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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 4-14, drawn to “an arrangement of at least one robot gripper arm and at least one control device for controlling the at least one robot gripper arm”, or to a “bending machine” (depending on the claim), in the reply filed on February 13, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-3 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 13, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement (IDS). 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Specifically, it is noted that page 1 of the specification references EP 3439806 A1, which is not, itself, cited on any IDS.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(u), which requires that the different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, and which requires that view numbers be preceded with the abbreviation “Fig.”. In particular, it is noted that on sheet 4 of drawings, the “Figure” numbered as “Fig. 4a” appears to actually be two figures, and the “Figure” numbered as “Fig. 4b” appears to actually be two figures. Likewise, on sheet 7 of drawings, the “Figure” numbered as “Fig. 7a” appears to actually be two figures. Likewise, on sheet 8 of drawings, the “Figure” numbered as “Fig. 8a” appears to actually be four figures, and the “Figure” numbered as “Fig. 8b” appears to actually be four figures 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.
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):
the “cutting device” of claim 6;
the “at least one blade” of claim 6;
the “at least one counterblade” of claim 6;
the “pivot point” as set forth in at least claim 6, lines 7-10;
the “lever arm” of claim 6;
the “pivot point” set forth in at least claim 6, lines 15-19;
the “at least one further magazine” that is “provided for intermediate storage of the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle”, wherein “the at least one further magazine comprises a moving device”, as encompassed by claim 8 (noting that the intermediate/further magazine 34 is not shown as comprising a moving device);
the “at least one further magazine” that is “provided for intermediate storage of the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle”, wherein “the at least one further magazine comprises” a “moving device” that is a “rotating device”, as encompassed by claim 8 (noting that the intermediate/further magazine 34 is not shown as comprising a moving device that is a rotating device);
the ”at least one guiding nozzle” that “comprises at least one further marker for identifying the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle” as set forth in claim 10;
the “at least one bending die” that “comprises at least one further marker for identifying” the “at least one guiding nozzle” as set forth in claim 10 (noting that the marker 36 of the bending die 1 is not disclosed as identifying at least one guiding nozzle 2);
the “ball valve” of claim 12; and
the “spring-tensioned” ball valve of claim 12.
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
the brief description of the drawings (on pages 15-16 of the specification) does not comply with 37 CFR 1.74, noting that it does not refer to each of the different views (separately) by specifying the numbers of the figures (noting the above drawing objection for failing to separately number all of the figures). See MPEP 608.01(f) for further information; and
on page 23, on each of lines 20, 21, 22, and 25, the specification references element 7 as an “auxiliary tool”, which does not appear to be consistent with the rest of the specification or with the drawings (in which the reference character 7 was used to refer to a “robot gripper arm”, and reference character 14 was used to reference an “auxiliary tool”).
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“control device” in at least claims 4-5 (and it is noted that given the disclosure, such is being considered to require a controller programmed or otherwise similarly configured to cause the claimed actions, or an equivalent under 35 USC 112(f) to such a controller);
“feeding device” in at least claims 5 and 6 (noting that the claim limitation uses the generic placeholder “device” coupled with the functional language “feeding”, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function of feeding, and the generic placeholder “device” is not preceded by a structural modifier; in particular, while it is noted that the claim does recite “at least one feeding device with at least one guiding nozzle”, it is noted that a “guiding nozzle” does not constitute sufficient structure to perform the recited function of “feeding”, given that “guiding”, per se, is not the same as “feeding”; likewise, the limitations re the “first end” of the feeding device, or about the feeding device being mounted on the supporting frame so as to be pivotable about a pivot point as set forth in claim 6 are not a recitation of sufficient structure to actually perform the recited function of “feeding”);
“cutting device” in claim 6 (noting that the structural limitations “at least one blade and at least one counterblade movable relative to the at least one blade” do not appear to be required limitations in claim 6, noting the use of the term “preferably” in the limitation “preferably formed of at least one blade and at least one counterblade movable relative to the at least one blade”);
“moving device” in claim 8 (noting that the term “rotating device” does not appear to be a required limitation re claim 8);
“rotating device” in claim 8;
“locking device” in at least claim 11 (plural occurrences in the claim).
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 “locking device” in claim 12 does not invoke 35 USC 112(f), given that the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function of locking.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in the last line, it appears that –a—should be inserted prior to “rotating device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Comment on Claim Language of Claims 8-9
It is noted that claim 8 does not require both “at least one magazine for depositing bend material” and “at least one further magazine…”, given the language and/or in the limitation “wherein at least one magazine is provided for depositing bent material, preferably at least on two sides, and/or at least one further magazine is provided for intermediate storage of the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle…”. That being said, it is noted that dependent claim 9 refers back to “the at least one magazine” (on which bent material can be deposited).
For example, claim 9 depends from claim 8, and recites “wherein bent material can be deposited on the at least one magazine by the at least one robot gripper arm, wherein at least one autonomous driverless transport means is provided for automatically maneuvering the at least one magazine, wherein it is preferably provided that the at least one magazine comprises at least one marker for identifying the at least one magazine”. It is additionally noted that claim 8 depends from independent claim 5.
That being said, (as best understood in view of the issues with respect to 35 USC 112(b) set forth herein) it is noted that claim 9 appears to thus merely a shorthand way of writing claim 8 in a form in which the first option/alternative is more specific, i.e., a shorthand way of writing:
A bending machine for bending material in wire, rod or band form, in particular for producing stirrups for reinforced concrete construction, comprising
a supporting frame,
at least one bending head, preferably with two drives, which are aligned orthogonal to each other, and/or at least one bending roll,
at least one feeding device with at least one guiding nozzle, via which material to be bent can be fed to the at least one bending head,
at least one bending die, releasably arranged in a bending die receiver, for bending the material,
at least one robot gripper arm, preferably of a multi-axis robot, and
at least one control device for controlling the at least one robot gripper arm,
wherein the at least one control device is configured to move the at least one robot gripper arm to take bent material, preferably at least one stirrup, out of the bending machine and to change the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle,
wherein at least one magazine is provided for depositing bent material, preferably at least on two sides, and/or at least one further magazine is provided for intermediate storage of the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle, wherein it is preferably provided that the at least one magazine and/or the at least one further magazine comprises a moving device, preferably rotating device;
wherein bent material can be deposited on the at least one magazine by the at least one robot gripper arm, wherein at least one autonomous driverless transport means is provided for automatically maneuvering the at least one magazine, wherein it is preferably provided that the at least one magazine comprises at least one marker for identifying the at least one magazine.
That being said, it is noted that in the event that the claim 8 option re the at least one further magazine is provided for intermediate storage of the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle is met, then it is noted that claim 9 is merely optional, i.e., in the event that a prior art reference is found having the at least one “further” magazine for intermediate storage of the bending die and/or guiding nozzle re claim 8, then claim 9 is also met because claims 8/9 only require(s) one of the two options “wherein at least one magazine is provided for depositing bent material…and/or at least one further magazine is provided for intermediate storage of the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle”, and such a piece of art would meets the second of these two options. Note that claim 9 does not set forth the “bending machine according to claim 8, wherein the at least one magazine for depositing the bent material is provided, and wherein the bent material can be deposited on the at least one magazine by the at least one robot gripper arm…”.
Comment on Claim Language of Claims 13-14
It is noted that claim 13 does not require both “gripping jaws” and “at least one…auxiliary tool”, given the language and/or in the limitation “wherein the at least one gripper tool is formed as gripping jaws and/or comprises at least one, preferably spring-loaded, auxiliary tool…”, i.e., due to the “or” limitation, only one of the two alternatives is required in order to meet the claim language. That being said, it is noted that dependent claim 14 refers back to “the at least one auxiliary tool”.
For example, claim 14 depends from claim 13, and recites “wherein the at least one auxiliary tool is formed substantially cylindrical and/or comprises at least one conical free end, preferably spaced apart by a groove, and/or at least one bending die can be locked in at least one bending die receiver, preferably by fixing a locking disk of the at least one bending die, via the at least one auxiliary tool”. It is additionally noted that claim 13 depends from independent claim 5.
That being said, it is noted that claim 14 is thus merely a shorthand way of writing claim 13 in a form in which the second option/alternative is more specific, i.e., a shorthand way of writing:
A bending machine for bending material in wire, rod or band form, in particular for producing stirrups for reinforced concrete construction, comprising
a supporting frame,
at least one bending head, preferably with two drives, which are aligned orthogonal to each other, and/or at least one bending roll,
at least one feeding device with at least one guiding nozzle, via which material to be bent can be fed to the at least one bending head,
at least one bending die, releasably arranged in a bending die receiver, for bending the material,
at least one robot gripper arm, preferably of a multi-axis robot, and
at least one control device for controlling the at least one robot gripper arm,
wherein the at least one control device is configured to move the at least one robot gripper arm to take bent material, preferably at least one stirrup, out of the bending machine and to change the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle.
wherein the at least one robot gripper arm comprises at least one gripper tool, which is formed to receive bent material and at least one bending die and/or at least one guiding nozzle, wherein the at least one gripper tool is formed as gripping jaws and/or comprises at least one, preferably spring-loaded, auxiliary tool to be arranged in areas inside an opening and/or drilled hole of at least one bending die wherein the at least one auxiliary tool is formed substantially cylindrical and/or comprises at least one conical free end, preferably spaced apart by a groove, and/or at least one bending die can be locked in at least one bending die receiver, preferably by fixing a locking disk of the at least one bending die, via the at least one auxiliary tool.
That being said, it is noted that in the event that the claim 13 option re the at least one gripper tool being formed as gripping jaws is met, then it is noted that claim 14 is merely optional, i.e., in the event that a prior art reference is found having the at least one gripping tool that is formed as gripping jaws, then claim 14 is also met because claims 13/14 only require(s) one of the two options “wherein the at least one gripper tool is formed as gripping jaws and/or comprises at least one…auxiliary tool…”, and such a piece of art would meets the first of these two options. Note that claim 14 does not set forth the “bending machine according to claim 13, wherein the gripper tool comprises at least one auxiliary tool…wherein the at least one auxiliary tool is formed substantially cylindrical and/or…”.
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 4-14 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “configured to move the at least one robot gripper arm to take bent material”, and the claim also recites “preferably at least one stirrup”, which is the narrower statement of the (functional or intended use) range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claim 4, line 6, the claim sets forth “and to change the at least one bending die and/or at least one guiding nozzle”. However, it is unclear as claimed with what this limitation is intended to go, e.g., “wherein the at least one control device is configured to move the at least one robot gripper arm to take bent material…out of a bending machine and” (the at least one control device is configured to move the at least one robot gripper arm) “to change at least one bending die and/or at least one guiding nozzle”, vs “wherein the at least one control device is configured to move the at least one robot gripper arm to take bent material…out of a bending machine and” (the at least one control device is configured) “to change at least one bending die and/or at least one guiding nozzle”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “bending machine for bending material in wire, rod or band form”, and the claim also recites “in particular for producing stirrups for reinforced concrete construction” which is the narrower statement of the (functional or intended use) range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claim 5, line 3, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “comprising” the elements on lines 4+. That said, if, as it appears from the specification, the intent is for the claim to indicate that the bending machine comprises the elements of lines 4+, Applicant may wish to consider inserting language such as –the bending machine—prior to “comprising” in line 3 of claim 5.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “at least one bending head”, and the claim also recites “preferably with two drives, which are aligned orthogonal to each other” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claim 5, lines 6-7, the claim sets forth “and/or at least one bending roll”. However, it is unclear as claimed as to what (limitation or limitations) the “at least one bending roll” is an alternative. For example, it is unclear as claimed whether “and/or at least one bending roll” is an alternative to “at least one bending head”, or whether “and/or at least one bending roll” is an alternative to “each other”, e.g., as in “preferably with two drives, which are aligned orthogonal to each other, and/or” (which are aligned orthogonal to) “at least one bending roll”. It is noted that all three-dimensional objects have an infinite number of axes (extending in an infinite number of directions) that pass therethrough, and thus, any two drives inherently can be considered to be “aligned orthogonal to each other” (as broadly claimed), given that each drive inherently has at least one axis passing therethrough that is orthogonal to at least one axis that passes through the other drive, and further, such drives would also inherently have axes passing therethrough that are perpendicular to some axis passing through a “bending roll”. In other words, either construction would be in accordance with the disclosed invention, as broadly claimed. Alternatively, it is also unclear as to whether “and/or at least one bending roll” is instead an alternative to “with two drives”, as in “at least one bending head, preferably with two drives, …and/or” (the bending head, preferably with) “at least one bending roll”.
Claim limitation “feeding device” (in at least claims 5-6) 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function that the material 4 is fed through the guiding nozzle 2 of the feeding device 21 (see, for example, page 18, lines 23-25). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the function of “feeding”. Note that the fact that there is a teaching of a “guiding nozzle” 2 through which the material is fed does not change the fact that the specification does not disclose what structure actually performs the function of “feeding”. The guiding of the material via a guiding nozzle is not, in and of itself, a use of the guiding nozzle to actually cause the material to be “fed”, and the specification does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect feeding. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed 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.
In claim 5, lines 8-10, the claim recites “at least one feeding device with at least one guiding nozzle, via which material to be bent can be fed to the at least one bending head”. However, it is unclear as set forth in this limitation to what “which” is intended to refer, i.e., to the at least one guiding nozzle, or to the at least one feeding device.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “at least one robot gripper arm”, and the claim also recites “preferably of a multi-axis robot”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “wherein the at least one control device is configured to move the at least one robot gripper arm to take bent material”, and the claim also recites “preferably at least one stirrup”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claim 5, line 5, the claim recites “at least one bending head”. However, in claim 5, lines 11-12, the claim additionally recites “at least one bending die, releasably arranged in a bending die receiver, for bending the material”. However, given that as disclosed, the bending head (5) is part of the bending die (1), such is unclear. See, for example, page 20, lines 13-15, Figures 5a-5b, 6a, and Figure 3a, for example.
In claim 5, line 19, in the limitation “preferably at least one stirrup”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether such “at least one stirrup” is intended to be a subset of, or is instead intended to be additional to, the “stirrups” previously mentioned in line 2 of the claim.
In claim 5, last five lines, the claim sets forth “and at least one control device for controlling the at least one robot gripper arm, wherein the at least one control device is configured to move the at least one robot gripper arm to take bent material, preferably at least one stirrup, out of the bending machine and to change the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle”. However, it is noted that it appears that the claim intends to recite that the ”at least one robot gripper arm” is part of the bending machine, such that it is unclear as claimed how the “at asset one robot gripper arm” is to be configured to “take bent material…out of the bending machine”, i.e., to take bent material out of itself. Note that using a robot gripper arm to simply lay down a workpiece/bent material at a location outside of a bending press is not an action of the robot gripper arm “taking the bent material out” of the robot gripper arm.
Also note that in the limitation “facing the at least one bending head” (in the limitation “wherein the at least one feeding device has a first end, facing the at least one bending head, and a second opposite end”) in claim 6, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “facing the at least one bending head” is intended to require a particular (unspecified in the claim) angular range of the first end of at least one feeding device with respect to the at least one bending head, or whether such is intended to require a particular (unspecified in the claim) degree of proximity of the first end of the at least one feeding device with respect to the at least one bending head. Regardless of which meaning of “facing the at least one bending head” is intended, given that no such angular range and no such degree of proximity are set forth in the claim, it is unclear what configuration(s) of first end (of the at least one feeding device) meet the limitation " wherein the at least one feeding device has a first end, facing the at least one bending head, and a second opposite end” and what configuration(s) of first end are excluded by the limitation.
In claim 6, the claim sets forth “wherein the at least one blade of the cutting device is arranged at the first end and at the second end the at least one feeding device is mounted on the supporting frame pivotable about a pivot point”. However, this limitation appears to be missing some punctuation, some verbiage, or both. For example, it is unclear as claimed whether the limitation intends to indicate that the at least one blade of the cutting device is arranged both at the first end and at the second end. It is also unclear whether the pivot point is intended to be at both the first and second ends, only at the second end, or whether the pivot point limitation is intended to be entirely separate from/additional to the first and second end limitation. For example, it is unclear as claimed whether the claim intends to recite: (i) “wherein the at least one blade of the cutting device is arranged at the first end and” (wherein the at least one blade of the cutting device is arranged) “at the second end” (and wherein) “the at least one feeding device is mounted on the supporting frame pivotable about a pivot point”; (ii) “wherein the at least one blade of the cutting device is arranged at the first end” (,) “and” (wherein) “at the second end”(,) “the at least one feeding device is mounted on the supporting frame pivotable about a pivot point”; (iii) “wherein the at least one blade of the cutting device is arranged” (, and wherein) “at the first end and at the second end” (,) “the at least one feeding device is mounted on the supporting frame pivotable about a pivot point”, or some other interpretation entirely.
In claim 6, line 11, the claim sets forth “with the result that…”. However, it is unclear what action(s) or structure(s) the claim intends to indicate have such result, i.e., it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth has having/”with the result that…”.
In claim 6, lines 11-15, in the limitation “with the result that through a pivoting movement of the at least one feeding device about the pivot point a relative movement between the at least one blade and the at least one counterblade of the cutting device can be brought about to carry out a cutting”, there is no punctuation, rendering the intended meaning of the limitation unclear, as it is unclear which clause(s) are intended to go with what, and rendering it unclear whether there is missing verbiage.
In claim 6, lines 15-19, in the limitation “wherein a lever arm is provided, which is connected at one end to the first end of the at least one feeding device and at an opposite end is mounted on the supporting frame of the bending machine pivotable about a pivot point”. However, it is unclear as claimed to what the claimed opposite end is intended to belong, i.e., it is unclear as claimed whether the claimed opposite end is an opposite end of the lever arm, an opposite end of the at least one feeding device, an opposite end of the supporting frame, etc., and it is thus further unclear as claimed to what the opposite, i.e., opposite to what?
In claim 6, line 19, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what “it” is intended to refer.
In claim 6, last three lines, the claim recites “wherein it is preferably provided that the lever arm and the at least one feeding device enclose an angle of substantially 90°”. However, the use of the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
In claim 7, the claim sets forth “wherein precisely one robot gripper arm is provided for taking out the material and for changing the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle, and/or the material to be bent has a diameter of between 5 mm and 20 mm, preferably between 6 mm and 16 mm”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether such “precisely one gripper arm” is intended to be a subset of the previously recited “at least one robot gripper arm”, or is instead intended to be additional thereto.
In claim 7, the claim sets forth “wherein precisely one robot gripper arm is provided for taking out the material and for changing the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle, and/or the material to be bent has a diameter of between 5 mm and 20 mm, preferably between 6 mm and 16 mm”. However, it is unclear as claimed as to what the two alternative limitations “and/or the at least one guiding nozzle”, “and/or the material to be bent has a diameter of between 5 mm and 20 mm, preferably between 6 mm and 16 mm” are intended to be alternative. For example, it is unclear as claimed whether the limitation intends: (i) the material to be bent has a diameter of between 5 mm and 20 mm, preferably between 6 mm and 16 mm, and/or “wherein precisely one robot gripper arm is provided for taking out the material and for changing the at least one bending die and/or” (wherein precisely one robot gripper arm is provided for changing) “the at least one guiding nozzle, (ii) “wherein precisely one robot gripper arm is provided for taking out the material and” (precisely one robot gripper arm is provided) for changing the at least one bending die and/or (precisely one robot gripper arm is provided for taking out) the at least one guiding nozzle, and/or (precisely one robot gripper arm is provided for taking out the material and) the material to be bent has a diameter of between 5 mm and 20 mm, preferably between 6 mm and 16 mm; (iii) something else entirely, etc.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “a diameter of between 5 mm and 20 mm”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 6 mm and 16 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim limitation (i.e., a required feature of that alternative, should that alternative be met).
In claim 8, the claim recites “wherein at least one magazine is provided for depositing bent material, preferably at least on two sides, and/or at least one further magazine is provided for intermediate storage of the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle, wherein it is preferably provided that the at least one magazine and/or the at least one further magazine comprises a moving device, preferably rotating device”. It is noted that firstly, there are a number of alternative limitations in a list (re the plural recitations of “and/or”), and that it is unclear as claimed to what the various alternatives are intended to be alternative, thus rendering it unclear in this regard which limitation(s) is/are required in order to meet the claim language. It is additionally noted that there are three occurrences of the term “preferably” in claim 8, and that in each occurrence, it is unclear as claimed whether the language/limitation (e.g., “at least one two sides”, “provided that the at least one magazine and/or the at least one further magazine comprises a moving device”, “a rotating device”) following the term “preferably” is intended to be merely optional, or whether the language/limitation following the term “preferably” is intended to be required in order to meet whatever alternative to which the limitation is intended to belong.
In claim 8, in the limitation “wherein at least one magazine is provided for depositing bent material, preferably at least on two sides”. The lack of clarity introduced by using the term “preferably” has already been addressed above. Furthermore, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what the two sides are intended to belong, i.e., preferably on two sides of what? Furthermore, it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to indicate that (preferably) the at least one magazine is provided on two sides (of something), i.e., one magazine that can somehow be considered to be located at two sides of something, or whether such is instead intended to indicate that the at least one magazine “preferably” includes one magazine at one side of something and includes another magazine at another side of something.
In claim 8, regarding the limitation “and/or at least one further magazine is provided for intermediate storage of the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle”, it is unclear as claimed relative to what the “at least one further magazine” is intended to be considered “further”, i.e., further to the “at least one magazine”, further to the (potentially) two magazines in the event that such was what was intended to be required via the recitation “preferably at least one two sides”), etc. Particularly noting that it appears that the limitation “at least one magazine…, and/or at least one further magazine…” thus only requires either of the at least one magazine or at least one further magazine, it is further unclear relative to what the “at least one further magazine” is further. In other words, given that the “at least one magazine” for depositing bent material is not actually required in order for claim 8 to be met, it is unclear relative to what frame of reference the “at least one further magazine” is a “further” magazine. Additionally, regarding the term “intermediate storage”, it is unclear as claimed relative to what the storage is to be considered “intermediate”, i.e., intermediate to two points in time or two actions (neither of which are set forth in the claim), intermediate relative to two structures or two locations in space (neither of which are set forth in the claim, etc.
Claim limitations “moving device” (in at least claim 8) and “rotating device” (in at asset claim 8 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 function. In particular, the specification merely states that the moving device (9) comprises a rotating device (10), but does not say what the rotating device is, and the term rotating device itself invokes 35 USC 112(f). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the function of “moving” or “rotating”. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect moving and rotating. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed 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.
In claim 8, line 6, it is unclear as claimed to what “it” is intended to refer.
Claim limitation “autonomous driverless transport means” (in at least claim 9) 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely teaches various functions that the autonomous driverless transport means is intended to carry out (see page 7, lines 24-28, page 8, lines 1-6, page 8, lines 17-24, page 9, lines 1-5, page 11, last paragraph, page 17, lines 13-17, page 19, lines 9-17). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the function of “transporting”. Note that the fact that there is a teaching that markers can be used to transmit data to the “autonomous driverless transport means” does not change the fact that there is no teaching as to what particular structure constitutes the “autonomous driverless transport means”, i.e., the fact that there is a teaching that markers can be used to transmit data to the autonomous driverless transport means does not, in and of itself, disclose what the structure of the autonomous driverless transport means is. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect autonomous driverless transporting. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed 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.
In claim 9, line 5, it is unclear as claimed to what “it” is intended to refer.
In claim 9, last three lines, the claim sets forth “wherein it is preferably provided that the at least one magazine comprises at least one marker for identifying the at least one magazine”. However, given the use of the term “preferably”, it is unclear as claimed whether the limitation(s) following the phrase “preferably” are a required part of the claimed invention, or whether the limitation(s) following the phrase “preferably” are merely optional.
In claim 9, the limitation “the at least one magazine” (plural occurrences with in the claim) lacks sufficient clear antecedent basis in the claim, as it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to refer to the “at least one magazine” set forth in claim 8, lines 1-2, or whether such is instead (or additionally) intended to refer to “at least one further magazine” previously mentioned in claim 8, lines 3-4 (which is, nevertheless, a recitation of “at least one…magazine”).
In claim 10, the claim recites “wherein the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle comprises at least one further marker for identifying the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle”. However, it is unclear as claimed relative to what frame of reference the “at least one further marker” is “further”, i.e., further as compared to what? Note that claim 10 does not recite any other markers (either itself, or via claim 5 from which claim 10 depends). Thus, it is unclear as claimed (via the use of the term “further” in the limitation “at least one further marker”) whether claim 10 does or does not intend to require additional one or more additional markers that are not expressly recited in the claim. Thus, it is unclear how many markers are intended to be required in order to meet claim 10, i.e., a minimum of one (and specifically, the “at least one further marker” that is expressly recited in claim 10), or a minimum of two (specifically, the “at least one further marker” that is expressly recited in claim 10, in combination with at least one other marker, implied by the term “further”, to which the expressly recited “at least one further marker” is “further”).
In claim 11, the claim recites “wherein at least one locking device is provided for locking the at least one bending die in the at least one bending die receiver, wherein it is preferably provided that the at least one bending die can be secured via a corresponding locking device of the at least one bending die and/or in three bidirectional orthogonal spatial directions”. Firstly, it is noted that “the at least one bending die receiver” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim (noting that no “at least one” bending die receiver was previously recited). Additionally, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what “it” is intended to refer. Furthermore, it is unclear (via the use of the term “preferably”) as claimed whether the limitation “it is preferably provided that the at least one bending die can be secured via a corresponding locking device of the at least one bending die and/or in three bidirectional orthogonal spatial directions” is intended to be a required limitation, or whether such is merely optional.
In claim 11, line 5, it is unclear as claimed whether “a corresponding locking device” is intended to be the same as, or is instead intended to be additional to, the previously recited “at least one locking device” from lines 1-2 of the claim.
In claim 11, lines 5-6, in the limitation “a corresponding locking device of the at least one bending die”, it is unclear as claimed to what the “corresponding locking device” is intended to “correspond”, i.e., “corresponding” to what? Furthermore, it is unclear as claimed in the limitation “a corresponding locking device of the at least one bending die” whether the corresponding locking device is intended to be recited as being part of the at least one bending die (noting the use of the term “of”), or whether the corresponding locking device is instead intended to be recited as being for the at least one bending die.
In claim 11, the claim recites “wherein at least one locking device is provided for locking the at least one bending die in the at least one bending die receiver, wherein it is preferably provided that the at least one bending die can be secured via a corresponding locking device of the at least one bending die and/or in three bidirectional orthogonal spatial directions”. However, it is unclear as claimed as to what the alternative limitation “and/or in three bidirectional orthogonal spatial directions” is intended to be alternative, and it is further unclear as claimed what (action(s) or element(s)) is/are being set forth as “in three bidirectional orthogonal spatial directions”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “at least one…pin”, and the claim also recites “preferably spring-loaded” (pin) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claim 12, line 4, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what “it” is intended to refer.
In claim 12, the claim sets forth: wherein the at least one locking device comprises at least one, preferably spring-loaded, pin and/or at least one locking disk for securing the at least one bending die, wherein it is preferably provided that
the at least one bending die receiver and/or the at least one bending die is rotatable relative to the at least one locking disk, and/or
the at least one locking disk comprises a receiver, preferably a slot, for an optionally present auxiliary tool of the at least one robot gripper arm and/or at least one, preferably spring-pretensioned, ball valve is provided for securing the at least one locking disk in an unlocked position and/or a locked position”. However, it is unclear as set forth in claim 12 whether everything after “wherein it is preferably provided that” (in lines 4-5) is completely optional (due to the term “preferably provided that…”), or whether such are required limitations. Additionally, it is unclear as claimed whether “wherein it is preferably provided that” in lines 4-5 is only intended to go with the limitations set forth in lines 6-8, or whether “wherein it is preferably provided that” is also intended to go with the limitations in lines 9-14.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “a receiver”, and the claim also recites “preferably a slot” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claim 12, lines 1-2, the limitation “the at least one locking device” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim (noting that it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to refer to the “at least one locking device” previously set forth in claim 11, lines 1-2, or whether such is instead intended to refer to “a corresponding locking device” in claim 11, line 5).
In claim 12, the claim recites “wherein the at least one locking device comprises at least one, preferably spring-loaded, pin and/or at least one locking disk for securing the at least one bending die, wherein it is preferably provided that the at least one bending die receiver and/or the at least one bending die is rotatable relative to the at least one locking disk, and/or the at least one locking disk comprises a receiver, preferably a slot, for an optionally present auxiliary tool of the at least one robot gripper arm and/or at least one, preferably spring-pretensioned, ball valve is provided for securing the at least one locking disk in an unlocked position and/or a locked position”. However, due to the many uses of “and/or” in the claim, especially in combination with the “preferably” language and the “optionally” language, it is unclear as claimed what limitations are being set forth as alternatives to what, i.e., it is unclear as claimed what exact elements/functional recitations are included in each of the many alternatives, thus rendering it unclear what is necessary in order to actually meet the claim language.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “at least one…ball valve”, and the claim also recites “preferably spring-pretensioned” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “at least one…auxiliary tool”, and the claim also recites “preferably spring-loaded” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claim 13, lines 1-4, the claim recites “wherein the at least one robot gripper arm comprises at least one gripper tool, which is formed to receive bent material and at least one bending die and/or at least one guiding nozzle”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether “and at least one bending die and/or at least one guiding nozzle” is intended to go with “which is formed to receive”, or whether “and at least one bending die and/or at least one guiding nozzle” is instead intended to go with “wherein the at least one robot gripper arm comprises…”. In the event that the former is intended, it is unclear as claimed whether the at least one robot gripper tool must be capable of performing the claimed intended use of receiving both bent material, and only one of “at least one bending die and/or at least one guiding nozzle”, or whether the at least one robot gripping tool only needs to be capable of performing the claimed intended use of receiving one of bent material, at least one bending die, or at least one guiding nozzle. Note that the use of “and” in combination with “and/or” in the limitation “wherein the at least one robot gripper arm comprises at least one gripper tool, which is formed to receive bent material and at least one bending die and/or at least one guiding nozzle” creates ambiguity.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “formed substantially cylindrical and/or comprises at least one conical free end”, and the claim also recites “preferably spaced apart by a groove” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “at least one bending die can be locked in at least one bending die receiver” and the claim also recites “preferably by fixing a locking disk of the at least one bending die, via the at least one auxiliary tool” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claim 14, in the limitation “wherein the at least one auxiliary tool is formed substantially cylindrical and/or comprises at least one conical free end, preferably spaced apart by a groove”. However, firstly, it is unclear as claimed whether “preferably spaced apart by a groove” is intended to only go with “at least one conical free end”, or whether “preferably spaced apart by a groove” is also intended to go with “is formed substantially cylindrical”. Alternatively, it is unclear as claimed whether “preferably spaced apart by a groove” is intended to go with “the at least one auxiliary tool” (rather than either the “substantially cylindrical” or the “at least one conical free end” limitations). Additionally, noting that the limitation is only referencing a single element, it is unclear as claimed from what or with respect to what that element is intended to be “spaced apart by a groove”, e.g., the at least one auxiliary tool, or possibly the at least one conical free end, is spaced apart from/relative to what by a groove?
In claim 14, the claim sets forth “wherein the at least one auxiliary tool is formed substantially cylindrical and/or comprises at least one conical free end, preferably spaced apart by a groove, and/or at least one bending die can be locked in at least one bending die receiver, preferably by fixing a locking disk of the at least one bending die, via the at least one auxiliary tool”. However, it is unclear as claimed to what the alternative limitation “and/or at least one bending die can be locked in at least one bending die receiver, preferably by fixing a locking disk of the at least one bending die, via the at least one auxiliary tool” is intended to be alternative, thus rendering it unclear what limitation(s) is/are required in order to meet the language of claim 14. For example, if it unclear whether such limitation is alternative to “wherein the at least one auxiliary tool is formed substantially cylindrical and/or comprises at least one conical free end, preferably spaced apart by a groove”, or wherein such limitation is instead alternative to “and/or comprises one free end”, or something else entirely.
In claim 14, penultimate line, the limitation “the at least one bending die” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, noting that plural different “at least one bending die” limitations were previously recited (e.g., in claim 5, line 11; in claim 13, lines 3-4; in claim 13, last line; and in claim 14, line 4), thus rendering it unclear which specific “at least one bending die” is intended to be referenced.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 5-6 and the recited “feeding device”, as discussed above, this limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f). As described above in a rejection of claims 5-6 (and thus, also claims 7-14, which all depend from claim 5) under 35 USC 112(b), the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of feeding. That said, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8 and the recited “moving device” and “rotating device”, as discussed above, this limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f). As described above in a rejection of claim 8 (and thus, also claim 9, which depends from claim 8) under 35 USC 112(b), the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of moving and rotating. That said, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9 and the recited “autonomous driverless transport means”, as discussed above, this limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f). As described above in a rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 112(b), the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of autonomously and driverlessly transporting. That said, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 10, the claim recites “wherein the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle comprises at least one further marker for identifying the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle”. However, the specification does not appear to teach, in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof, that any bending die (1) comprises at least one “further” marker for identifying the at least one guiding nozzle (2), nor that any guiding nozzle (2) comprises at least one “further” marker for identifying the at least one bending die (1). For example, attention is directed to page 20, lines 21-26, which teaches that the bending die (1) comprises a further marker (36) for identifying the bending die (1) (rather than for identifying the guiding nozzle 2), and which teaches that the guiding nozzle (2) can comprise a further marker for identifying the guiding nozzle (2) (rather than for identifying the bending die 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 4, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2013/166538 A1 (hereinafter, “WO ‘538”).
It is noted that a machine translation of WO ‘538 is being made of record on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) accompanying this Office Action. That said, attention is directed to that machine translation regarding any references herein to page numbers, line numbers, paragraph numbers, or the like, re WO ‘538.
Regarding claim 4, WO ‘538 teaches an arrangement of at least one robot gripper arm (see the arm of the handling device 3, which handling device 3 is in the form of a multi-axis robot 16, which arm is depicted in Figure 1; see also paragraphs 0033 and 0035) and at least one control device (25/24) for controlling the at least one robot gripper arm (of 3/16; see Figure 1 and at least paragraph 0037), wherein the at least one control device (25/24) is configured to move the at least one robot gripper arm (of 3/16) to take bent material (bent workpiece) out of a bending machine (2) and to change at least one bending die (13/15/14). See Figure 1, as well as at least paragraphs 0033-0035, 0037, and at least the translation of claims 2, 5, and 10, of the reference, for example.
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.
Claims 5-9 and 11-14, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/174654 A1 (hereinafter, “WO ‘654”) in view of WO 2013/166538 A1 (hereinafter, “WO ‘538”).
It is noted that a machine translation of WO ‘654 is being made of record on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) accompanying this Office Action. That said, attention is directed to that machine translation regarding any references herein to page numbers, line numbers, paragraph numbers, or the like, re WO ‘654.
It is noted that there are a number of limitations that use the term “preferably”, as discussed in the above rejections under 35 USC 112(b). That being said, it is noted that such limitations are being treated as optional, i.e., not required in order to meet the claim language. Additionally, it is noted that there are a significant number of limitations that are set forth in the alternative. For example, there are many limitations set forth as alternatives using the language “and/or”. As discussed in detail in the above rejections under 35 USC 112(b), in many circumstances, it is unclear what the alternatives are, i.e., it is unclear as claimed to what a given alternative is intended to be alternative. In any event, it should be kept in mind that in order to meet a claim having limitations presented in the alternative, it is only necessary to meet one of the alternatives in order to meet the claim language, e.g., if a claim recites “A and/or B and/or C”, a reference teaching only one of A, B, or C will meet that claim language.
Regarding claim 5, WO ‘654 teaches a bending machine (1) for bending material (2) in wire, rod or band form (see Figure 1a), in particular for producing stirrups for reinforced concrete construction (while it is not necessary that the reference expressly teach that the bending machine produces such stirrups in order to meet the optional functional claim language re the “in particular” limitation, it is noted that WO ‘654 does expressly teach that the bending machine 1 is used to produce stirrups for reinforced concrete construction from a wire-shaped material 2; see paragraph 0027, for example), comprising
a supporting frame (11, or 11+12; see Figures 1a-1b, 3, and at least paragraph 0024, for example),
at least one bending head (3) (see paragraph 0025 and at least Figures 1a, 3, and 6, for example),
at least one feeding device (4) (see Figures 1a, 2-3, 5, and 6, as well as at least paragraphs 0025-0026, 0028-0029, 0031-0035, 0037-0039, for example) with at least one guiding “nozzle” (re the embodiment of Figures 2-5, note that the guide channel 39 can be considered to be or be within a guide “nozzle”, see also paragraph 0037; alternatively, re the embodiment of Figure 6, see the “nose-shaped guide-device” 25 described in paragraph 0039), via which material (2) to be bent can be fed to the at least one bending head (3) (see Figures 1a, 2-3, 5, and 6, as well as at least paragraphs 0025, 0037, and 0039, for example),
at least one bending die (42 and/or 43, for example), arranged in a bending die receiver (i.e., the portion of 3 that receives 42 and/or 43; see Figure 6, as well as at least paragraph 0039, for example), for bending the material (2), and
at least one robot gripper arm (see at least paragraphs 0004-0005 and 0013, which teaches automatically removing the cut off pieces of bent material via a robot).
However, while WO ‘654 does expressly teach using a robot to automatically remove the cut off pieces of bent material from the bending machine 1 via a robot (paragraphs 0004-0005 and 0013), WO ‘654 does not teach “at least one control device for controlling the at least one robot gripper arm, wherein the at least one control device is configured to move the at least one robot gripper arm to take bent material, preferably at least one stirrup, out of the bending machine” as set forth in claim 5. Furthermore, WO ‘654 does not expressly teach that the bending die is “releasably arranged” in the bending die receiver, and that the control device is configured to move the at least one robot gripper arm to change the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle, as set forth in claim 5.
However, attention is directed to WO ‘538.
It is noted that a machine translation of WO ‘538 is being made of record on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) accompanying this Office Action. That said, attention is directed to that machine translation regarding any references herein to page numbers, line numbers, paragraph numbers, or the like, re WO ‘538.
WO ‘538 teaches an arrangement in which a robot gripper arm (see the arm of the handling device 3, which handling device 3 is in the form of a multi-axis robot 16, which arm is depicted in Figure 1; see also paragraphs 0033 and 0035) is provided, along with at least one control device (25/24) for controlling the at least one robot gripper arm (of 3/16; see Figure 1 and at least paragraph 0037). WO ‘538 teaches that the control device (25/24) is configured to move the robot gripper arm (of 3/16) to take bent material (bent workpiece) out of a bending machine (2) and to change at least one bending die (13/15/14) that is releasably arranged in a bending die receiver (11) of a bending head (such as, for example, 9 or 8). See Figure 1, as well as at least paragraphs 0033-0035, 0037, and at least the translation of claims 2, 5, and 10, of the reference, for example.
Furthermore, regarding claim 13, it is noted that the robot gripper arm (of 3/16) of WO ‘538 comprises at least one gripper tool (17/18) (Figures 1-3 and at least paragraph 0035), which is “formed to receive bent material and at least one bending die” (paragraphs 0033-0035, 0037, and at least the translation of claims 2, 5, and 10 of WO ‘538). The gripper tool comprises is formed as gripping jaws (see 18, 18 shown in Figures 2-3, for example).
Regarding claim 5, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the bending die taught by WO ‘654 be (as taught by WO ‘538) releasably arranged in a bending die receiver of the bending head (3) taught by WO ‘654, and to have made the automated workpiece handling/removal robot taught by WO ‘654 be provided with the capability of also changing the bending die, given the teachings of WO ‘538 of using the same robot gripper arm to carry out both bent workpiece removal/handling and bending tool/die exchange, and further, to have provided such robot with a control device (as taught by WO ‘538) configured to cause the robot gripper arm of WO ‘654 to remove bent material out of the bending machine and to change the bending die, as taught by WO ‘538, all for the purpose of expanding the functionality of WO ‘654’s bending machine by enabling a differently-configured series of workpieces to be easily manufactured (i.e., by facilitating the automated replacement of the bending tooling with differently configured tooling) as taught by WO ‘538 (paragraph 0035), for the purpose of facilitating the maintenance of the bending tools of WO ‘654’s bending machine, as taught by WO ‘538 (see paragraph 0035). Additionally regarding claim 13, in so modifying WO ‘654 in view of WO ‘538, it would therefore have additionally been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the robot gripper arm of WO ‘654 be provided with at least one gripper tool in the form of gripping jaws that are configured to be able to receive bent material, and that are also formed to receive bending dies/tooling, as taught by WO ‘538, for the purpose of further facilitating the provision of the capability of both handling bent material and exchanging bending tooling via WO ‘654’s robot, as taught by WO ‘538.
Regarding claim 6, it is noted that WO ‘654 teaches that a cutting device (5, which includes knife 6 and counter-knife 7/41; see paragraphs 0026-0031, for example) is provided arranged between the at least one bending head (3) and the at least one feeding device (4) (see Figures 1a, 2-6, and at least paragraph 0026), “preferably” formed of at least one blade (6 or 7/41) and at least one counterblade (the other of 7/41 or 6) movable relative to the at least one blade (6 or 41/7) (while it is noted that this “preferably” limitation is optional, it is noted that WO ‘654 teaches the claimed relatively movable blades 6, 41/7; see Figures 1a, 2-6, and at least paragraphs 0026-0031), wherein the at least one feeding device (4) has a first end (8, which is the right end re Figures 1a, 2, 3, 5, 6), “facing” the at least one bending head (3) (see Figures 1a, 2, 3, 5, and 6, for example), and a second, opposite, end (9, i.e., the left end of 4 re Figures 1a, 2, 3, 5, and 6), wherein the at least one blade (6 or 41/7) of the cutting device (5) is arranged at the (aforedescribed) first end (8; see Figures 1a and 2-6) and at the (aforedescribed) second end (9) the at least one feeding device (4) is mounted on the supporting frame (11 or 11+12) pivotable about a pivot point (10) (see Figures 2-3, 5, and at least paragraphs 0029 and 0031), with the result that through a pivoting movement of the at least one feeding device (4) about the pivot point (10) a relative movement between the at least one blade (6 or 41/7) and the at least one counterblade (41/7 or 6) of the cutting device (5) “can be” brought about to carry out a cutting (see at least paragraph 0031), wherein a lever arm (13) is provided, which is connected at one end (14) to the (aforedescribed) first end (8) of the at least one feeding device (4) (see Figure 2 and at least paragraph 0032) and at an opposite end (15) is mounted on the supporting frame (11 or 11+12) of the bending machine (1) pivotable about a pivot point (16) (see especially Figure 2; see also paragraphs 0032-0034), wherein it is “preferably” provided that the lever arm (13) and the at least one feeding device (4) enclose an angle of substantially 90° (see Figures 2-3, noting that, for example, a longitudinal axis of 13 extends in/parallel to direction 37 and is at a right angle to a longitudinal axis of 4, which longitudinal axis of 4 extends in/parallel to direction 36; see also paragraphs 0029-0030, which teach that directions 36, 37, and 38 are perpendicular spatial directions).
Regarding claim 7, re WO ‘654 as modified by WO ‘538 (as described above re claim 5), precisely one robot gripper arm (i.e., the same robot gripper arm, as taught by WO ‘538) is provided for taking out the material (as described above) and for changing the at least one bending die (as described above). See the above discussion of WO ‘654 in view of WO ‘538 re independent claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, WO ‘654 does not teach either of the alternative limitations re the magazine (for depositing bent material) or the at least one further magazine (for intermediate storage of the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle).
However, attention is directed to WO ‘538, which teaches a tool storage unit (4) for storing bending tools (13/14/15). See Figure 1 and at least paragraphs 0033, 0035, 0037, 0045, and the translation of claim 10 of WO ‘538. The robot gripper arm (of handling device 3/multiaxis robot 16) deposits the bending tools to, or retrieves the bending tools from, the tool storage unit (4). See Figure 1 and at least paragraphs 0033, 0035, 0037, 0045, and the translation of claim 10 of WO ‘538. That being said, the tool storage unit (4) constitutes at least one “further” magazine that is provided for “intermediate” storage (such as, for example, storage at a time that is in between times when the tools are provided to the bending press 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have (additionally) provided a bending tool storage unit/”further” magazine (4) as taught by WO ‘538 in proximity to the bending press machine 1 taught by WO ‘654 in a location such that the bending tool storage unit is accessible by the robot gripper arm of WO ‘654 in view of WO ‘538, as taught by WO ‘538, for the purpose of further facilitating the automated tool exchange taught by WO ‘538, which automated tool exchange has the benefits of allowing the tooling to be automatically changed over for differently-configured workpieces and/or for maintenance, as taught by WO ‘538 (paragraph 0035, for example, of WO ‘538). Resultantly, the bending machine of WO ‘654 in view of WO ‘538 includes at least one “further magazine” that is provided for intermediate storage of the at least one bending die, thus meeting claims 8-9 {noting the alternative language, and the optional limitations re the “preferably” language, and noting that given that the “further magazine” alternative of claim 8 is met, claim 9 is also met, given that claim 9 merely sets forth a more specific version of one of (i.e., another of, rather than the further magazine alternative) the alternatives of claim 8; see the above “Comment on Claim Language of Claims 8-9”}.
Regarding claims 11-12, WO ‘654 does not expressly teach that the bending die is locked in a bending die receiver via a locking device (re claim 11), or that such locking device is in the form of (for example) a pin such as a spring-loaded pin (though it is noted that claim 12 does not expressly require the pin to be spring-loaded).
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of locking devices such as (for example) at least one spring-loaded pin, to releasably lock a bending die to a die holder/receiver is extremely well-known and widely used, for the (well-known) purpose of allowing the bending die(s) to be readily removed/replaced, such as for maintenance or for facilitating the changing tools when different tools (such as of a different configuration) are to be used to produce a given workpiece configuration.
Therefore, regarding claims 11-12, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the bending machine taught by WO ‘654 (of WO ‘654 in view of WO ‘538) with a well-known locking device such as a spring-loaded pin, as is well-known, for the (well-known) purpose of allowing the bending die(s) to be readily removed from the die holder/receiver and/or be readily replaced, such as for maintenance or for facilitating the changing tools when different tools (such as of a different configuration) are to be used to produce a given workpiece configuration.
Regarding claims 13-14, it is noted that claim 13 was already addressed above. That said, it is noted that claim 14 is thus met, because claim 14 is merely a shorthand way of setting forth the alternatives “wherein the at least one gripper tool is formed as gripping jaws and/or comprises at least one, preferably spring-loaded, auxiliary tool…” to have a more specific limitation re the auxiliary tool alternative. Such does not change the fact that the gripping jaw alternative is met, and thus, claim 14 is met. (See the above discussion titled “Comment on Claim Language of Claims 13-14”, for example).
Claim 10, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/174654 A1 (hereinafter, “WO ‘654”) in view of WO 2013/166538 A1 (hereinafter, “WO ‘538”) as applied to at least claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0327104 to Haselboeck (hereinafter, “Haselboeck”).
WO ‘654 in view of WO ‘538 teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were discussed in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
However, WO ‘654 in view of WO ‘538 does not teach that the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle comprises at least one further marker for identifying the at least one bending die and/or the at least one guiding nozzle, as set forth in claim 10.
However, attention is directed to, for example, Haselboeck, who teaches that it is known to apply a marker (such as code 53, which can be a barcode 54, or which can be an electronic data carrier; see Figure 4 and at least paragraphs 0033, 0045, and claims 12-16 of Haselboeck, for example) to a bending tool (such as 13), which code is an unambiguous, unique code that can be automatically read to allow for automated monitoring of the bending tool, which facilitates the accessing of the specific bending tool(s) that are needed for a given tool set-up to carry out a desired forming process (thus preventing an incorrect set-up with a bending tool that is not suitable for the particular forming operation). See paragraphs 0033 and 0045, for example.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the bending machine taught by WO ‘654 (of WO ‘654 in view of WO ‘538) with bending tools/dies that each have a respective unique marker/code for identifying the particular bending die, and to have likewise provided a reader for reading that marker/code, as taught by Haselboeck, for the purpose of facilitating the automated monitoring of the bending tools of WO ‘654’s (of WO ‘654 in view of WO ‘538) bending machine, which thus facilitates the accessing of the specific bending tool(s) that are needed for a given tool set-up to carry out a desired forming process (thus preventing an incorrect set-up with a bending tool that is not suitable for the particular forming operation), as taught by Haselboeck (see paragraphs 0033 and 0045 of Haselboeck, for example).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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 K 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
April 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights