; or “an edge milling component comprising…”; or “second support structure for carrying…”, or “machining apparatus, comprising…”.
The terms “close to” and “away from” in claim 1, such as in lines 30-31, are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “close to” and “away from” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear how close the frame base and second milling tool must be to the target object in order to be considered to be “close to” the target object, and it is unclear how far away from the target object the frame base and second milling tool must be in order to be “away from” the target object. In the event that such is in keeping with Applicant’s intent, Applicant may wish to consider language such as “to move closer to and farther away from the target object”.
In claim 1¸ lines 33-34, the claim recites “and wherein the second motor and the second milling tool are integrated in a linear manner”. It is unclear as claimed how or in what regard the “integration” of the second motor and second tool are to be considered to occur/be “in a linear manner” as claimed. Note that a line can be drawn between any two objects. It is unclear what configuration(s) of second motor and second milling tool is/are intended to be encompassed by the limitation vs. what configuration(s) of second motor and second milling tool is/are intended to be excluded by the limitation.
In claim 1¸ lines 38-39, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what (verb) “and at least one third motor for rotating the hole forming member” is intended to go. , i.e., “the hole forming device comprises…”; “machining apparatus, comprising…”; etc.
In claim 1¸ lines 49-50, the claim recites “and the third motor and the hole forming member are integrated in a linear manner”. It is unclear as claimed how or in what regard the “integration” of the third motor and the hole forming member are to be considered to occur/be “in a linear manner” as claimed. Note that a line can be drawn between any two objects. It is unclear what configuration(s) of third motor and hole forming member is/are intended to be encompassed by the limitation vs. what configuration(s) of third motor and hole forming member is/are intended to be excluded by the limitation.
In claim 1, lines 39-41, the claim recites “and an another support structure configured with a plurality of the third motors and a lifting structure arranged on the another support structure”. It is unclear as set forth in the claim with what (verb) the limitation “and an another support structure configured with a plurality of the third motors and a lifting structure arranged on the another support structure” is intended to go. , i.e., “the hole forming device comprises…”; “machining apparatus, comprising…”; etc.
In claim 1, lines 39-40, the claim recites “and an another support structure configured with a plurality of the third motors”. However, it is unclear as claimed what features of the previously-recited “at least one third motor” are intended to be required to be possessed by “a plurality of the third motors”. For example, it is unclear as claimed whether “a plurality of the third motors” is intended to require plural third motors that are each configured to rotate a hole forming component by a respective third shaft coupling (thus requiring plural third shaft couplings), and it is unclear whether such is intended to require plural third motors that are integrated in a linear manner by a/the corresponding third shaft coupling, or whether the limitation “a plurality of the third motors” in claim 1, lines 39-40 merely indicates that there are plural motors (with which the another support structure is configured). A similar situation exists re the recitation of “a plurality of third motors” in claim 1, line 42, for example.
In claim 1, lines 39-41, the claim recites “and an another support structure configured with a plurality of the third motors and a lifting structure arranged on the another support structure”. However, it is unclear as claimed with what “and a lifting structure” is intended to go, i.e., “another support structure configured with…”, or “hole forming device further comprises…”. Additionally, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as being “arranged on the another support structure”, i.e., only the lifting structure, or both the lifting structure and the plurality of third motors.
In claim 1, line 42, it is unclear as claimed whether “a plurality of third motors” is intended to be the same “plurality of the third motors” previously recited in claim 1, line 40, or whether such is instead intended to refer to an additional plurality of third motors. Note that the former only requires a minimum of two third motors in order to be met, whereas the latter requires a minimum of four third motors in order to be met.
In claim 1, lines 41-42, the claim recites “the lifting structure includes a lifting plate for disposing a plurality of third motors”. However, it appears that such may be missing some verbiage, i.e., for “disposing a plurality of motors” at a particular location? For having a plurality of third motors disposed thereon? Etc.
In claim 1, lines 39-43 the claim recites “and an another support structure configured with a plurality of the third motors and a lifting structure arranged on the another support structure, the lifting structure includes a lifting plate for disposing a plurality of third motors and a power group mounted on the another support structure to drive the lifting plate to go up and down linearly”. However, it is unclear as claimed with what “and a power group mounted on the fourth support structure to drive the lifting plate to go up and down linearly” is intended to go, i.e., “a lifting plate for disposing…”, “the lifting structure includes…”, “an another support structure configured with…”, or “the hole forming device further comprises…”.
In claim 2, lines 2-3, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether or not the limitation “and at least one picking and placing component” is intended to go with “the transport device comprises”.
Claim limitation “gripping portion” in claim 2, lines 7-8 and 8-9, as well as the claim limitation “holding member” in claim 2, and “carrying portion” in claim 2, all invoke 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions (re the claimed “gripping portion”, “holding member”, and “carrying portion”). While the specification describes elements 10a as “gripping portions”, the specification fails to disclose what structure elements 10a actually is/are. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the function of gripping (re the claimed “gripping portion”). Note that the teaching in the specification that the gripping portion 10a is “with” a holding member 100 is not a teaching that the holding member 100 is the gripping portion, and the term “holding member” itself invokes 112(f), and the specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function of holding re the term “holding member”. Likewise, there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the function of gripping (re the claimed “gripping portion”), noting that merely referencing element 100 as a “holding member” does not provide a teaching of what specific structure constitutes such a holding member 100. Similarly, there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the function of “carrying” (and “arranging” the gripping portion, which is also a claimed function of the recited “carrying portion”). Noting that merely referencing element 10b as a “holding member” does not serve to provide a teaching of what specific structure or structures constitute the 112(f)-invoked “holding member”. 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.
In claim 2, lines 7-9, the claim sets forth “the picking and placing component includes a gripping portion with a holding member and a carrying portion for arranging the gripping portion”. However, firstly, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as “with a holding member”, e.g., the picking and placing component, or the gripping portion. It is additionally unclear whether “with a holding member” is intended to mean that the holding member is also provided (i.e., additionally to the picking and placing component or additionally to the gripping portion), or whether “with a holding member” is intended to mean “including” or “comprising” (as in the picking and placing component includes a holding member, or, in the event that “with a holding member” was intended to go with the “gripping portion”, the gripping portion includes a holding member). In other words, it is unclear as claimed whether “with” is intended to mean “including”, or whether “with” is instead intended to mean “along with”/”in addition to”.
In claim 2, lines 7-9, the claim sets forth “the picking and placing component includes a gripping portion with a holding member and a carrying portion for arranging the gripping portion”. However, it is unclear as claimed with what “and a carrying portion…” is intended to go, i.e., “the picking and placing component includes…”, or “gripping portion with…”.
In claim 2, lines 9-10, in the limitation “wherein the beam is equipped with a sliding rail and a sliding base for guiding displacement of the picking and placing component”, firstly, it is unclear as claimed whether “for guiding displacement of the picking and placing component” is intended to go with both “a sliding base” and “a sliding rail”, or whether “for guiding displacement of the picking and placing component” is only intended to go with “sliding base”. Additionally, it is unclear as claimed whether or not the recited sliding base is required to go with “beam equipped with”.
In claim 2, lines 13-14, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether or not “and a gear that is pivotally connected to the picking and placing component” is intended to go with “the beam is equipped with”.
The term “stably” in each of claims 2 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “stably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, regarding claim 2, it is unclear what characteristic(s) (and to what degree such characteristic(s) must exist or be lacking) the linear displacement of the picking and placing component must have (or lack) in order for that linear displacement to be considered to be “stable”, and it is unclear what characteristic(s) (and what degree thereof) a given linear displacement of a picking and placing component must have (or lack) in order to be considered to be excluded by the term “stable”/”stably”. Furthermore, regarding claim 16, it is unclear what characteristic(s) (and to what degree such characteristic(s) must exist or be lacking) the flipping of the positioning member must have (or lack) in order for that linear displacement to be considered to be “stable”, and it is unclear what characteristic(s) (and what degree thereof) a given flipping of a positioning must have (or lack) in order to be considered to be excluded by the term “stable”/”stably”.
Claim 3 recites “and wherein the first milling tool and the first motor are disposed on the side of the carrying frame facing the target object in a manner that the first milling tool on the carrying frame moves up and down along the sliding rails”. It is noted that claim 3 depends from claim 1, and inherits claim 1’s issues re the above-described lack of clarity from claim 1 as to how many (and what configuration/location(s)) of sliding rails are required. That said, it is additionally noted that the limitation “the side of the carrying frame facing the target object” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear as claimed what is meant by “facing the target object”. For example, it is unclear as claimed whether “facing the target object” is intended to reference a side of the carrying frame that is closer to the target object than is some other (non-recited in the claim) side of the carrying frame, vs. whether “facing the target object” is intended to reference a non-claimed angle or angular range of a side/face of the carrying frame with respect to some (non-claimed) frame of reference of the target object (as in “I am facing my computer monitor when my line of sight is perpendicular to the plane face of my computer monitor, and maybe when I have turned my head slightly by a particular angle to one side or the other, but I am not facing my computer monitor when I have turned my head by 90 degrees…”, or whatever angles and frames of reference one wishes to set for “facing” vs. “not facing”).
In claim 4, line 3, it appears that the claim may be missing some verbiage in the limitation “a first base platform for disposing the height milling component”, as it is unclear as claimed how or in what regard a platform is to be considered to perform the function (per se) of “disposing” a height milling component, as opposed to “disposing the height milling component” at a certain location (such –a first base platform on which is disposed the height milling component--), or in a certain manner, etc.
In claim 4, lines 5-6, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “for carrying the target object”, i.e., the first base platform, or the first positioning member. Likewise, in claim 4, lines 5-6, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “limiting displacement of the target object”, i.e., “the first base platform”, or the “first positioning member”. In the event that “for carrying the target object and limiting displacement of the target object” is intended to go with “first positioning member”, Applicant may wish to consider inserting a comma after “first positioning member” in line 4 of claim 4, and inserting a further comma after “first base platform” in line 5 of claim 4. A similar situation exists in claim 4, lines 8-9 re a lack of clarity as to what is intended to be set forth as “for pressing the target object”, i.e., “fastening portions vs. “first positioning member”.
In claim 4, lines 7-9, the claim recites “a plurality of fastening portion correspondingly disposed at two opposite sides of the first positioning member for pressing the target object on the first positioning member”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim how many fastening portions are intended to be required by this limitation, i.e., a respective fastening portion disposed at a respective one of two opposite sides of the first positioning member (i.e., two fastening portions), vs. two pluralities of fastening portions configured such that one plurality of fastening portions is disposed at two opposite sides of the first positioning member), vs. two pluralities of fastening portions configured such that one plurality of fastening portions is disposed at one side of the first positioning member and such that another plurality of fastening portions is disposed at an opposite side of the first positioning member. In the event that such is in keeping with Applicant’s intent, Applicant may wish to consider language such as “two fastening portions, wherein each fastening portion of the two fastening portions is disposed at a respective one of two opposite sides of the first positioning member…”
In claim 4, lines 7-9, the claim recites “fastening portions correspondingly disposed at two opposite sides of the first positioning member for pressing the target object on the first positioning member”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “on the first positioning member”, i.e., the pressing of the target object; the target object itself; the fastening portions; etc.
The term “high vibration-absorbing material” in each of claims 5, 18, and 19, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high vibration-absorbing material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what degree of vibration absorption qualifies as “high” vibration-absorbing, vs. what degree of vibration absorption (or lack thereof) is excluded by the term “high vibration-absorbing”.
In claim 6, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether the “at least one sliding block” is intended to be the same “at least one sliding block” previously recited in claim 1, line 44, or is instead intended to be different therefrom. Similar issues apply re the recitation in claim 6 of “the sliding block”.
In claim 7, lines 6-7, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “for placing the target object”, i.e., the second base platform (in which case, “the second base platform for placing the target object” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, as no second base platform that is, specifically, “for placing the target object”, was previously recited in the claim); the disposing of the second positioning member on the second base platform; or the second positioning member, for example.
In claim 7, lines 11-12, in the limitation “a fastening portion disposed corresponding to the second positioning member for pressing the target object on the second positioning member”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “for pressing the target object on the second positioning member”, i.e., the second positioning member, the disposition of the fastening portion in some manner that “corresponds” to the second positioning member, or the fastening portion.
In claim 7, lines 11-12, the claim recites “a fastening portion disposed corresponding to the second positioning member for pressing the target object on the second positioning member”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “on the second positioning member”, i.e., the pressing of the target object; the target object itself; the fastening portion; etc.
In claim 7, line 3, the claim recites a “second base platform”. However, noting that claim 7 depends from claim 1, it is noted that no “first base platform” was previously recited in the claim. That being said, it is unclear how many “base platforms” are required in order to meet claim 7, i.e., only one (i.e., the explicitly-recited “second base platform”), or two (i.e., the explicitly-recited “second base platform”, as well as a first base platform whose existence is implied via the use of the term “second” in the limitation “second base platform”).
In claim 7, line 6, the claim recites a “second positioning member”. However, noting that claim 7 depends from claim 1, it is noted that no “first positioning member” was previously recited in the claim. That being said, it is unclear how many “positioning members” are required in order to meet claim 7, i.e., only one (i.e., the explicitly-recited “second positioning member”), or two (i.e., the explicitly-recited “second positioning member”, as well as a first positioning member whose existence is implied via the use of the term “second” in the limitation “second positioning member”).
In claim 9, lines 8-9, the claim recites “a positioning member disposed on the machining area of the base platform for limiting the target object in the machining area”. Firstly, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “in the machining area”, i.e., the target object, the limiting of the target object, the positioning member, etc. Additionally, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “for limiting the target object”, i.e., the base platform, the disposition of the positioning member on the machining area, or the positioning member itself.
In claim 9, last two lines, the claim recites “a fastening structure arranged corresponding to the positioning member to contact and abut against the target object on the base platform”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as being/occurring “on the base platform”, i.e., the target object; the abutting of the positioning member against the target object; the contacting and abutting of the positioning member against the target object; the fastening structure; etc.
In claim 11, the claim recites “wherein an actuating member is disposed at the machining area in the direction corresponding to the discharging area”. However, firstly, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as “in the direction corresponding to the discharging area”, i.e., the machining area, the disposition of the actuating member, or the actuating member. Furthermore, regardless of which of the foregoing (i.e., the machining area, or the disposition of the actuating member, or the actuating member) was intended to be set forth as being “in the direction corresponding to the discharging area”, it is unclear how or in what regard a given machining area, disposition of an actuating member, or actuating member, is/are to be considered to be “in the direction corresponding to the discharging area”. It is unclear what configuration(s) of the machining area, or the disposition of the actuating member, or the actuating member are considered to meet the limitation, and what configuration(s) are considered to be excluded by the limitation.
In claim 11¸ the claim recites “and the actuating member is a retractable structure, which pushes the target object in the machining area to be displaced to the discharging area”. However, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as “to be displaced to the discharging area”, i.e., the machining area, the target object in the machining area. It is additionally unclear as claimed whether the claim intends to indicate that the retractable structure is configured to push the target object (that is in the machining area) from the machining area to the discharging area, or whether “to be displaced to the discharging area” is merely being recited as an intended use of, for example, the target object.
In claim 12, lines 1-3, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “for flipping the first surface or the second surface of the target object”, i.e., the hole forming device, or the flipping device. In the event the intention is to set forth that the flipping device is for flipping the first surface “or” the second surface of the target object, Applicant may wish to consider providing a comma after “flipping device” in lines 1-2, and another comma after “hole forming device” in line 2.
In claim 14, the claim sets forth “wherein the driving member includes a gear and a rack engaging with the gear”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether or not “and a rack engaging with the gear” is intended to go with “the driving member includes…”. Noting that such is further unclear given that “member” implies only one element, though it appears that the claim may be intended to indicate that the driving member includes both the gear and rack.
In claim 14, line 2, the claim sets forth “and the gear is axially connected to the shaft structure”. However, firstly, it is noted that there is no axis or frame of reference provided in the claim for determining what is meant by “axially”. That said, it is unclear as claimed what configuration(s) of gear and shaft structure are intended to constitute “axially connected” vs. what configuration(s) of gear and shaft structure are intended to be excluded by the term “axially connected”.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35