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 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: “collection section,” “support section,” “following section,” and “peeling section” in claim 1; “biasing section” in claim 3; “pressing section” in claim 11; “swinging section” in claim 12; “mounting section,” “swinging section,” and “moving section” in claim 14; “mounting section,” and “moving section” in claim 15; “control section” in claim 16; “holding section” in claim 19; and “cleaning section” in claim 20.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 recites “multiple pickup pads disposed along…” which appears to contain a typographical error (i.e. “pads are disposed”). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,124,436 (hereinafter “Pettis”).
Regarding claim 1 Pettis discloses an end effector mounted on a mounting section (62- see fig. 1) of a peeling/sticking device configured to peel and move a sticker from a sheet (22) to which one or more stickers (20) are sticked, the end effector comprising:
a collection section (70a) configured to abut on a surface of the sticker (20) and collect the sticker (20);
a support section (100) configured to support the collection section (70a) and incline the collection section (70a) with respect to a vertical direction of the sticker (20);
a following section (82a) configured to cause the collection section (70a) to follow the surface of the sticker (20) when the support section (100) is inclined (via pivoting action caused by 82a); and
a peeling section (48) configured to be inserted between the sheet (22) and the sticker (20) to peel an end portion of the sticker (20).
Regarding claim 2 Pettis discloses the above end effector, and further discloses a fixing section (F; see annotated fig. below) configured to fix the support section (100) at an inclined position where the support section (100) is inclined and/or a vertical position along a vertical direction of the end effector (i.e. the support section 100 can be held at either position).
PNG
media_image1.png
332
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3 Pettis discloses the above end effector, and further discloses wherein the fixing section (F, above) includes a biasing section (94a) configured to bias the support section (100) toward a side in the vertical direction of the end effector, and a stopper (64) configured to hold the support section (100) at a position along the vertical direction of the end effector.
Regarding claim 7 Pettis discloses the above end effector, and further discloses wherein the peeling section (air jet 48) is disposed on a (bottom) side opposite to an inclination direction (upwards) in which the support section (100) is inclined.
Regarding claim 8 Pettis discloses the above end effector, and further discloses wherein the peeling section (air jet 48) is inserted between the sheet (22) and the sticker (20) in a state where the collection section (70a) abuts on the sticker (20) and the support section (100) is inclined (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10 Pettis discloses the above end effector, and further discloses wherein the peeling section (48) is inserted between the sheet (22) and the sticker (20) in order from an end portion side toward a center side of the sticker (see rightward travel shown in figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 11 Pettis discloses the above end effector, and further discloses a pressing section (60) configured to press (see figs. 1-2) the sticker (20) after the sticker (20) is sticked to an sticking target (14).
Regarding claim 12 Pettis discloses the above end effector, and further discloses a base portion (58) mounted (at least indirectly) on the mounting section (62- see fig. 1); and a swinging section (38) fixed to the base portion (58) and pivotally supporting the support section (100) to swing the support section (100) with respect to the base portion (58).
Regarding claim 14 Pettis discloses the end effector according to claim 1 (see above), and further discloses a peeling/sticking device (18) configured to move a sticker (20) from a sheet (22) to which one or more stickers (20) are sticked, the peeling/sticking device (18) comprising:
the end effector (as per claim 1 above)[;]
a mounting section (54) configured to mount the end effector (as per claim 1 above);
a swinging section (S, see annotated fig. 1 below) configured to pivotally support a disposition section (88a) on which the mounting section (54) is disposed and swing the disposition section (54); and
PNG
media_image2.png
660
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a moving section (94a) configured to move the end effector (see claim 1 above) at least on the sheet (22).
Regarding claim 15 Pettis discloses the end effector according to claim 1 (see above), and further discloses a peeling/sticking device (18) configured to move a sticker from a sheet (22) to which one or more stickers (20) are sticked, the peeling/sticking device (18) comprising:
the end effector (see claim 1 above)[;]
a mounting section (62- see fig. 1) configured to mount the end effector (of claim 1); and
a moving section (94a) configured to move the end effector (of claim 1) at least on the sheet (22).
Regarding claim 16 Pettis discloses the above device (see claim 14, above), and further discloses a control section (64) configured to control (prevent overtravel of) the moving section (94a).
Regarding claim 19 Pettis discloses the above device (see claim 14, above), and further discloses a sheet holding section (driven reel 32) configured to fix the sheet (22) on a placement section (40).
Regarding claim 20 Pettis discloses the above device, and further discloses a cleaning section (60) configured to clean the collection section (70a) (i.e. by taking off the sticker, 20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 9, 13, and 17-18 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. Such references show various forms of apparatus which comprise at least one similar feature to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time.
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, Victoria P Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/NATHANIEL L ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights