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 with traverse of Group I (claims 1-10, drawn to “A machine tool for the shaping production of an article’) in the reply filed on 12/1/2025 was previously acknowledged.
Claim 11 was previously withdrawn (and still is) from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/1/2025.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/20/2026. These drawings are unacceptable due to the following objection.
The drawings are objected to because while the “interface” is seemingly shown, said “interface” is not pointed to with its own reference character. The only figure in each of the drawings received on 12/26/2023 and on 3/20/2026 points to an “input device (8).” However, the claimed “interface” (of claim 12) that the input device (8) comprises is not pointed to in the drawings with its own reference character. 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.
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:
“a reading device for reading the machine-readable code” in claim 8; and
“the reading device detects the machine-readable code” 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 9 of the claim, “to be produced” should be inserted after “the article”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8, 9, and 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 limitation “a reading device for reading the machine-readable code” of claim 8 and “the reading device detects the machine-readable code” of claim 9 each 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. Examiner notes that the specification simply states the following as it pertains to the “reading device”.
[0014] The tools can be equipped with a machine-readable code. Preferably, the code can be read remotely. A machine-readable code can be read automatically by a reading device, wherein the tool type is stored for the code in the control device. This makes it possible for the machine tool to have a stock with a plurality of tools, wherein the tools can be transported and read by a suitable transport device. In this case, the code can be read optically or electromagnetically. In the case of optical readability, the tools are provided with an optically readable code, for example a bar code or a DM code (data matrix code). In the case of electromagnetic readability, the readout is performed on active or passive transmitters attached to the tool. RFID tags can be attached to the tools for this purpose, for example.
[0017] A reading device for reading the code can be assigned to the tool feed. The tool feed also preferably comprises a transport device for transporting the tools. The transport device can simultaneously serve to transport the tools and display the stock of tools. For example, the transport device can be designed as a conveyor belt on which the tools are arranged. The tools can be transported here in a circulating manner. The tools pass the reading device and the machine tool selects, in automated fashion, the tool that is assigned to the article to be produced. Alternatively, the transport device can be assigned a separate tool stock, into which the tools can be automatically stored and from which the tools can be automatically removed. It is also conceivable to manage the tool transport between the tool stock and the tool feed with the aid of an automated, driverless transport system.
[0018] Subsequently, the tool is fastened in automated fashion to the tool receptacle. Accordingly, the tools can pass the reading device during transport by means of the transport device, wherein the reading device detects the code.
[0022] Here, the machine tool is preferably a stamping machine. The stock of tools comprises a transport device for transporting the tools and a reading device for reading the codes which are attached to the stamping tools.
[0023] For the production of an article, a list of articles to be produced is stored in the memory of the control unit. A tool and a machine-readable code belonging to the tool are assigned here to each of the articles to be produced. The tools are transported via the transport device and read during transport by means of the reading device. If the reading device detects a tool belonging to the article to be manufactured, it is removed from the stock and attached to the tool feeder. The articles can then be produced.
[0033] The tool feed 3 comprises a transport device 9 for transporting the tools 5. This transport device is designed in the present case as a conveyor belt, wherein the tools 5 are transported in a circulating manner on the transport device 9. The tool feed 3 is also equipped with a reading device 10 for reading the machine-readable codes 7 attached to the tools 5.
[0034] For the exchange of the tool 5, the tools 5 are transported in circulation over the transport device 9 until the reading device 10 has detected the tool 5 belonging to the article to be produced of the current production order. This is then selected and is fed in automated fashion to the tool receptacle 2 via a feed device belonging to the tool feed 3 and is automatically fastened to the tool receptacle 2. The fitting time can be reduced if the tools 5 are transported via the transport device 9, and, for each tool 5 that passes the reading device 10, it is checked whether there is a production order for the article assigned to the tool 5. If so, the tool 5 is selected and installed. If not, the tools 5 are transported further.
Based on the foregoing, the specification does not provide sufficient details concerning the “reading device” such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how or in what way that the reading device performs the entire claimed function of “reading the machine-readable code” of claim 8 and/or “detects the machine-readable code” of claim 9. 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.
Lines 1-3 of claim 12 state therein, “wherein the input device comprises an interface which lists the articles to be produced and is generated from the memory.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as it written, it is unclear if it is the “input device” or the “interface” or the “list of articles” that is set forth by Applicant as being “generated from the memory.”
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 8, 9, and 12 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.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate disclosure to perform any of the following claimed function(s):
“reading the machine-readable code” (claim 8, line 2); and
“detects the machine-readable code” (claim 9, line 4).
Lines 1-3 of claim 12 state therein, “wherein the input device comprises an interface which lists the articles to be produced and is generated from the memory.” This limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement. This will now be explained.
Regarding the specification as filed by Applicant on 4/25/2023, it discloses the following:
[0015] The control device can comprise an input device for selecting the article. The input device can be implemented here by an interface via which electronic article information can be transferred to the machine tool. In this context, it is also conceivable that a work order in the form of a list of different articles to be produced is transferred via the input device. In this case, the list contains information on the tool required for the production of an article. If an article from the list is to be manufactured, the machine tool can use the list and the tool specified therein to select a tool from the stock of tools and attach it in an automated fashion to the tool receptacle.
[0016] The control device can comprise a memory, wherein a list of articles to be produced is stored in the memory, wherein a tool and a machine-readable code belonging to the tool are assigned to the articles to be produced. The list can be entered here into the control device by means of the input device. The list is used to assign tools to the articles to be produced. It is conceivable here to generate the list by means of the input device or to transfer it to the control device via the input device.
[0019] The control device can have an input device for selecting the article to be produced, wherein the control device uses the list to determine the tool required for producing the article. This is automated, so that the entire tool change and fitting process is possible without manual intervention.
[0030] The control device 6 is connected to an input device 8. The input device 8 has a control panel for selecting articles stored in the memory 1. Furthermore, the input device 8 is provided with an interface via which lists of articles to be produced can be transferred to the memory.
As can be seen in the above excerpts from the specification, at no point is the interface of the input device (8) disclosed as “lists the articles to be produced.” According to paragraph [0030] of the specification, “the input device 8 is provided with an interface via which lists of articles to be produced can be transferred to the memory.” While the input device’s (8) interface is the means via which lists of articles to be produced can be transferred to the memory, there isn’t any disclosure on this interface acting to list the articles to be produced. Please note that paragraph [0015] of the specification discloses that, “The input device can be implemented here by an interface via which electronic article information can be transferred to the machine tool.” This though is not disclosure for the interface of the input device (8) functioning to list the articles to be produced. Although the input device (8) is a means for entering the list into the control device (6) (see paragraph [0016]), and the input device (8) is a means for selecting the article to be produced (see paragraph [0019]), and while it is “conceivable here to generate the list by means of the input device or to transfer it to the control device via the input device” (please see again paragraph [0016]), this disclosure in paragraphs [0016] and [0019] does not equate to disclosure for the interface of said input device (8) “lists the articles to be produced.” Thus, the specification filed on 4/25/2023 does not provide disclosure for, “wherein the input device comprises an interface which lists the articles to be produced.”
Furthermore, as can be seen in the above excerpts from the specification, at no point are the lists of the articles to be produced disclosed as being “generated from the memory.” According to paragraph [0016] of the specification, the control device (6) “can comprise a memory, wherein a list of articles to be produced is stored in the memory.” Paragraph [0016] of the specification goes on to disclose that, “The list is used to assign tools to the articles to be produced. It is conceivable here to generate the list by means of the input device or to transfer it to the control device via the input device.” Although there is disclosure for the list of the articles to be produced being stored in the memory, and although there is also disclosure for the lists of the articles to be produced being able to be generated by means of the input device (8), the specification never actually provides disclosure for the lists of articles to be produced being “generated from the memory.” Please note that there is no indication that the input device (8) and the memory are one and the same. Thus, the specification filed on 4/25/2023 does not provide disclosure for, “wherein the input device comprises an interface which lists the articles to be produced and is generated from the memory.”
Next, with respect to the drawings filed on 4/25/2023 and 3/20/2026, the machine tool (1) is shown as comprising a control device (6) and an input device (8). Noting this, Applicant does not show an interface of the input device (8) in the only figure of the drawings as “lists the articles to be produced.” Thus, the drawings filed on 4/25/2023 and 3/20/2026 do not provide disclosure for, “wherein the input device comprises an interface which lists the articles to be produced and is generated from the memory.”
Since neither the specification nor the drawings are in agreement with the claimed subject matter, it cannot be reasonably conveyed to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AJA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1, 3, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridgway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,727,442 A) in view of De Koning (U.S. PG Publication No. 2008/0040911 A1).
Please note that Ridgway et al. is cited on the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) that was filed on 7/24/2023.
Please note that De Koning was cited by Examiner on the PTO-892 that mailed on 12/29/2025.
Claim 1: Ridgway et al. teaches a machine tool for shaping of an article [column 1, lines 5-7], the machine tool comprising a tool receptacle (18, 20) (see Figure 1A), a tool feed (306, 308), a stock (28) of tools (304) (see Figure 4), and a controller (200) (see Figure 2B).
The controller (200) comprises a manual command control component (248). The manual command control component (248) is an input device by means of which a sequence/ commands are supplied [column 9, lines 3-9]. By inputting a sequence/commands corresponding to an article to be produced at the manual command control component (248), the article to be produced is selected. As such, the manual command component corresponds to the claimed “input device” having the intended use of “for selecting the article to be produced.”
Next, as it pertains to the controller (200), at least when it receives a storage medium [column 8, lines 30-35], said controller (200) comprises a memory (as broadly claimed). Please be advised that the storage medium is, for example, a punched card or other command program member [column 10, lines 20-22]. Please note that a plurality of articles/workpieces can be programmed at one time and the operations of die selection, stock selection, press adjustment, stock feeding, and the counting of articles/workpieces will be under programmed control at all times [column 1, lines 54-60]. This plurality of articles/workpieces is a list of articles to be produced. Since the instructions/program for the plurality of articles/workpiece are on the storage medium the controller (200) receives, at least in this way, the controller (200) comprises “a memory that stores a list of articles to be produced.”
Be advised that the machine tool of Ridgway et al. is configured to select a tool (304) from the stock (28) of tools (304) based on the article (to be produced), and the machine tool is further configured to fasten the tool (304) to the tool receptacle (18, 20) (please see text of claims 34, 37, and 38).
Next, please be advised that Ridgway et al. doesn't disclose, “a machine-readable code of the tool.”
De Koning though, provides disclosure on tool holders and/or tools (11) being provided with a data carrier/machine-readable code, wherein a given machine-readable code is embodied, for example, as an RFID chip or an adhesive label provided with a suitable (bar) code that contains data with regards to the identity of the tool [paragraphs 0052, 0053]. Please be advised that the machine-readable codes are read by a reader (20) [paragraphs 0054, 0060] that is provided on a tool feed in the form of a robot (3) [paragraph 0054]. Thus, De Koning provides disclosure on tools (11) being “equipped with a machine-readable code.”
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 each of the tools (304) of the stock (28) of tools (304) of Ridgway et al. with a corresponding data carrier/machine-readable code of De Koning, and to have provided the tool feed (306, 308) of Ridgway et al. with the reader (20) of De Koning, so as to provide each of the tools (304) of Ridgway et al. with the advantage of a corresponding data carrier/machine-readable code that contains readable data with regards to the identity of the tool (304).
Lastly, be advised that the tool (304) of the stock (28) of tools (304) and the data carrier/ machine-readable code of the tool (304) are “assigned to the article to be produced.” This is because the selection of the tool (304) from the stock (28) of tools (304) is in accordance with the read information and the inserted instructions [text of claims 34 and 37 of Ridgway et al.].
That is to say that the information read from the storage medium, e.g. the punched card or other command program member, corresponds to the instructions/program for the article to be produced. Since the tool (304) of Ridgway et al. has the corresponding machine-readable code of De Koning, and because the tool (304) is selected (and in that way is “assigned”) as per the read information and inserted instructions to produce the corresponding article to be produced, the tool (304) and the machine-readable code of said tool (304) are assigned to the article to be produced.
Claim 3: Be advised that each data carrier/machine-readable code of De Koning that is provided on a corresponding tool (304) of Ridgway et al. is configured to be read remotely. This is known, as De Koning disclosed the data carriers/machine-readable codes as being read by a reader (20) which is provided remotely on a robot (3) of a robot cell (1) [De Koning, paragraph 0054]. It is reiterated that in the rejection of claim 1 that is was advised that the reader (20) of De Koning is provided on the tool feed (306, 308) of Ridgway et al. The reader (20) of De Koning is provided on the tool feed (306, 308) of Ridgway et al., because in the system of De Koning, the reader (20) was provided on the tool feed/robot (3) of De Koning [De Koning, paragraph 0054]. As such, each data carrier/machine-readable code on a corresponding tool (304) of Ridgway et al. is configured to be read remotely by the reader (20).
Claim 6: First, Examiner reiterates that a plurality of articles/workpieces can be programmed at one time and the operations of die selection, stock selection, press adjustment, stock feeding, and the counting of articles/workpieces will be under programmed control at all times [Ridgway et al. column 1, lines 54-60]. This plurality of articles/workpieces is the list of articles to be produced.
Next, regarding the controller (200), it is configured to determine the tool (304) required for producing the article using the list. Again, the selection of the tool (304) from the stock (28) of tools (304) is in accordance with the read information and inserted instructions [please see text of claims 34 and 37 of Ridgway et al.]. That is to say that the information read from the storage medium, e.g. the punched card or other command program member, corresponds to the instructions/program for the plurality of article(s) to be produced, and the tool (304) is selected as per the read information and inserted instructions to produce the corresponding article.
Based on the foregoing, after reading the information from the storage medium, the controller (200) directs operation of the machine tool, including the selection of tool (304) in accordance with the read information [see claim 37 of Ridgway et al.]. In directing selection of the tool (304), the controller (200) has used the list of articles to be produced to determine the tool (304) to produce the article.
Claim 7: Regarding the tool feed (306, 308), it comprises a transport device (306) in the form of a pusher ram (306), wherein the pusher ram (306) carries out the intended use of transporting the tools (304) [Ridgway et al., column 9, lines 32-42].
Claim 8: Ridgway et al. doesn't disclose the tool feed (306, 308) as further comprising, “a reading device for reading the machine-readable code.”
Be advised that line 2 of claim 8 sets forth therein, “a reading device for reading the machine-readable code.” Noting this, “a reading device” is being interpreted by Examiner 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. However, because adequate structure has not been identified in the specification for performing the claimed function (“reading the code”), the “reading device” has been interpreted for the purpose of applying prior art as any known mechanical structure that can perform the function of “reading the code”.
With respect to the prior art and Ridgway et al. and De Koning, it is reiterated that in the above rejection of claim 1 that is was advised that the reader (20) of De Koning is provided on the tool feed (306, 308) of Ridgway et al. The reader (20) of De Koning is provided on the tool feed (306, 308) of Ridgway et al., because in the system of De Koning, the reader (20) was provided on the tool feed/robot (3) of De Koning [De Koning, paragraph 0054].
Noting this, De Koning provides disclosure upon tool holders and/or tools (11) being provided with the data carrier/machine-readable code, wherein a given machine-readable code is embodied, for example, as an RFID chip or an adhesive label provided with a suitable (bar) code that contains data with regards to the identity of the tool [De Koning, paragraphs 0052, 0053]. Please be advised that the machine-readable codes are read by the reader (20) [De Koning, paragraphs 0054, 0060]. Therefore, the reader (20) corresponds to mechanical structure that can perform the function of “reading the code.” Based on the foregoing, the tool feed (306, 308) of Ridgway et al. further comprises the reader (20) (which is “a reading device”) for reading the machine-readable code.
Claim 9: First, please again note the machine-readable codes are disclosed as being read by the reader (20) [De Koning, paragraphs 0054, 0060]. When the reader (20) reads the data carrier/ machine-readable code corresponding to the tool (304), the reader (20) (“the reading device”) “detects the machine-readable code.” Also, during transport by the transport device (306) (which again is in the form of the pusher ram (306) [De Koning, column 9, lines 32-42]), the tools (304) will disengage the pusher member (308) of the tool feed (306, 308), and will pass the reader (20) of the tool feed (306, 308) whilst exiting the confines of the tool feed (306, 308) on their (304) way to being fastened at the tool receptacle (18, 20).
Claim 10: The machine tool is an automatic stamping machine [see abstract; see column 1, lines 5-7].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridgway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,727,442 A) in view of De Koning (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2008/0040911 A1), and further in view of Nishiyama (U.S. Patent No. 6,236,399 B1).
Please note that Nishiyama was cited by Examiner on the PTO-892 that mailed on 12/29/2025.
Claim 12: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, the manual command control component (248) is an input device by means of which a sequence/commands are supplied [column 9, lines 3-9]. Ridgway et al. though, does not provide disclosure on the input device comprising “an interface which lists the articles to be produced and is generated from the memory.”
Figures 4 and 5 of Nishiyama though, shows an multi-window NC apparatus (10) which is an input device comprising an interface that lists at Hb1, Hb2, Hb3, Hb4 articles to be produced. Please be advised that the list is generated from a main memory (27) [column 9, lines 57-67], wherein the main memory (27) is an internal memory of the multi-window NC apparatus (10).
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 supplemented the input device of the machine tool of Ridgway et al. with the multi-window NC apparatus (10), so as to provide the machine tool of Ridgway et al. with the advantage of being able display for an operator of the machine tool the list of articles that are to be produced wherein the list of articles is generated from the main memory (27). In making this modification, the modified input device of the machine tool of Ridgway et al. comprises the manual command control component (248) of Ridgway et al. and further comprises the multi-window NC apparatus (10) of Nishiyama.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f), Applicant argues the following:
It is respectfully submitted that the foregoing terms do not invoke under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) Specifically, in order to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), a claim limitation must, as a first prong of a three-prong analysis, use the term "means" or another nonce term. See MPEP § 2181(I). The following terms are recognized as nonce terms: "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." See MPEP § 2181(I)(A). In contrast, it is respectfully submitted that "a reading device," and "the reading device" of claims 8 and 9 are not nonce terms, and would each connote specific structure to a person of ordinarily skill in the art. For example, paragraph [0014] of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0398648 A1 (hereinafter "published specification"), describes that a machine-readable code can be read automatically by a reading device, and that in the case that the machine-readable code is optically readable, it is a bar code or a data matrix code. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the a reading device would be a bar code reader for reading a bar code and that this would provide sufficient structure for the claimed limitation of a reading device and how it operates to read or interact with the machine-readable code.
Thus, it is respectfully submitted that claims 8 and 9 should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but is not persuasive.
First, with respect to the list of non-structural generic placeholders that Applicant provided from MPEP § 2181(I)(A), please be advised that it is not a comprehensive list. In the same paragraph in MPEP § 2181(I)(A) in which that list was provided, the paragraph goes on to say the following: “Note that there is no fixed list of generic placeholders that always result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and likewise there is no fixed list of words that always avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Every case will turn on its own unique set of facts.” As such, just because “reading device” is not listed in MPEP § 2181(I)(A) does not mean that “a reading device” from claim 8 and “the reading device” from claim 9 is not a generic placeholder.
Having said that, Examiner respectfully disagrees that “a reading device” connotes specific structure to a person of ordinarily skill in the art. Without, for example, knowing how the machine-readable code is necessarily embodied, how would “reading device” even begin to connote specific structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art?
Applicant then argues that, “For example, paragraph [0014] of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0398648 A1 (hereinafter "published specification"), describes that a machine-readable code can be read automatically by a reading device, and that in the case that the machine-readable code is optically readable, it is a bar code or a data matrix code. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the a reading device would be a bar code reader for reading a bar code.” Noting this, Examiner would like to point out that smart phones and tablets are each able to read bar codes and data matrix codes. Is a smart phone or a tablet a bar code reader per se, or by bar code reader does Applicant mean some more akin to a handheld or mountable bar code scanner, for example, utilized in a warehouse or retail space.
As such, even if it is known how the machine-readable code is embodied, Examiner doesn’t see how specific structure is connoted to a person of ordinary skill in the art, when there are numerous devices (each having different structures) that can read, for example, bar codes and data matrix codes. On top of this, in paragraph [0014], Applicant also discusses the case of “electronic readability.” If the machine-readable code was an RFID tag, for example, Examiner notes that there are handheld and mountable RFID scanners that can read RFID tags, as well as certain smart phones and tablets that can read RFID tags. Again, there are numerous devices (each having different structures) that can read, for example, RFID tags.
Based on the foregoing, Examiner respectfully disagrees that a reading device “connotes specific structure to a person of ordinarily skill in the art” and additionally disagrees that, “One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the a reading device would be a bar code reader for reading a bar code and that this would provide sufficient structure for the claimed limitation of a reading device and how it operates to read or interact with the machine-readable code.” Rather than disclose any structure in paragraph [0014] (or elsewhere) in the specification as it pertains to claimed reading device of claims 8 and 9, Applicant provided in paragraph [0014] a few examples as to how the machine-readable code is able to be embodied. As was explained above though, examples of how the machine-readable code is able to be embodied though, does not serve to connote specific structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art as it pertains to said “reading device.” Applicant’s arguments are therefore not deemed to be persuasive.
With respect to the rejections of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C 112(a), Applicant argues the following:
As noted above, in the 112(f) section of the response, the specification provides several examples of what constitutes the machine-readable code and MPEP § 2163 provides that although the written description must allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter, there is no requirement for literal support, and instead implied, inherent, or reasonable inferences are sufficient. With respect to the above noted paragraphs of the published specification, if the machine-readable code is a bar code, the reading device is inherently a bar code reader, and if the machine-readable code is an RFID tag, the reading device is an RFID reader. The interaction between the machine-readable code and the reader need to be specified in extreme detail and Applicant submits that the as-filed specification does provide sufficient details for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how the reading device reads the machine-readable code or detects the machine-readable code. In view of the foregoing arguments and amendments, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is respectfully requested.
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but is not persuasive. Rather than disclose any structure in paragraph [0014] (or elsewhere) in the specification as it pertains to the claimed “reading device,” Applicant discloses a few examples in paragraph [0014] as to how the machine-readable code is able to be embodied. In the example utilized in the above argument, Applicant states that, “if the machine-readable code is an RFID tag, the reading device is an RFID reader.” Examiner notes that there are handheld and mountable RFID scanners that can read RFID tags, as well as certain smart phones and tablets that can read RFID tags. Each of these devices that can read RFID tags has a different structure. This is noted, because in the above argument Applicant even states that, “The interaction between the machine-readable code and the reader need to be specified in extreme detail and Applicant submits that the as-filed specification does provide sufficient details for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how the reading device reads the machine-readable code or detects the machine-readable code” (emphasis added). Applicant states the need for “extreme detail” with respect to the interaction between “the machine-readable code and the reader” but then doesn’t actually offer this “extreme detail.” For example, Examiner cannot locate in the specification any details about structure corresponding to the “reading device” of claims 8 and 9. On a side note, Applicant in the above argument referred to the claimed “reading device” as a “reader.” This is noted, since Applicant doesn’t actually claim a “reader” in either claim 8 or 9. “Reader” unlike “reading device,” wouldn’t appear to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Next, with respect to Applicant’s argument that, “MPEP § 2163 provides that although the written description must allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter, there is no requirement for literal support, and instead implied, inherent, or reasonable inferences are sufficient,” Examiner notes that he was unable to locate the term “inference” anywhere in MPEP § 2163, and as such, MPEP § 2163 doesn’t appear to ever state that “there is no requirement for literal support, and instead implied, inherent, or reasonable inferences are sufficient.” Rather, for example, MPEP § 2163 (I)(B) states, “While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure.” Noting this, as was stated above under “Claim Interpretation,” “a reading device for reading the machine-readable code” in claim 8 and “the reading device detects the machine-readable code” in claim 9 is each being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Because these particular claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Applicant though, never discloses any structure in the specification filed on 4/25/2023 for the “reading device.” Within paragraph [0014] of the specification, Applicant discloses the following: “The tools can be equipped with a machine-readable code. Preferably, the code can be read remotely. A machine-readable code can be read automatically by a reading device, wherein the tool type is stored for the code in the control device.” There; however, isn’t any structure in this limitation (or elsewhere in the specification for that matter) corresponding to the reading device. Again, examples of how the machine-readable code is able to be embodied does not serve to connote specific structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art as it pertains to said “reading device.”
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not deemed to be persuasive.
Next, with respect to Applicant’s arguments concerning the “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102”, they are moot. This is because Applicant’s arguments served to overcome the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Next, Applicant submitted arguments concerning the “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103” for Claims 2-4, 6, 8, and 9 with respect to the previous rejection thereof “under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Ridgway in view of JP '073.” Please be advised that none of the claims of the current claim set are rejected under “35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Ridgway in view of JP '073.” This combination of prior art (Ridgway in view of JP '073) was overcome by the amendments to claim 1 filed on 3/20/2026.
Having said that, with respect to the amended claim set filed on 3/20/2026, claims 1, 3, and 6-10 are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridgway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,727,442 A) in view of De Koning (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2008/0040911 A1). Also, new claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridgway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,727,442 A) in view of De Koning (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2008/0040911 A1), and further in view of Nishiyama (U.S. Patent No. 6,236,399 B1). Since Ridgway et al. is still being applied as a base reference in the current rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Examiner will now address Applicant’s arguments concerning Ridgway et al. With respect to Ridgway et al., Applicant argues the following:
Independent claim 1 of the present application has now been amended to recite "a controller comprising an input device for selecting the article to be produced, and a memory that stores a list of articles to be produced," and that "the tool and a machine-readable code of the tool are assigned to the article to be produced." Support for the amendments can be found, for example, in paragraphs [0014] - [0018] of the published specification, as well as previously presented dependent claims 2, 4, and 5.
For example, FIG. 1 of the present application (shown below) illustrates an embodiment of the present invention for a machine tool 1 comprising a tool receptacle 2, a tool feed 3, a stock 4 of tools 5, and a control device 6. See published specification, paragraph [0027]. The tools are equipped with a machine-readable code 7, and the control device 6 comprises a memory in which a list of articles to be produced can be stored, where list can store the type of articles to be produced, the number of articles to be produced, the tool 5 belonging to the articles to be produced, and a machine-readable code 7 belonging to the tool 5. See published specification, paragraphs [0028] and [0029]. The control device 6 is connected to an input device 8, and the input device 8 has a control panel for selecting articles stored in the memory 1. See published specification, paragraph [0030]. Furthermore, the input device 8 is provided with an interface via which lists of articles to be produced can be transferred to the memory. See published specification, paragraph [0030].
In contrast, Ridgway is silent as to the above noted amended features of claim 1. For example, with reference to FIG. 2B provided below, in the machine tool of Ridgway it is necessary to manually enter the parameters for the tool and the article to be manufactured, which can be done using a punch card. See Ridgway, col. 8 lines 30-50. In Ridgway, manual intervention is required to change the tool for the manufacture of another article. Amended claim 1 clarifies that the tool and a machine-readable code of the tool are assigned to the article to be produced, and that the input device selects the article to be produced where the machine tool is configured to select a tool of the tools based on the article, and to fasten the tool to the tool receptacle. As such, no manual intervention is required to switch tools based on the article to be produced in Applicant's claim 1. Instead, the tool is selected based on the article and the tool and machine-readable code of the tool are assigned to the article such that the machine tool is configured to select the appropriate tool absent input, such as manual input, or input provided by a punch card being provided to the machine tool of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument is directed toward, “manual intervention.” Applicant argues that “no manual intervention is required to switch tools based on the article to be produced in Applicant's claim 1” and “In Ridgway, manual intervention is required to change the tool for the manufacture of another article.” This argument is not persuasive. Ridgway et al. specifically says in column 1, lines 54-60 of the specification that, “It is also an object to provide a method and apparatus for the production of workpiece by stamping operations, in which a plurality of workpieces can be programmed at one time and the operations of die selection, stock selection, press adjustment, stock feeding, and the counting of articles/workpieces will be under programmed control at all times” (emphasis added). Ridgway et al. then proceeds to disclose in column 2, lines 19-34 of the specification that, “Adjacent the press, for example, in back of the press, and aligned with the working space of the press is an automatic die set storing and handling arrangement, for example, of a turret or carousel configuration. However, the automatic die set storing and handling unit may be constructed in a rectangular matrix or in a linear array as desired. The die set carrying arrangement has compartments which carry a plurality of die sets and, in each rotated position of the turret-type die set carrying arrangement, a respective die set is in registration with the working space of the press. A die set so registered with the working space of the press can be inserted automatically into the working space of the press and connected to the press bed and the press slide in a quick change fixture for being actuated by the press as the slide reciprocates therein” (emphasis added). Between the disclosure of the operation of die selection being under programmed control at all times, and a die set being able to inserted automatically into the working space of the press and connected to the press bed, Examiner respectfully disagrees that “In Ridgway, manual intervention is required to change the tool for the manufacture of another article.” This is because in Ridgway et al. there is clearly automatic tool changing.
Also with respect to manual intervention, Applicant argues that “the machine tool is configured to select the appropriate tool absent input, such as manual input, or input provided by a punch card being provided to the machine tool of claim 1.” Please be advised that Applicant discloses the following in the specification in paragraph [0015].
The control device can comprise an input device for selecting the article. The input device can be implemented here by an interface via which electronic article information can be transferred to the machine tool. In this context, it is also conceivable that a work order in the form of a list of different articles to be produced is transferred via the input device. In this case, the list contains information on the tool required for the production of an article. If an article from the list is to be manufactured, the machine tool can use the list and the tool specified therein to select a tool from the stock of tools and attach it in an automated fashion to the tool receptacle.
As can be seen above, Applicant’s input device can be implemented by an interface, and it is via said interface that “electronic article information can be transferred to the machine tool.” If the input device is implemented by an interface, and if the electronic article information is being transferred via the interface, how is there is no manual intervention? Along these same lines, how is a work order in the form of a list of different articles to be produced transferred via the input device if there isn’t any manual intervention? With an input device implemented by an interface, doesn’t the interface have to have manual input in order to be used? To Examiner it appears that in Applicant’s machine tool that there has to be information, i.e. the list, concerning the articles to be produced that has to be manually fed to the input device (8) of the machine tool.
Based on the articles to be produced, the tool(s) are selected accordingly. This is all to say that there is seemingly manual input in Applicant’s machine tool, and this manual input is needed to ultimately select the appropriate tool(s). If the articles to be produced aren’t known through input, then tool selection can’t even take place. Thus, unlike what is argued, it doesn’t appear to correct to say that Applicant’s machine tool is “configured to select the appropriate tool absent input, such as manual input.”
Also, Ridgway et al. teaches, “that the input device selects the article to be produced where the machine tool is configured to select a tool of the tools based on the article, and to fasten the tool to the tool receptacle.” This will now be explained.
With respect to Ridgway et al., at least when the controller (200) thereof receives a storage medium [column 8, lines 30-35], said controller (200) comprises a memory (as broadly claimed). Please be advised that the storage medium is, for example, a punched card or other command program member [column 10, lines 20-22]. Please note that a plurality of articles/workpieces can be programmed at one time and the operations of die selection, stock selection, press adjustment, stock feeding, and the counting of articles/workpieces will be under programmed control at all times [column 1, lines 54-60]. This plurality of articles/workpieces is a list of articles to be produced. Since the instructions/program for the plurality of articles/workpiece are on the storage medium the controller (200) receives, at least in this way, the controller (200) comprises “a memory that stores a list of articles to be produced.”
Be advised that the machine tool of Ridgway et al. is configured to select a tool (304) from the stock (28) of tools (304) based on the article (to be produced), and the machine tool is further configured to fasten the tool (304) to the tool receptacle (18, 20) (please see text of claims 34, 37, and 38). Regarding the former, the selection of the tool (304) from the stock (28) of tools (304) is in accordance with the read information and the inserted instructions [text of claims 34 and 37 of Ridgway et al.], and the information read from the storage medium, e.g. the punched card or other command program member, corresponds to the instructions/program for the article to be produced.
Lastly, Ridgway et al./De Koning teach, “the tool and a machine-readable code of the tool are assigned to the article to be produced.” This will now be explained.
Within the modified machine tool of Ridgway et al., the tool (304) of the stock (28) of tools (304) and the data carrier/ machine-readable code of the tool (304) are “assigned to the article to be produced.” This is because the selection of the tool (304) from the stock (28) of tools (304) is in accordance with the read information and the inserted instructions [text of claims 34 and 37 of Ridgway et al.]. That is to say that the information read from the storage medium, e.g. the punched card or other command program member, corresponds to the instructions/program for the article to be produced. Since the tool (304) of Ridgway et al. has the corresponding machine-readable code of De Koning, and because the tool (304) is selected (and in that way is “assigned”) as per the read information and inserted instructions to produce the corresponding article to be produced, the tool (304) and the machine-readable code of said tool (304) are assigned to the article to be produced.
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not deemed to be persuasive.
Furthermore, with respect to Ridgway et al., Applicant argues the following:
Additionally, Ridgway is silent as to a memory that stores a list of articles to be produced, as noted above Ridgway relies on a punch card to identify the article to be manufactured which is not the same as or suggestive of memory that stores a list of articles to be produced in a controller as required by amended claim 1. It is respectfully submitted that Ridgway fails to disclose or suggest the features of amended claim 1 for at least these reasons.
Applicant’s arguments has been considered, but are not persuasive.
With respect to Ridgway et al., as it pertains to the controller (200), at least when it receives a storage medium [column 8, lines 30-35], said controller (200) comprises a memory (as broadly claimed). Please be advised that the storage medium is, for example, a punched card or other command program member [column 10, lines 20-22]. Please note that a plurality of articles/workpieces can be programmed at one time and the operations of die selection, stock selection, press adjustment, stock feeding, and the counting of articles/workpieces will be under programmed control at all times [column 1, lines 54-60]. This plurality of articles/workpieces is a list of articles to be produced. Since the instructions/program for the plurality of articles/ workpiece are on the storage medium the controller (200) receives, at least in this way, the controller (200) comprises “a memory that stores a list of articles to be produced.”
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not deemed to be persuasive.
Lastly, with respect to the section titled “New Claim” on page 10 of the arguments filed by Applicant on 3/20/2026, please be advised that there aren’t any specific arguments in this section for Examiner to address.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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 VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights