DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
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:
“position determining device” recited in claims 9 and 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.
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.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “position determining device” will be interpreted so as to comprise a ‘processor and program memory,’ as taught by the Specification (page 13, third paragraph), or an equivalent thereof.
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 8, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ihlenfeld (German Patent Number DE 10151631 A1, cited in IDS).
As to claim 1, Ihlenfeld teaches a planar positioning device for positioning loads in a predetermined positioning plane (figure 2; machine translation, page 13, third paragraph), having a base plate having a flat surface that extends parallel to and at a specific distance from the predetermined positioning plane, thus defining the predetermined positioning plane (figure 2, element 15 being the ‘base plate’; machine translation, page 16, second paragraph), a first drive, a second drive, a third drive, and a fourth drive, wherein the first through fourth drives are identical to one another, wherein each of the first through fourth drives includes a respective slider (figure 2, element 5 being the ‘first drive,’ element 6 being the ‘second drive,’ element 7 being the ‘third drive,’ and element 8 being the ‘fourth drive’; machine translation page 13, third paragraph and page 15, fourth paragraph – page 16, first paragraph, teaching that each of elements 5 – 8 includes a ‘linear motor,’ which equates to the ‘drives,’ and a ‘guide slide,’ which equates to the ‘sliders’), wherein the first drive and the second drive are disposed collinearly on the base plate (figure 2, elements 5 and 6), wherein the slider of the first drive and the slider of the second drive are selectively moveable along a first axis of movement by the first drive and the second drive, respectively (figure 2, elements 5 and 6; machine translation, page 15, fourth paragraph – page 16, first paragraph), wherein the third drive and the fourth drive are disposed collinearly on the base plate, wherein the slider of the third drive and the slider of the fourth drive are selectively moveable along a second axis of movement by the third drive and the fourth drive, respectively (figure 2, elements 7 and 8; machine translation, page 15, fourth paragraph – page 16, first paragraph), and wherein the first axis of movement and the second axis of movement are separated by a distance and are parallel to one another (figure 2, elements 5 – 8), and a parallel kinematic unit which comprises a load platform (figure 2, element 2 being the ‘parallel kinematic unit’ and ‘load platform’; machine translation, page 15, first – second paragraphs), wherein the parallel kinematic unit is arranged between the first axis of movement and the second axis of movement (figure 2, elements 2 and 5 – 8; machine translation, page 15, first paragraph), and wherein the parallel kinematic unit is rotationally connected to the respective slider of each of the first through fourth drives by one respective joint each (figure 2, elements 9 being the ‘joints’; machine translation, page 15, first and fourth paragraphs).
As to claim 8, Ihlenfeld teaches a two-dimensional position scale provided on a surface of the load platform and a position sensor associated therewith and designed to detect the two-dimensional position scale (machine translation, page 4, fourth paragraph and page 7, fifth – sixth paragraphs, wherein the ‘position device’ is the ‘position scale’ and ‘movement device’ is the ‘position sensor’).
As to claim 11, Ihlenfeld teaches that the two-dimensional position scale is a two-dimensional optical position scale (machine translation, page 7, sixth paragraph).
As to claim 12, Ihlenfeld teaches that the position sensor on the surface of the load platform is an optical position sensor (machine translation, page 7, sixth paragraph).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Ihlenfeld does not teach the planar positioning device further comprising a position determining device connected at an input side thereof to position sensors on the drives and the position sensor on the surface of the load platform, wherein the position determining device is designed for pre-determined processing of either only respective position signals of the position sensors on the drive, only position signals of the position sensor on the surface of the load platform, or a combination all of the respective position signals of all of the position sensors on the drives and on the surface of the load platform, as recited by claims 9 and 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 8 – 9, that Ihlenfeld does not teach a ‘parallel kinematic unit that is rotationally connected to a respective slider of each of a first, second, third, and fourth drives by one respective joint each,’ as recited by claim 1. This is because, Applicant argues, Ihlenfeld expressly teaches the ‘parallel kinematic unit’ being connected to the sliders of the first and second drives by two respective joints each (Ihlenfeld, figure 2, elements 2, 5, 6, and 9). Examiner recognizes that the ‘parallel kinematic unit’ is connected to the sliders of the firs and second drives by two respective joints each (figure 2, elements 2, 5, 6, and 9). However, it is the position of the Examiner that the limitations of the claims do not preclude the ‘parallel kinematic unit’ being connected to the sliders of the first and second drives via two sliders respective sliders each. This is because claim 1 merely recites “wherein the parallel kinematic unit is rotationally connected to the respective slider of each of the first through fourth drives by one respective joint each.” The recitation of “one respective joint each” does not prevent the use of ‘two respective joints.’
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 CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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 J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights