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 .
1. Claims 13-23 are presented for examination and claims 1-12 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment/Response to Arguments
2. 2.1 The rejection under 101 of claim 23 has been withdrawn since applicant’s amendments are persuasive and overcome the rejection.
2.2 The rejection under 112 of claims 14-17 has been withdrawn since applicant’s amendments overcome the rejection.
2.3 Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant amended the claims, and argues regard to the newly amended limitation. This amendment was added in response to the non-final rejection made by the Office. As a result, the previous rejection has been withdrawn and a new rejection has been made in its place (Steinkopf (US 20210078126 A1) in view of Barman (US 20040138772 A1). See the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of 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.
3. 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.
3.1 Claim(s) 13-15 and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinkopf (US 20210078126 A1) in view of Barman (US 20040138772 A1).
Regarding claims 13 and 22-23, Steinkopf discloses for producing a device that moves a workpiece from a first tool for machining the workpiece into a second tool for machining the workpiece (Fig. 1, [0062], the machine tool can manufacture the workpiece, The machine tool can be, for example, an additive manufacturing machine, a CNC machine, a pressing machine, a rolling machine, a wire and/or sheet bending machine, a wire drawing machine, a grinding and/or polishing machine or a welding machine. The tools can, for example, provide a 3D printing, drilling, turning, milling, cutting, grinding, polishing, pressing, rolling, bending and/or welding function), comprising the steps of:
by an electronic computing unit (Fig 1, a process control device 8 and an analysis unit 7), determining a nominal value of a nominal property of the device and/or of a movement apparatus configured to move the device in space (Fig. 1, [0004], [0009], [0016], [0081], The workpieces to be manufactured are specified by the nominal data in a drawing and/or CAD model, which define the theoretical dimensions of the workpiece in combination with suitable tolerances. The tolerances define the accepted deviations between the given theoretical dimensions of the nominal data and the actual dimensions of a manufactured workpiece);
by the electronic computing unit (Fig 1, a process control device 8 and an analysis unit 7), comparing the nominal value with actual values (Abstract, [0082]-[0090], Fig. 3-6, the chart show comparison between of the nominal value and 25 and the measurement value 13), stored in a data memory ([0081], the process information 10 is stored in the control chart 5), of a property of pre-existing devices and/or of a pre-existing movement apparatus (the workpieces 3) so as to determine for each of the actual values a difference between the nominal value and the actual value ([0082], If a milling tool used to produce the trunnion wears out over time, a drift occurs, which in the example shown runs against a fixed threshold value of 25.15 (OG) at the time t1. At the time t2 a correction is performed so that the measurement values are back to the nominal value. At the time t3 a further wear of the milling head becomes noticeable and the measurement values show again a drift. At the time t4 there is again a maximum approximation to the threshold value 25.15 (OG), so that at the time t5 a correction follows again); and
by the electronic computing unit (Fig 1, a process control device 8 and an analysis unit 7), displaying on an electronic display information characterizing at least one of the pre-existing devices (Fig. 1, display the computer analyses the control chart 5 of the measuring values 14 of different measured characteristics of the workpiece 3), wherein the information is displayed based on the difference between the nominal value ([0082], The nominal value is 25 in Fig. 3-6) and the actual value (the measurement value 13) of the at least one of the pre-existing devices ( Fig. 1, [0082], the measurement value of the workpiece 3).
Steinkopf discloses the different variety of workpiece as shown in Par. [0062], but fails specifically to disclose producing a device that moves a workpiece.
However, Barman discloses producing a device that moves a workpiece ([0003], [0005], The hydraulic system may provide the power required to move a work implement to perform a task, such as, for example, moving a load of earth or debris from a first location to a second location).
Barman and Steinkopf are analogous art. They relate to compare the nominal values with the actual value when design a workpiece.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify designing a machine component, taught by Barman, incorporated with measured object during product development, taught by Steinkopf, in order to provide a quality inspection step, where measures are taken to ensure the desired quality of the manufactured parts, i.e. to ensure that the percentage of “good” parts does not come below a defined minimum.
Regarding claim 14, Steinkopf discloses the information is displayed based on the difference being below a threshold value (Abstract, Fig. 5, control chart 5, [0092] FIGS. 3, 4 and 5 define upper tolerance values OT, lower tolerance values UT, upper threshold values OG and lower threshold values UG. The tolerance values OT and UT are specified by the manufacturing specification. The threshold values OG and UG can be defined).
Regarding claim 15, Steinkopf discloses the information is displayed based on an order of the differences (Fig. 3-6, control chart displays the comparison based on an order of the differences).
Regarding claim 17, Barman discloses property comprises a physical orientation of an element of the movement apparatus ([0025], a head end port 216 size, a head end port 216 orientation, a rod end port 214 type, a rod end 214 port size, a rod end port 214 orientation), and wherein the pre-existing device is configured to be fixed on the element ((Fig. 2, [0004], [0022], [0051], the varying operational requirements of each work machine may result in each work machine having, for example, different load moving capacities, ranges of motion, overall size, and travel capability, the load lifting, range of movement, weight).
Regarding claim 18, Barman discloses wherein the element comprises a rod ([0023], Fig. 2, a fluid cylinder 200 may include a housing 202 that has a rod end 218 and a head end 220. Housing 202 defines a bore 204 that slidably receives a rod 206 and a connected piston 208).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Barman and Steinkopf disclose:
Barman discloses the property comprises a surface normal that runs through a fixing point of the pre-existing device, wherein the pre-existing device is configured to releasably hold the workpiece at the fixing point (Fig. 2, [0004], [0022], [0051], the varying operational requirements of each work machine may result in each work machine having, for example, different load moving capacities, ranges of motion, overall size, and travel capability, the load lifting, range of movement, weight). In addition, Steinkopf discloses (Fig, 1, [0062] The machine tool can be, for example, an additive manufacturing machine, a CNC machine, a pressing machine, a rolling machine, a wire and/or sheet bending machine, a wire drawing machine, a grinding and/or polishing machine or a welding machine. The tools can, for example, provide a 3D printing, drilling, turning, milling, cutting, grinding, polishing, pressing, rolling, bending and/or welding function).
Regarding claim 20, Barman discloses wherein determining the nominal value comprises receiving, by the electronic computing unit, at least one user input characterizing the nominal value ([0019]-[0022], 0025]-[0026], design request form 102 may allow a user to enter the design requirements or parameters for any type of machine component. For example, a user may enter a plurality of design requirements related to a fluid cylinder for use in a hydraulic system of a work machine).
Regarding claim 21, Barman discloses producing the device based on the displayed information (Fig. 1-3, [0024]-[0027], [0047], design request form 102 may also be adapted to provide instructions or clarifications to the user to assist in the entry of the design requirements. For example, design request form 102 may include drawings or figures that illustrate an exemplary fluid cylinder 200 to indicate the required design requirements. Design request form 102 may also include help screens or other similar functions to further assist the user in entering the design requirements).
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation Pertinent prior art
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Weber et al. (US 20070124013 A1) discloses compare the nominal values which are preset or calculated by a control system to the actual values of the tool so as to perform an adjustment of the actual values.
Lin et al. (US 20110154962 A1) discloses a machine tool includes a bed, a main spindle, a first tool rest, a first tool, a first driving mechanism, a second tool rest, a second tool, a second driving mechanism and a control device. The main spindle is located over the bed.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1 009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed Kidest Worku whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ali Mohammad can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application information Retrieval IPAIRI system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAG system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217- 9197.
/KIDEST WORKU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119