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 .
In the event the determination of the status of Aki in view of Kim and Crivella renders obvious the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 unit in claim 5; section-removal unit in claim 8; and sensor unit in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed recites a control unit may be an electronic control unit, advantageously a programmable logic controller (PLC) and equivalents thereof. Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed recites a section-removal unit may be a hood and equivalents thereof. Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed recites a sensor unit may be one or more sensors and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in Aki in view of Kim and Crivella renders obvious the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aki (JP 2012 096252) as provided by (JP 2012 096252) machine translation as an English language equivalent in view of Kim (US 2019/0070655 A1) and Crivella et al. (US 2021/0046601 A1).
Claim 1:
Aki discloses an application apparatus for applying a sealing profile to a body component ([0001]), comprising:
a hemming tool including a hem die (6) configured to, as a first station step, apply the sealing profile to a receiving surface of the body component (2), including a drilling unit (14), wherein the drilling unit (14) is configured to, as further station step, drill holes into the sealing profile (fig. 1, [0022] and [0024]).
Aki fails to disclose a roller head. Instead, Aki discloses a hemming tool for applying the sealing profile.
Kim discloses a roller hemming apparatus comprising a hemming bed and roller head (20) including a plurality of hemming rollers (figs. 1 and 5, [0018] and [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the hemming apparatus of Aki to employ the hemming rollers of Kim in place of, or in addition to, the hemming die of Aki, while retaining the drilling unit disclosed in Aki. See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Such a modification would have been a predictable substitution of known hemming mechanisms, motivate by the known advantages of roller-based hemming, such as improved control of hemming forces, reduced tooling wear, and adaptability to varying panel geometries, as taught by Kim while maintaining the integrated drilling functionality already disclosed by Aki.
Aki in view of Kim fails to disclose a drilling unit having a drill bit. Instead, Aki in view of Kim discloses a punch for drilling holes (Aki, [0024]).
Crivella discloses a drilling tool (106) comprising a drill bit and a further teaches a drilling tool may include any other type of drilling tool including a tap, a die and/or the like (fig. 1, [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the punch of Aki in view of Kim to employ a drill bit-based drilling unit as taught by Crivella as a known alternative hole-forming mechanism. See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 2:
Aki in view of Kim and Crivella renders obvious the application apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the drilling unit (Crivella, 106) is assigned to an arrangement position which defines a drilling of the sealing profile as further station step prior to an application of the sealing profile. Claim 2 merely recites alternative operational timing of the drilling step relative to sealing and does not impose any additional structural limitations beyond those of claim 1.
Claim 3
Aki in view of Kim and Crivella renders obvious the application apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the drilling unit (Crivella, 106) is assigned to an arrangement position which defines a drilling of the sealing profile as further station step during an application of the sealing profile. Claim 3 merely recites alternative operational timing of the drilling step relative to sealing and does not impose any additional structural limitations beyond those of claim 1.
Claim 4:
Aki in view of Kim and Crivella renders obvious the application apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the drilling unit (Crivella, 106) is assigned to an arrangement position which defines a drilling of the sealing profile as further station step after an application of the sealing profile. Claim 4 merely recites alternative operational timing of the drilling step relative to sealing and does not impose any additional structural limitations beyond those of claim 1.
Claim 5:
Aki in view of Kim and Crivella renders obvious the application apparatus of Claim 1, wherein Aki in view of Kim and Crivella renders obvious the application apparatus is assigned a control unit (Kim, 41, 42) (Kim, fig. 13, [0074] and [0100]), wherein the control unit is configured to control the roller head and the drilling unit (Crivella, 106). Kim teaches a control unit for coordinating operation of hemming components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Kim controller to also control the drilling unit of a proposed combination of Aki, Kim and Crivella, as controllers in automated manufacturing systems are commonly used to coordinate multiple processing operations, including drilling. See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 10:
Aki in view of Kim and Crivella renders obvious the application apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising an arrangement interface by way of which the application apparatus is arranged on a movable robot arm (Kim, 50) or on a station carrier (Kim, 25) (Kim, fig. 1, [0029] and [0070]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aki in view of Kim and Crivella as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pringle, IV et al. (US 2019/0168388 A1).
Claim 6:
Aki in view of Kim and Crivella renders obvious the application apparatus of Claim 1; and Aki in view of Kim and Crivella fails to disclose the drill bit of the drilling unit is oriented along a drilling axis, wherein the drilling axis of the drill bit can be adjusted by means of an actuator unit of apparatus.
Pringle discloses an application apparatus (abstract) comprising a drilling unit ([0082]) wherein the drilling unit is oriented along a drilling axis, wherein the drilling axis of the drill unit can be adjusted by means of an actuator unit (wrist, 70) of the application apparatus (figs. 4-10, [0052] and [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the application apparatus of Aki in view of Kim and Crivella to provide an actuator unit as taught by Pringle in order to move the application apparatus a desired position within the workpiece ([0005]). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 7:
Aki in view of Kim, Crivella and Pringle renders obvious the application apparatus of Claim 6, wherein the drilling axis of the drill bit can be adjusted in a first spatial direction (X) and/or in a second spatial direction (Y) and/or in a third spatial direction (Z) (Pringle, figs. 3-10, [0068]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aki in view of Kim and Crivella as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cai et al. (US 2018/0111701 A1).
Claim 8:
Aki in view of Kim and Crivella renders obvious the application apparatus of Claim 1; and, Aki in view of Kim and Crivella fails to disclose the drilling unit includes a suction-removal unit which is configured for suction removal of chips produced during the drilling of the sealing profile.
Cai discloses an application apparatus (abstract) comprising a drilling unit (50) including a suction-removal unit (44) which is configured for suction removal of chips produced during the drilling of the sealing profile (figs. 5-6, [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the application apparatus of Aki in view of Kim and Crivella by providing a suction-removal unit as taught by Cai in order to remove cutting debris including dust and chips from the drilling process (Cai, [0025]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 9:
Aki in view of Kim and Crivella renders obvious the application apparatus of Claim 1; and, Aki in view of Kim and Crivella fails to disclose the drilling unit comprises at least one sensor unit which is configured to monitor a drilling operation carried out by the drill bit of the drilling unit.
Ozog discloses an application apparatus (abstract) comprising a drilling unit (70) including at least one sensor unit (280) which is configured to monitor a drilling operation carried out by the drill bit of the drilling unit (figs. 7A-7B, [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the application apparatus of Aki in view of Kim and Crivella by providing at least one sensor unit as taught by Ozog in order to measure the distance to the workpiece (Ozog, [0082]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koerbel (WO 2010/125057 A2) discloses a robot arm. Pedigo (US 11,192,245 B2) discloses systems for controlling robots and their end effectors. Erker et al. (US 2016/0279691 A1) discloses a steering roller head for hemming or seaming metal sheets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726