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 limitations are: holding unit (claims 1,3-16), first oscillating mechanism (claims 1-16), second oscillating mechanism (claims 1-16), moving mechanism (claims 1-13), rotating mechanism (claim 2), first moving unit (claims 9, 16), second moving unit (claims 10,16), third moving unit (claim 11).
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 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.
Claims 1-11,13-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumitomo (JPH08174134A) in view of Wilson (US 8,935,001).
Re claim 1, Sumitomo teaches a forming apparatus (figure 1+) comprising:
a frame 5;
a first arm 2 that is supported by the frame to be capable of oscillating; a second arm 3 that is supported by the first arm to be capable of oscillating; a holding unit 4 that is capable of holding an object b to be formed supported by the second arm; a first oscillating mechanism (6,14,etc.) that applies an oscillating operation to the first arm; a second oscillating mechanism (7,23,etc.) that applies an oscillating operation to the second arm.
Sumitomo does not teach whether the frame may be movable nor the moving mechanism adjusts a position of the holding unit in a case where the holding unit is unable to be appropriately positioned at a delivery position or a receiving position of the object by only the oscillating operations of the first arm and the second arm. However, Wilson shows movable frames (62,74,82,etc.) for adjusting the reach of manipulator 34 (etc.) and a moving mechanism (horizontal (not shown or numbered) and vertical drive motor 60) that applies a moving operation to the movable frame in at least one direction which adjusts a position of the manipulator 34 in a case where the manipulator is unable to be appropriately positioned at a delivery position or a receiving position of the object by only its (oscillating/pivotal) movements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Sumitomo in view of Wilson as claimed in order to adjust the reach of the manipulator for use with varied sized, oriented and type upstream and downstream devices.
Re claim 2, Sumitomo teaches (fig. 1,5; [0014], etc.) the holding unit is supported by the second arm to be rotatable about an axis 30 parallel to a longitudinal direction of the second arm, and a rotating mechanism (figure 5) that applies a rotational operation to the holding unit is provided.
Re claim 3, Sumitomo teaches the rotating mechanism includes a gear 53 that is provided on an outer periphery of an upper end portion of an air cylinder 51,54 for grip disposed concentrically in the second arm, and a rack member 54a that meshes with the gear.
Re claim 4, Sumitomo teaches the gear is formed concentrically with the second arm and the air cylinder for grip, and the rack member is supported at an upper end portion of the second arm to be slidable in a front-rear direction.
Re claim 5, Sumitomo & as already modified teaches the movable frame is disposed above the holding unit.
Re claim 6, Sumitomo & as already modified teaches (Sumitomo figure 2, etc.) the movable frame includes a support plate that is supported by the moving mechanism, and a body portion that extends downward from the support plate.
Re claim 7, Sumitomo & as already modified teaches (Sumitomo figure 2, etc.) a base end portion of the first arm is supported at an extending end portion of the body portion by a first joint shaft (see figure 2) parallel to a front-rear direction to be capable of oscillating.
Re claim 8, Sumitomo & as already modified teaches (Sumitomo figure 2, etc.) the second arm is supported at an extending end portion of the first arm by a second joint shaft (see figure 2) parallel to the front-rear direction to be capable of oscillating.
Re claim 9, Sumitomo as already modified in view of Wilson (figure 2, etc.) teaches the moving mechanism includes a first moving unit (60,64) that moves the movable frame in an up-down direction.
Re claim 10, Sumitomo as already modified in view of Wilson (figure 2, etc.) teaches the moving mechanism includes a second moving unit (one of the horizontal mover slides comprising at least some of 74,82,30,40,etc.) that moves the movable frame in a horizontal direction.
Re claim 11, Sumitomo as already modified in view of Wilson (figure 2, etc.) teaches the moving mechanism includes a third moving unit (one of the horizontal mover slides comprising at least some of 74,82,30,40,etc.) that moves the movable frame in a horizontal direction perpendicular to a moving direction of the second moving unit.
Re claim 13, Sumitomo teaches press P forming is performed.
Re claim 14, Sumitomo as already modified teaches the moving mechanism includes: a base body; a plurality of guide rails (see Wilson figure 2,etc.) that are fixedly supported on a surface of the base body; and slide blocks (see Wilson figure 2,etc.) that are provided to be slidable along the guide rails and are attached to the movable frame. It is not clear if the base body is a flat plate (though Sumitomo’s figures appear to show that) nor the number of elements, but Wilson (column 10, lines 16-21, column 10 line 65- column 12 line 19) states any number of elements (slides, blocks etc.) needed are used and changes in shape, duplication of parts, rearrangement of parts are known to obvious modifications (MPEP 2144; In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Sumitomo as claimed in order to facilitate known sliding movements as needed to allow the reach desired in a given production location / arrangement.
Re claim 15, Sumitomo as already modified in view of Wilson (figure 2) teaches the base body includes a first base body first, second and third base bodies as claimed.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumitomo (JPH08174134A) in view of Wilson (US 8,935,001) and Hitachi (JP2778802B2).
Re claim 12, Sumitomo teaches a supply chute S but it is unclear whether it is sloped. However, Hitachi teaches a supply device 15 for an object to be formed 1 that includes a slope (figure 1) for supplying the object to be formed to a delivery position where the object to be formed is to be delivered to the holding unit 14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Sumitomo in view of Hitachi as claimed in order to use an equivalent alternative supply device that has a slope to help feed the objects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
Eidelberg teaches (abstract, cover, figures 3,5-7+) a robot tool with a moving mechanism with multidirectional linear sliders & guides.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that each reference alone does not meet the claimed invention. Applicant then argues that the combination would have a large increase in size and decrease accuracy. However, these are not claim limitations and also there is no reason based on the art to expect a decrease in accuracy nor the size change being excessive.
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 MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights