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.
Claims 7-15 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 7 recites “…a tool change with the first or second tool transport strip is made possible by rotating said transport platform about the vertical axis, which is preferably the longitudinal axis of said transport platform”. This is a method step of using an apparatus. Because the preamble of the claim is directed towards an apparatus and not a method of using the apparatus, it is not clear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to be required, such that the claim is directed towards a method and not simply the apparatus, or whether Applicant intends the limitations to be functional language, such that the claimed apparatus merely has to be capable of performing the given steps.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "…said support frame" in line 3 of the claim and the limitation “said second drive is connected to the mounting shaft” in lines 3 and 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "… said second drive is connected to the mounting shaft and rotates said mounting shaft in order to rotate said transport platform”. This is a method step of using an apparatus. Because the preamble of the claim is directed towards an apparatus and not a method of using the apparatus, it is not clear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to be required, such that the claim is directed towards a method and not simply the apparatus, or whether Applicant intends the limitations to be functional language, such that the claimed apparatus merely has to be capable of performing the given steps.
Claim limitation “said second drive is connected to the mounting shaft by means of engaging means ”, as recited in claim 8 and claim limitation “exchanging tools at said stops by means of a lifting movement of said tool provision strip”, as recited in claim 14, invoke 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. 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 9 recites “…said transport module stops to exchange tools”. This is a method step of using an apparatus. Because the preamble of the claim is directed towards an apparatus and not a method of using the apparatus, it is not clear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to be required, such that the claim is directed towards a method and not simply the apparatus, or whether Applicant intends the limitations to be functional language, such that the claimed apparatus merely has to be capable of performing the given steps.
Claim 10 recites “…a self-drive which drives said transport module along the rails of said supporting guide”. This is a method step of using an apparatus. Because the preamble of the claim is directed towards an apparatus and not a method of using the apparatus, it is not clear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to be required, such that the claim is directed towards a method and not simply the apparatus, or whether Applicant intends the limitations to be functional language, such that the claimed apparatus merely has to be capable of performing the given steps.
Claim 11 recites “…a tool provision strip that can be moved into a transfer position for exchanging tools with said tool transport strip”. This is a method step of using an apparatus. Because the preamble of the claim is directed towards an apparatus and not a method of using the apparatus, it is not clear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to be required, such that the claim is directed towards a method and not simply the apparatus, or whether Applicant intends the limitations to be functional language, such that the claimed apparatus merely has to be capable of performing the given steps.
Claim 12 recites “…said tool provision strip can be moved vertically upwards into the transfer position and back”. This is a method step of using an apparatus. Because the preamble of the claim is directed towards an apparatus and not a method of using the apparatus, it is not clear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to be required, such that the claim is directed towards a method and not simply the apparatus, or whether Applicant intends the limitations to be functional language, such that the claimed apparatus merely has to be capable of performing the given steps.
Claim 12 recites “…said tool provision strip can be moved vertically upwards into the transfer position and back”. It is unclear as to which tool provision strip the claim refers as claim 11 recites “…said central tool magazine and the at least one machine tool each include a tool provision strip that can be moved into a transfer position for exchanging tools”. Therefore the claim is indefinite.
Claim 15 recites “…moving said tool provision strip vertically upwards into a transfer position”. It is unclear as to which tool provision strip the claim refers as claim 14 recites “…said central tool magazine and the at least one machine tool each include a tool provision strip”. Therefore the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 11 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (CN 108655797, herein referenced by the EPO English machine translation).
Re Claim 1, Wu discloses a tool transport system for exchanging tools between a central tool magazine (1) and one or more machine tools (4), said tool transport system comprises: a guided transport module (1.12) for shuttling between a central tool magazine (1) and one or more machine tools (4) along a transport path; a supporting guide (3) for receiving said transport module (1.11) and for determining the transport path of said transport module (1.12), said transport module (P) comprises a transport platform (1.11) having at least one tool transport strip (1.33) for receiving a plurality of tools (5), and said transport platform (1.11) is preferably downwardly spaced apart from said transport module (1.12) in the vertical direction (Pars. 0096-0118, Figs. 1-10).
Re Claim 5, Wu discloses said supporting guide (3) is arranged vertically spaced from said central tool magazine (1) and/or said machine tools (4) and said supporting guide (3) is preferably arranged at least partially above said central tool magazine (1) and/or said machine tools (4) (See figures 1-20).
Re Claim 6, Wu discloses said supporting guide (3) comprises at least one rail (1.44), on which guide means (1.41) of said transport module (1.12) engage, said transport module (1.12) being displaceable and preferably being mounted only on said supporting guide (3) (Par. 0106, Figs. 4 and 5).
Re Claim 11, Wu discloses a production system comprising at least one machine tool (4), a central tool magazine (1) for storing tools (5) and a tool transport system according to claim 1, said central tool magazine (1) and the at least one machine tool (3) each include a tool provision strip (2.311, 2.312) that can be moved into a transfer position for exchanging tools with said tool transport strip (1.33) of said transport module (1.12) (Pars. 0116-0118, Figs. 9-15).
Re Claim 12, Wu discloses said tool provision strip (2.311, 2.312) of the central tool magazine (1) is configured to be moved vertically upwards into the transfer position and back and said tool provision strip (2.311, 2.312) is configured to carry out an upward lifting movement or a downward lifting movement in order to transfer the tools (5) to said tool transport strip (1.33) in the transfer position (Pars. 0118-0143, Figs. 1-22).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 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. Morbidelli (DE 4315537) discloses a tool transport system for exchanging tools between a central tool magazine and one or more machine tools however does not disclose a transport platform is preferably downwardly spaced apart from a transport module in the vertical direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAYAN SALONE whose telephone number is (571)270-7739. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-60 PM.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571)272-3460. 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.
/BAYAN SALONE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights