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 .
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Re. Cl. 15, specifically, the limitation “measuring, using the sensor, at least one static and/or dynamic parameter of the module” renders the claim indefinite in the Examiner’s position. Applicant’s claim 15 explicitly recites the limitation “locking the platform into said position using the locking mechanism” which would position the module in a stationary or static position. In such position, it is unclear how a dynamic parameter would be measured when the module is positioned in a static position as required by the claim. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the locking mechanism" in Line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “locking mechanism” 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. Applicant’s specification and figures do not make it abundantly clear what the locking mechanism structure actually is but merely discusses it functionally throughout the specification. 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.
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: movement mechanism in claims 1, 11 and 15, actuating mechanism in claim 4, and calibration member in claim 13.
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. Applicant defines the movement mechanism rails, ball joint, ring bearing, or rotating spindle, the actuating mechanism as a rotatable spindle and the calibration member as 3d measurement arm, camera laser scanner or other sensor devices
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim US 2013/0140447 (hereinafter Kim).
Re. Cl. 1, Kim discloses: A module (Fig. 2) for positioning and orienting an object, comprising: a carrier (300, Fig. 2) comprising one or more stops (3211, Fig. 4); a platform (200, Fig. 2) configured to hold the object (see Fig. 2, due to the open configuration, an object is configured to be held within 200), the platform comprising one or more several positioning elements (teeth of 122, Fig. 4), wherein the platform is movably attached or attachable to the carrier (see Fig. 2-3), wherein the carrier constrains constraining the platform in at least one degree of freedom (see Fig. 4, using mating teeth as shown), and wherein the platform is selectively movable into any one of a plurality of discrete positions with respect to the carrier (see Fig. 2-8), each of the plurality of discrete positions defined by at least one of the one or more several positioning elements engaging with a corresponding one of the one or more several stops (see Fig. 4); and a movement mechanism (321 and 3 Fig. 4) configured to translate and/or rotate the platform with respect to the carrier such as to move the platform into any selected one discrete position of the plurality of discrete positions (see Fig. 4-8).
Re. Cl. 2, Kim discloses: a locking mechanism (mating of the teeth as shown in Fig. 4) configured, when the platform is positioned in the selected one discrete position, to exert a force pushing the at least one of the one or more several positioning elements onto the respective one of the one or more several stops with which said positioning element is engaged to reproducibly lock the platform into the selected one discrete position (see Fig. 4, by having the engaging teeth as shown, the positioning of platform 200 is locked and held in the selected position).
Re. Cl. 3, Kim discloses: the locking mechanism is configured to, when the platform is locked into the selected one discrete position, constrain the selected one discrete position and orientation of the platform in six degrees of freedom (see Fig. 4).
Re. Cl. 4, Kim discloses: the movement mechanism and the locking mechanism share a common actuating component (see Fig. 4, 321 and 3211 share a common actuating component as being apart of the same overall structure to create movement of 122)
Re. Cl. 5, Kim discloses: the carrier comprises a plurality of stops and the platform comprises a plurality of positioning elements (see plurality of teeth on 122 and 3211 in Fig. 4), wherein each of the plurality of discrete positions is defined by a subset of at least two of the plurality of positioning elements simultaneously engaging with a corresponding subset of at least two of the plurality of stops (see Fig. 4) and/or wherein the plurality of discrete positions comprises at least six, each pair of discrete positions differing in at least one translational and/or rotational degree of freedom.
Re. Cl. 6, Kim discloses: at least one of the one or more positioning elements and/or at least one of the one or more stops comprise a convex surface section (see Fig. 4, the teeth on 122 and 3211 have a convex shape).
Re. Cl. 7, Kim discloses: the movement mechanism comprises a rail for translating the platform with respect to the carrier (see 3, Fig. 4) and/or a ball joint and/or ring bearing for rotating the platform with respect to the carrier and/or a rotatable spindle and/or a belt drive for actuating the movement mechanism.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davi US 2015/0144761 (hereinafter Davi).
Re. Cl. 1, Davi discloses: A module for positioning and orienting an object (see Fig. 3), comprising: a carrier (32, Fig. 3) comprising one or more stops (see Fig. 3, the portions of 36 which project upward from 32 would function as stops since the width of 22 would have it bump into and stop moving at the left end of 34); a platform (22, Fig. 3) configured to hold the object (see Fig. 4 for instance), the platform comprising one or more several positioning elements (side surfaces of 22 which would engage with tops of 36 when extended all the way to the left/right as shown in Fig. 3), wherein the platform is movably attached or attachable to the carrier (see Fig. 3-4), wherein the carrier constrains constraining the platform in at least one degree of freedom (see Fig. 4, when 54 is not actuated), and wherein the platform is selectively movable into any one of a plurality of discrete positions with respect to the carrier (see Fig. 3, either all the way to the right or left as shown thus engaging tops of 36), each of the plurality of discrete positions defined by at least one of the one or more several positioning elements engaging with a corresponding one of the one or more several stops (see Fig. 3, when 22 is moved all the way to the left or right); and a movement mechanism (54, Fig. 3) configured to translate and/or rotate the platform with respect to the carrier such as to move the platform into any selected one discrete position of the plurality of discrete positions (see Fig. 3) .
Re. Cl. 8, Davi discloses: the platform comprises a holding surface for holding the object (see Fig. 3, surface of 22 where 24 is attached), the holding surface forming an acute first angle (a) with the carrier (see Fig. 3), wherein the first angle (a) has the same value in each of the plurality of discrete positions (see Fig. 3, the angle of 22 relative to 32 can be maintained so long as the height adjustment mechanism 40 is not adjusted).
Re. Cl. 9, Davi discloses: the carrier is rigidly connectable or connected to a base (Fig. 3, the carrier 32 is capable of being rigidly connected to 36 or by even having 36 rigidly connected to a base supporting surface).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fordice US 2013/0138376 (hereinafter Fordice) in view of Perkins US 2016/0025114 (hereinafter Perkins).
Re. Cl. 11, Fordice discloses: A system (Fig. 1) for measuring inertial properties of an object (see Fig. 1), comprising; a module (110, 140 Fig. 1) comprising: a carrier (110 and cylinder of 130, Fig. 1); a platform (140 and piston of 130, Fig. 1) configured to hold an object (see Fig. 1, using 144), , wherein the platform is movably attached or attachable to the carrier (see Fig. 1, using 130), wherein the carrier constrains the platform in at least one degree of freedom (see Fig. 1, as only enabling pivoting about 120), and wherein the platform is selectively movable into any one of a plurality of discrete positions with respect to the carrier (see Fig. 4a-b); and a movement mechanism (132, Fig. 1) configured to at least one of translate or rotate the platform with respect to the carrier such as to move the platform into any selected one discrete position of the plurality of discrete positions (see Fig. 4a-b); a base rigidly connectable or connected to the module (170, Fig. 2); and a sensor (160, Fig. 1) configured to measure at least one static and/or dynamic parameter of the module (see Paragraph 0016).
Re. Cl. 13, Fordice discloses: a calibration member (see Fig. 6) configured to determine, in each one of the plurality of discrete positions, an inertial property of the module (see Fig. 6) and/or a position and orientation of the platform with respect to a reference structure.
Re. Cl. 14, Fordice discloses: wherein the module is used for measuring at least one inertial property of the object (Paragraph 0016, Lines 1-4).
Re. Cl. 15, Fordice discloses: A method (Fig. 1-2 and 5-6) for measuring inertial properties of an object (Paragraph 0016, Lines 1-4) using a system (see Fig. 1-2) comprising: a module (Fig. 1-2) comprising: a carrier (110 and cylinder of 130); a platform (140 and piston of 130, Fig. 1) configured to hold an object (see Fig. 1, via 144), , wherein the platform is movably attached or attachable to the carrier (see Fig. 4a-b, via 120), wherein the carrier constrains the platform in at least one degree of freedom (see Fig. 4a-b, by only enabling movement about hinge 120), and wherein the platform is selectively movable into any one of a plurality of discrete positions with respect to the carrier (see Fig. 4a-b); and a movement mechanism (130, Fig. 1) configured to at least one of translate or rotate the platform with respect to the carrier such as to move the platform into any selected one discrete position of the plurality of discrete positions (see Fig. 4a and 4b); a base (170, Fig. 2) rigidly connectable or connected to the module (see Fig. 2); and a sensor (160, Fig. 1) configured to measure at least one static and/or dynamic parameter of the module (Paragraph 0016, Lines 1-4); the method comprising the steps: attaching an object to a platform in a fixed position and orientation with respect to the platform for each position of a subset of the plurality of discrete positions (see Fig. 4a, 4b, attaching the object to 144 as discussed in Paragraph 0019), the subset comprising at least two different positions moving the platform into said position by means of the movement mechanism (see Fig. 4a, 4b); measuring, using the sensor, at least one static and/or dynamic parameter of the module including the attached held object (see Fig. 4a, 4b, and Figs. 5-6) while the platform is locked into said position (see Fig. 4a and 4b, as shown in Fig. 6, the first and second orientation need to be maintained so that the center of gravity can be measured at each orientation, therefore disclosing that they are “locked” at these positions); and determining, based on the measured at least one static or dynamic parameter detected parameters, at least one inertial property of the object (see Fig. 6).
Fordice discloses the use of hoist which is a hydraulic or electric hoist which inherently would need to remain locked or held in the positions shown in Fig. 4a and 4b respectively so that the center of gravity of the object can be measured in the positions discussed in Fig. 6. However, Fordice does not explicitly illustrate how the hydraulic or electric hoist functions and therefore does not explicitly disclose the carrier including at least one stop, the platform comprising at least one positioning element or each of the plurality of discrete positions defined by the at least one positioning element engaging with a corresponding at least one stop, locking the platform into said position using the locking mechanism (Cls. 11 and 15). Perkins discloses a hydraulic hoist or actuator (Fig. 1) which includes a carrier (106, Fig. 1) including at least one stop (122s, Fig. 1) and a platform (108, Fig. 1) which is adjustable within the carrier and comprising at least one positioning element (see Fig. 1, top and bottom surface of 109a), each of the plurality of discrete positions defined by the at least one positioning element engaging with a corresponding at least one stop (see Fig. 1, when 109a engages the top and bottom limits 122), locking the platform into said position using the locking mechanism (see Fig. 1, locking using the valve 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic hoist of Fordice to have the structure of Perkins with reasonable expectation of success since Perkins states that forces associated with pistons changing direction of motion or engaging end stops can result in large stresses leading to breakage, failure and accelerated wear of components (Paragraph 0023, Lines 5-10) and the particular actuator slows down the piston before reaching the end stop, thus reducing the stress or negative effects on the hydraulic system (Paragraph 0024, Lines 1-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 12 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brogardh US 6974297, Chiang US 7124660, Holz US 8229701, and Kirkman US 10056007 disclose other known supporting systems which are presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571)272-4797. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632