DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for Application No. EP22 183 143.1 filed on 07/05/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for informalities, lack of antecedent support, or for redundancies. The Examiner recommends the following changes:
Claim 1:
Line 3, replace “the clamping device” with “the rotating clamping device”
Line 8, replace “the clamping device” with “the rotating clamping device”
Line 9, delete “are”
Line 18, replace “microprocessors” with “at least two redundant microprocessors”
Line 18, replace “the force sensors” with “the at least one force sensors”
Line 19, replace “several” with “the”
Line 20, replace “microprocessors” with “at least two redundant microprocessors”
Line 20, replace “the force sensors” with “the at least one force sensors”
Line 21, replace “opposing clamping means (2, 3)” with “opposing clamping means of the clamping means (2, 3)”
Line 22, replace “microprocessors (22, 23)” with “microprocessors of the at least two redundant microprocessors (22, 23)”
Claim 3:
Line 2, replace “the force sensor” with “the at least one force sensors”
Line 3, replace “the force sensors” with “the at least one force sensors”
Line 4, replace “several” with “the”
Line 5, replace “microprocessors” with “at least two redundant microprocessors”
Line 6, replace “clamping means” with “the clamping means”
Line 7, replace “microprocessors (22, 23)” with “microprocessors of the at least two redundant microprocessors (22, 23)”
Claim 4:
Line 2, replace “sensors” with “the path sensors”
Line 3, replace “control unit” with “the control unit”
Claim 5: Line 3, replace “the coupling device” with “the coupling unit”
Claim 6:
Line 4, replace “clamping device” with “rotating clamping device”
Line 8, replace “the clamping device” with “the rotating clamping device”
Line 11, replace “the microprocessors” with “the two redundant microprocessors”
Line 17, replace “the microprocessors” with “the two redundant microprocessors”
Line 17, replace “the force sensors” with “the at least one force sensors”
Line 18, replace “several” with “the”
Line 19, replace “microprocessors” with “two redundant microprocessors”
Line 19, replace “the force sensors” with “the at least one force sensors”
Line 20, replace “opposing clamping means (2, 3)” with “opposing clamping means of the clamping means (2, 3)”
Line 22, replace “microprocessors (22, 23)” with “microprocessors of the two redundant microprocessors (22, 23)”
Claim 8: Line 2, replace “each advancement means” with “each of the advancement means”
Claim 9:
Line 3, replace “microprocessors” with “two redundant microprocessors”
Line 4, replace “other” with “another”
Claim 10:
Line 2, replace “force sensors” with “the at least one force sensors”
Line 3, replace “microprocessors” with “of the two redundant microprocessors”
Claim 11, Line 2, replace “microprocessors” with “of the two redundant microprocessors”
Claim 12, Line 2, replace “microprocessors” with “of the two redundant microprocessors”
Appropriate corrections are respectfully requested.
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 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.
Referring to independent claims 1 and 6, these claims recite the claim limitations a “coupling unit” and “advancement means”. For purposes of examination, as described in paragraph [0029] of the published specification, the “coupling unit” will be construed as an inductive coupler. For purposes of examination, as described in paragraph [0018] of the published specification, the “advancement means” will be construed as a mechanism, such as servomotors, that activate clamping means.
While claim 6 is a method claim, the claim invokes 112(f) because the structural elements of the claim limitations the “coupling unit” and the “advancement means” do not appear in the claim. See MPEP 2181 Identifying and Interpreting a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph Limitation “Structural elements may appear in both product claims and process claims; thus, all claim types should be reviewed for the presence of “means-plus-function” limitations. Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc., 989 F.3d 1002, 1006, 2021 USPQ2d 284, (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Applicants are free to invoke § 112 ¶ 6 for a claim term nested in a method claim. We have never held otherwise.”). See also Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1374, 116 USPQ2d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that the term “compliance mechanism” in a method claim was a means-plus-function term).”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “characterized in that respectively at least one force sensor (35, 36) or clamping signal transmitter is allocated either to the clamping means (2, 3) and they are respectively data-connected solely with one of the microprocessors (22, 23)” in lines 15-18. It is unclear what Applicant means by “they”. Appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. For purposes of examination, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the limitation will be interpreted as “characterized in that respectively at least one force sensor (35, 36) or clamping signal transmitter is allocated either to the clamping means (2, 3) and is respectively data-connected solely with one of the microprocessors (22, 23)”. (emphasis added)
Claims 2-5 are dependent claims of claim 1. The claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the microprocessors (22, 23) use process data received from process sensors independently of each other in process data sets and transmit to the machine control (10) via the control unit (21)” in lines 11-13. It is unclear what Applicant means by “transmit”, as in what data is being transmitted (process data received from process sensors or process data sets). Appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. For purposes of examination, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the limitation will be interpreted as “the microprocessors (22, 23) use process data received from process sensors independently of each other in generating process data sets and transmit the process data sets to the machine control (10) via the control unit (21)”. (emphasis added)
Claims 7-12 are dependent claims of claim 6. The claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter (over Prior Art only)
Provided that the objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections to the claims are overcome, the subject matter of claims 1-17 is found to be allowable over the prior art of record and would be considered allowable.
Regarding independent claim 1, Hediger (US 2022/0193850 A1) (“Hediger”), a family of EP 4015144 A1 (a reference cited in IDS submitted on 10/17/2023), teaches:
A machine tool with a stationary machine control (10) and a rotating clamping device (1), (Hediger: Abstract “The invention relates to a monitoring arrangement (12) for monitoring the clamping quality of a workpiece carrier clamped in a clamping device (3, 40, 49) as well as a clamping system with clamping device (3, 40, 49) and such a monitoring arrangement (12). The monitoring arrangement comprises at least two sensors (A1-A4) for the independent detection of the clamping quality of a clamped workpiece carrier or workpiece. The monitoring arrangement also comprises a transmitting device (14) and a receiving device (21), wherein the transmitting device (14) is constituted such that it transmits the determined or calculated parameter or parameters redundantly to the receiving device (21).”) (Heidiger: [0022] “In a particularly preferred development, the monitoring arrangement comprises a receiving antenna for receiving data transmitted by means of the transmitting device and a gateway connected to the receiving antenna, wherein the gateway is provided with two independent microprocessor units, by means of which the received data are independently and redundantly further processed in each case, and wherein the gateway is connected to a machine control of a processing machine. This embodiment contributes to the fact that the data can be reliably received and transmitted by means of the gateway to the machine control of the processing machine.”) [The processing machine reads on “[a] machine tool”.]
wherein the machine control (10) communicates with a clamping device control (20) that is rotating with the clamping device (1) with the intermediate connection of a coupling unit (7), (Hediger: [0047] “Receiving antenna 22 is connected via a first cable 23 to gateway 24, which for its part is connected via a second cable 27 to a machine control 28. Machine control 28 is connected via a third cable 29 to a handling robot 30. Gateway 24 is also connected via a fourth cable 31 to a service tool 32. Although gateway 24 is shown here outside line 2 symbolizing the clamping system, it generally also forms a component of monitoring device 12 and is assigned to the clamping system. By means of handling robot 30, clamping device 3 can feed or remove the workpiece carrier or workpiece. Machine control 28 controls the processing machine, on which clamping device 3 is used. Finally, the service tool serves as a tool for calibration and diagnosis. Although the aforementioned cables 23, 27, 29, 31 are represented only diagrammatically here by a line in each case, the term cable in the present connection stands for any kind of electrical connection, wherein both single- and also multi-core electric lines as well as a plurality of independent lines are to be understood thereby. Thus, gateway 24 is connected for example via at least two lines to machine control 28, which will be explained in greater detail below.”) [The machine control 28 reads on “the machine control (10)”. The clamping system 2, as illustrated in FIG. 1, reads on “a clamping device control”, and the clamping device 3 reads on “the clamping device (1)”. The combination of the transmitting device 14 and the receiving device 21 reads on “a coupling unit (7)”. The coupling unit 7 as intermediary between the machine control 28 and the clamping system 2, as illustrated in FIG.1, reads on “… the intermediate connection”.]
wherein the coupling unit (7) provides a contactless data connection from the machine control (10) to the clamping device control (20), (Hediger: [0044] “… Transmitting device 14 is also provided with a radio module—radio transmitter—and a transmitting antenna 17 for the wireless transmission of the measurement data. …”) (Hediger: [0046] “Receiving device 21—radio receiver—arranged remote from clamping device 3 comprises, apart from a receiving antenna 22, a gateway 24 for preparing the data. …”) [The wireless transmission of data using antennas reads on “provides a contactless data connection …”.]
at least two redundant microprocessors (22, 23) are allocated to the control unit (21), via which process data sets received by the machine control (10) via the control unit (21) can be verified independently of each other and/or process data received by process sensors can be used independently of each other in process data sets and can be transmitted via the control unit (21) to the machine control (10), (Hediger: [0044] “… Transmitting device 14 is provided with two independent microprocessor units 15, 16, which carry out pre-processing of the measurement data. The two microprocessor units 15, 16 are preferably provided with different microprocessors, in order to ensure independent and redundant preparation of the measurement data. …”) [The microprocessor units 15, 16 read on “at least two redundant microprocessors (22, 23)”, and the combination of the microprocessor units 15, 16 reads on “the control unit (21)”. The microprocessor units 15, 16 receiving the measurement data, independently and redundantly preparing the measurement data, and transmitting the prepared data reads on this limitation.]
characterized in that respectively at least one force sensor (35, 36) or clamping signal transmitter is allocated either to the clamping means (2, 3) and they are respectively data-connected solely with one of the microprocessors (22, 23), or the force sensors (35, 36) or clamping signal transmitters of several clamping means (2, 3) are allocated to the microprocessors (22, 23). (Hediger: [0050] “Of the three sensors per chuck 6, 7, 8, 9, a first sensor A1, A2, A3, A4 in each case serves to determine the clamping force with which a clamping spigot is clamped in the respective chuck. …”) (Hediger: [0044] “… On the other hand, an A/D converter is integrated, which digitalizes the analogue measurement signals, so that these measurement data can be transmitted digitally over comparatively few lines L1-L4, in the ideal case over one line per sensor module 34, 35, 36, 37, to transmitting device 14. Transmitting device 14 is provided with two independent microprocessor units 15, 16, which carry out pre-processing of the measurement data. …”) [The chucks 6, 7, 8, 9 read on “clamping means (2, 3)”. The two independent microprocessor units 15, 16 pre-processing the measurement data of the sensors A1, A2, A3, A4 reads on “at least one force sensor … are respectively data-connected …”. The sensor module 34, 35, 36, 37 read on “clamping signal transmitters”, and the the sensor module 34, 35, 36, 37 transmitting to the two independent microprocessor units 15, 16 via the lines L1-L4 reads on “clamping signal transmitters … are allocated …”.]
Hediger does not expressly teach: wherein the clamping device control (20) comprises a control unit (21) for actuating advancement means for activating clamping means (2, 3) of the clamping device (1), and the force sensors (35, 36) or clamping signal transmitters of opposing clamping means (2, 3) are allocated to different microprocessors (22, 23).
Maurer (US 2020/0078872 A1) (“Maurer”), a family of EP 3620248 A1 (a reference cited in IDS submitted on 10/17/2023), teaches:
wherein the clamping device control (20) comprises a control unit (21) for actuating advancement means for activating clamping means (2, 3) of the clamping device (1). (Maurer: [0009] “In that at least one programmable interface is provided between the second inductive transmission device and the control device, which interface is electrically connected to the second inductive transmission device and the control device, in that each interface has one or more command and control programs by means of which the chuck is set by the control device, in that a plurality of measuring sensors are provided which are assigned to the clamping jaws, electric motors and/or the chuck and by means of which their operating states are detected and are transmitted to the respective interface, in that a comparison between the actual data stored in the command programs and the measurement data determined by the measuring sensors takes place by means of the respective interface, and in that data records are generated by this comparison of the selected operating state of the chuck with an actual operating state, which are evaluated by the respective interface and forwarded to the control device of the chuck, the chuck jaws or the electric motors, the chuck can be connected to a customer-specific control device without programming effort and can be put into operation immediately, since the command data and monitoring values required for the control and monitoring of the chuck are transmitted from the interface both in the direction of the control device and in the direction of the chuck after its connection to the second inductive transmission device and the control device. Consequently, the chuck and the programmable interface can be assembled and interconnected accordingly by the manufacturer, and as soon as the chuck with the interface is delivered to the respective customer, the control unit can be connected to the respective interface, allowing the chuck to be put into operation immediately without the need for time-consuming and complex programming work or adaptation of the respective customer-specific control units to the supplied chuck.”) [The control device reads on “a control unit (21)”. The clamping jaw reads on “clamping means”, and the motor reads on “advancement means”.]
However, the description of the cited prior art of record, including Hediger and Maurer, individually or combined, do not teach or fairly suggest the following limitation as part of the totality of the claim 1: the force sensors (35, 36) or clamping signal transmitters of opposing clamping means (2, 3) are allocated to different microprocessors (22, 23).
Independent claim 6 includes similar allowable subject matter, over prior art only, as independent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
STANGL (US 2022/0011183 A1) teaches improving safety in a clamping process by merging sensor data from two different sensors via redundant transmission paths for redundant control of the clamping, as described in at least Paragraph [0013] (“It is furthermore advantageous if a sensor is present for detecting the actuation force, whose measured data may be transmitted in a wirebound manner to the control unit. In this method, two separate sensors are available, which detect the active force in different locations of the force transmission chain and represent a significant increase in safety due to the merging of two items of sensor data via redundant transmission paths.”), and paragraph [0019] (“It should be noted that the threshold value for a deviation where F.sub.real is less than F.sub.calc does not have to be identical to the threshold value for a deviation where F.sub.real is greater than F.sub.calc and, in particular, may be selected to be lower. The deformation sensitivity of workpiece 5 clamped or to be clamped may also be taken into account in defining the threshold value. Finally, it should be noted that actuation force F may not only be derived from the generated actuation force but may also be controlled with the aid of a sensor, whose measured data is transmitted in a wirebound manner to control unit 6. Two different sensors are thus available, which transmit their measured data to control unit 6 on different paths for the redundant control of the clamping state.”)
KÖCHL et al. (US 2024/0181582 A1) teaches improving reliability of clamping of workpiece during operation using redundant monitoring of a state of workpiece stress using two different types of sensor units and using contactless, inductive couplers to transmit information between clamping device side and the machine control side, as described in at least paragraph [0043] (“In this way, redundant monitoring of the state of stress including at least two different types of sensor units may be provided, thereby improving the monitoring of the state of stress and thus increasing operational reliability. In particular, the combination of the end position sensor unit relating to the mechanics and the pressure sensor unit relating to the energy supply is suitable.”), and paragraph [0068] (“Preferably, the inductive coupler on the support device side is electrically coupled to a control device of the machine tool arranged on the side of the base of the machine tool such that, while the workpiece is being machined, information in the form of electrical signals can be transmitted between the support device and the control device, in particular information about the state of stress of the clamping device monitored by the monitoring device, said information being transmitted to the support device via the information transmission interface.”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-5069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/MICHAEL W CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116