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 § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pesenti et al (US 9,597,757 B2).
Regarding claim 11¸ Pesenti et al (‘757) discloses a workpiece table (fig5), comprising: a frame 36 (col.7 line60, fig5); a first workpiece-clamping fixture F1 (figA below) having a plurality of individually height-adjustable pneumatic workpiece-clamping elements 33 (col.7 lines40-41,51-54; ones on the first workpiece-clamping fixture); and a second workpiece-clamping fixture F2 (figA below) having a second plurality of individually height-adjustable pneumatic workpiece-clamping elements 33 (col.7 lines40-41,51-54; ones on the second workpiece-clamping fixture), wherein the first workpiece-clamping fixture and the second workpiece-clamping fixture are movable relative to the frame 36 via element 32, figs5,5b, col.7 lines64-67).
PNG
media_image1.png
550
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12¸ Pesenti et al discloses the workpiece table according to claim 11, wherein the first workpiece-clamping fixture F1 is adjustable between a working chamber position and a loading and removal position (by moving the workpiece table via an element 37, col.7 line61).
Regarding claim 13¸ Pesenti et al discloses the workpiece table according to claim 11, wherein the first workpiece-clamping fixture F1 and the second workpiece-clamping fixture F2 are arranged rigidly relative to one another one a workpiece plate carrier 32 (col.7 line37) that is adjustable relative to the frame 36 (about an axis 40, col.7 line65).
Regarding claim 14¸ Pesenti et al discloses the workpiece table according to claim 13, wherein the workpiece plate carrier 32 is mounted so as to be pivotable relative to the frame 36 about a pivot axis 40 (col.7 line65, fig5,5b) or rotatable about an axis of rotation.
Regarding claim 15¸ Pesenti et al discloses the workpiece table according to claim 13, wherein the workpiece plate carrier 32 can be locked relative to the frame 36 (col.7 line66, “controlling”, when its controlled not to be moved).
Regarding claim 16¸ Pesenti et al discloses the workpiece table according to claim 13, wherein each of the workpiece-clamping elements 33 is designed to be individually pneumatically (col.7 line67, “a pneumatic type”) or hydraulically height-adjustable relative to the workpiece plate carrier 32.
Regarding claim 17, Pesenti et al discloses the workpiece table according to claim 16, wherein each workpiece-clamping element 33 has a cylinder-piston unit (figs6a,8, col.2 line52, “pneumatic actuator”).
Regarding claim 18¸ Pesenti et al discloses the workpiece table according to claim 11, wherein each workpiece-clamping element 33 has a displacement rod (figs6a,8, col.7 lines51-54).
Regarding claim 19¸ Pesenti et al discloses the workpiece table according to claim 11, wherein each workpiece-clamping element 33 has a pressurized displacement space (col.2 line52, col.7 lines51-54, 57, “pneumatic actuator”).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesenti et al (US 9,597,757 B2) in view of Takahashi et al (US 2009/0169766 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Pesenti et al (‘757) discloses the workpiece table according to claim 11, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of a processing cell. Takahashi et al (‘766) teaches a use of a processing cell 100 (fig1, para[0035]) comprising a workpiece table 101,103 (para[0035]) wherein the workpiece table 101,103 seals off (para[0035], “the bottom portion of the preheating unit 100 is sealed by an opening and closing table 103”) an enclosure of the processing cell 100 (fig1, para[0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pesenti et al to use a processing cell and use the workpiece table to seal off an enclosure of the processing cell, as taught by Takahashi e al, so that a workpiece can be moved into the processing cell and be processed while supported by the workpiece table.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Olberg et al (US 2018/0236638 A1) teaches similar workpiece table.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723