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
Claims 2 – 7 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention group (Groups I – III and V), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 28, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group IV (claims 1, 8, and 9) in the reply filed on January 28, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the shared technical features are not special technical features. This is not found persuasive because the shared technical features between Group IV and each of Groups I – III and V is the planar positioning device of claim 1. As explained in the rejection below, the planar positioning device of claim 1 is anticipated by Ihlenfeld (German Patent Number DE 10151631 A1).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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:
“position determining device” recited 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.
The limitation “position determining device” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“device”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“position determining” or ‘configured to determine a position’ and “designed for pre-determined processing of the respective position signals”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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 a functional equivalent thereof.
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 1, 8, and 9 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 1 recites the limitation “the predetermined positioning plane” in the first paragraph of the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the predetermined plane.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “thus defining same.” Applicant’s intent regarding the limitation is generally unclear. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “thus defining a predetermined positioning plane.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “linear guides/drives” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth ‘linear guides and drives’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth ‘linear guides or drives.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “linear guides or drives.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the other two” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a remaining two of the identical linear guides or drives.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the parallel linear guides/drives” in the last paragraph of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the linear guides or drives.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the sliders of all linear drives” in the last paragraph of the claim. The limitation in indefinite for several reasons. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the sliders” in the claim. Secondly, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends “all linear drives” to refer to the “drives” previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a set of ‘linear drives’ which are separate and independent from the ‘drives’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “sliders of the drives.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “passive joint.” It is generally unclear as to how a joint can be “passive.” Examiner notes that, while the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation, the Specification does not explain the ‘passiveness’ of the joints.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein a two-dimensional, in particular optical, position scale ...” Due to the phrase “in particular,” it is unclear as to whether or not Applicant intends to positively require the ‘position scale’ to be an ‘optical position scale.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein a two-dimensional position scale ...”
Claim 8 further recites the limitation “... a position sensor, in particular an optical position sensor, is associated therewith ...” Due to the phrase “in particular,” it is unclear as to whether or not Applicant intends to positively require the ‘position sensor’ to be an ‘optical position sensor.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “... a position sensor is associated therewith ...”
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the input side to the position sensors on the linear guides/drives.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of “the input side” and “the position sensors” in the claim.
Claim 9 further recites the limitation “the three-dimensional position sensor.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 further recites the limitation “... the respective position signals, in particular selectively only the signals of the position sensors on the linear guides/drives or only the position signals of the two-dimensional position sensor on the load platform or the signals of all position sensors combined or in the sense of a calibration of the one sensor type by the other sensor type.” The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis each of “the respective position signals,” “the signals of the position sensors,” “the position signals of the two-dimensional position sensor,” “the signals of all position sponsors combined,” “the sense of a calibration,” and “the other sensor type” in the claim. Furthermore, due to the phrase “in particular,” it is unclear as to whether or not Applicant intends to positively require the limitations set forth after the recitation of ‘in particular’ to be positively required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 8 recites the limitation the ‘planar positioning device’ comprising a ‘position scale’ and a ‘position sensor.’ Claim 1, from which claim 8 is dependent, further requires four identical linear guides or drives. However, the Specification expressly teaches that the embodiment of the ‘planar positioning device’ that comprises the ‘position scale’ and the ‘position sensor’ comprises only two ‘linear guides or drives’ (figure 5, element 20 being the ‘position scale,’ element 21 being the ‘position sensor,’ and elements 12a/13a and 14a/15a being the ‘linear guides’ and elements 12b.1/13b.1 and 14b.1/15b.1 being the ‘drives’; page 11, second paragraph and page 12, last paragraph – page 13, first paragraph). Examiner has been unable to find support in the Specification for an embodiment in which the ‘planar positioning device’ comprises ‘four identical linear guides or drives’ as well as a ‘position scale’ and a ‘position sensor.’
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 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 plane (figure 2; machine translation, page 13, third paragraph), having: a base plate having a flat surface that extends parallel to an at a specific distance from the predetermined plane, thus defining a predetermined positioning plane (figure 2, element 15 being the ‘base plate’; machine translation, page 16, second paragraph), four identical drives, two of which are attached to the base plate collinearly and at a distance parallel to a remaining two of the identical drives (figure 2, elements 5 – 8; 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 parallel kinematic unit which comprises a load platform, is arranged between the drives, and is rotationally connected to slides of the drives via a joint each (figure 2, element 2 being the ‘parallel kinematic unit’ and ‘load platform,’ elements 5 – 8 being the ‘slides,’ and elements 9 being the ‘joints’; machine translation, page 15, first paragraph – page 16, first paragraph).
As to claim 8, Ihlenfeld teaches a two-dimensional position scale is provided on a surface of the load platform and a position sensor is associated therewith and is designed to detect the two-dimensional position scale (machine translation, page 4, fourth paragraph and page 7, fifth – sixth paragraphs).
Conclusion
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