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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the part identifier 242, recited in Paragraph [0058] does not appear in the drawings.
It appears that “242” is intended to refer to “342” as shown in Fig. 8
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Araki (JP 2000158135 A).
As to claim 1, Araki teaches a manufacturing system (Title: “Automatic Welding System”) configured for processing a workpiece (frame, W), the manufacturing system comprising: a mobile cart (the cart is shown in Fig 4, below) including:
PNG
media_image1.png
290
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first mounting assembly (the left-most clamp member 15) and a second mounting assembly (the right-most clamp member 15) both configured to support the workpiece (the clamp members 15 support the frame W, as shown), and the first mounting assembly further configured to rotate the workpiece (as illustrated in Fig 4, the workpiece W rotates along the illustrated axis); and a first mechanical coupling in cooperation with the first mounting assembly such that rotation of the first mechanical coupling rotates the first mounting assembly (a mechanical coupling is not specified in Araki, but is inherent. The motor in left-most support member 11 is mechanically coupled to the swing frame 12. Rotation of the motor rotates the swing frame via a mechanical connection); and a docking station including a second mechanical coupling and a motor (the left-most support member 11 is a docking station which is illustrated to include a motor. The docking station inherently has a mechanical coupling with the swing frame 12 as the motor causes the swing frame 12 to rotate.) configured to rotate the second mechanical coupling (the illustrated motor in support member 11 is used by the positioned 8 to rotate the swing frame 12), the second mechanical coupling configured to cooperate with the first mechanical coupling such that rotation of the second mechanical coupling rotates the first mechanical coupling and the workpiece supported by the first mounting assembly and the second mounting assembly (as described in the rejection above, there is an inherent mechanical coupling between the motor of support member 11 and the swing frame 12 which achieves the purpose of rotating the swing frame 12 around the illustrate axis.).
As to claim 4, Araki teaches the manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein the workpiece is a vehicle chassis (frame W is a motorcycle chassis).
As to claim 5, Araki teaches the manufacturing system of claim 4, wherein the first mounting assembly (left-most clamp member 15) and the second mounting assembly (right-most clamp member 15) are on opposite ends of the mobile cart (as illustrated) and are configured to couple to opposite ends of the vehicle chassis to rotate the vehicle chassis about a longitudinal axis thereof (as illustrated, the frame rotates along a longitudinal axis thereof).
As to claim 6, Araki teaches the manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein the first mounting assembly and the second mounting assembly are configured to rotate to any position about an axis up to 360° (the swing frame 12 is useful for rotating 360 degrees, which is illustrated by the arrows around the axis).
As to claim 13, Araki teaches the manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein: between the first mounting assembly and the second mounting assembly is a base defining a clean out for material cut from the workpiece (the bottom member of swing frame 12 is a base which defines a clean out for material cut from the workpiece); and the base is adjustable lengthwise and widthwise to accommodate different sized workpieces (as shown in the Figure 4, the swing frame 12 may accommodate frame W which are smaller than the illustrated frame, as well as frames W which are larger.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki.
As to claim 2, Araki teaches the manufacturing system of claim 1, but does not teach the mobile cart further includes wheels.
Rather, the cart shown in Fig 4 is taught to include guide member 13 which operate to slide the cart along rail 14. Examiner takes official notice that members which slide a cart along a rail were known in the automobile manufacturing art at the time the invention was effectively filed to be wheels. Such a person would have been motivated to provide for the known wheels in order to reduce sliding friction on the rail.
As to claim 3, Araki teaches the manufacturing system of claim 2, but does not teach the mobile cart further includes a handle and is configured to be pushed by a user.
However, any reasonable portion of the cart, including support members 11, are capable of acting as a handle for the purpose of pushing the cart. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for a handle configured to be pushed by a user in order to allow a user to manipulate the cart into and out of the work cell in the event of a power failure or emergency.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krause et al (US 11,396,100).
As to claim 7, Araki teaches the manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein the docking station is mounted in a work cell (the work cell of Fig 2).
Araki does not teach the work cell including a cutting robot configured to cut the workpiece and a measuring robot configured to track movement of the workpiece.
Rather, the work cell of Araki includes two robots useful for welding. However, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it was known to have provided for work cells including cutting and measuring robots instead of welding robots. See Krause which teaches at Col 3 lines 17-21: “The robot 110 shown is a multi-axis industrial robot of a type known in the art. For example, the robot 110 may be a six axis robot which can be programmed to perform a variety of operations—such as material cutting, welding, part selection/movement/placement, etc.”
Krause further teaches each of the robots are useful for measuring. See Col 9 lines 17-23: “At box 306, robot joint position data is provided from the controller 212 to the AR device 232 for a current pose of the robot 210. The joint position data is measured by joint encoders in the robot 210 and provided to the robot controller 212. In the case of a multi-arm articulated robot as shown in FIG. 2, the joint position data includes an angular position for each of the six joints.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have swapped the welding robots of Araki for the cutting and measuring robots of Krause. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve a wider range of operations (welding/cutting/placing/measuring) in the work cell instead of just the welding available to Araki.
As to claim 8, Araki in view of Krause teaches the manufacturing system of claim 7, further comprising a control module configured to control the measuring robot (Krause teaching controlling the robots using a controller 212) and the motor of the docking station (Araki teaches the positioned 8 controls the motor in support member 11 to swing the swing frame. This is “automated.”) to control rotation of the workpiece when the mobile cart is in cooperation with the docking station (the rotation of the swing frame is “automated” by the controller controlling the positioner 8).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki (JP 2000158135 A) in view of Krause et al (US 11,396,100).
As to claim 14, Araki teaches a manufacturing system (Title: “Automatic Welding System”) configured for processing a vehicle chassis (frame W), the manufacturing system comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
336
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
work cell including (the work cell shown in Fig 2, below): and a docking station including a drive unit (when the cart of Fig 4 is in the work cell, the work cell includes the left-most support member 11, which is a dock, and which includes a motor as illustrated); and a mobile cart (the cart illustrated in Fig 4) configured to be moved into and out of the work cell (as shown in Fig 2, the cart is out of the work cell. The cart is illustrated as moved into the work cell by the arrow in Fig 3), the mobile cart including:
PNG
media_image1.png
290
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first rotatable member (the bearing in the swing frame 12 located at the left-most side of the swing frame is a rotatable member) spaced apart from a second rotatable member (the bearing located in the swing frame 12 at the right-most side of the swing frame is a rotatable member), both the first rotatable member and the second rotatable member are configured to support and rotate the vehicle chassis about a trunnion axis (the trunnion axis is illustrated in Fig 4) of the vehicle chassis (frame W); and a mechanical coupling in cooperation with the first rotatable member (the support member 11 is mechanically coupled to the swing frame 12 at the left-most side of the cart as illustrated. Both the swing frame 12 and the support frame 11 have mechanical couplings), the mechanical coupling configured to cooperate with the drive unit of the docking station (this is an inherent feature of the cart of Araki because the motor illustrated in support member 11 rotates the swing frame, and thus the motor must be mechanically connected to the frame 12 via the support member 11) such that rotation of the drive unit rotates the mechanical coupling and the first rotatable member (again, there is an inherent mechanical coupling between the motor in support member 11 and the swing frame 12 causing rotation of the swing frame 12).
Araki teaches two robots in the work cell, but does not teach the robots are a cutting robot and a measuring robot.
Rather, the work cell of Araki includes two robots useful for welding. However, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it was known to have provided for work cells including cutting and measuring robots instead of welding robots. See Krause which teaches at Col 3 lines 17-21: “The robot 110 shown is a multi-axis industrial robot of a type known in the art. For example, the robot 110 may be a six axis robot which can be programmed to perform a variety of operations—such as material cutting, welding, part selection/movement/placement, etc.”
Krause further teaches each of the robots are useful for measuring. See Col 9 lines 17-23: “At box 306, robot joint position data is provided from the controller 212 to the AR device 232 for a current pose of the robot 210. The joint position data is measured by joint encoders in the robot 210 and provided to the robot controller 212. In the case of a multi-arm articulated robot as shown in FIG. 2, the joint position data includes an angular position for each of the six joints.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have swapped the welding robots of Araki for the cutting and measuring robots of Krause. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve a wider range of operations (welding/cutting/placing/measuring) in the work cell instead of just the welding available to Araki.
As to claim 15, Araki in view of Krause teaches the manufacturing system of claim 14, but does not teach the mobile cart further includes wheels.
Rather, the cart shown in Fig 4 is taught to include guide member 13 which operate to slide the cart along rail 14. Examiner takes official notice that members which slide a cart along a rail were known in the automobile manufacturing art at the time the invention was effectively filed to be wheels. Such a person would have been motivated to provide for the known wheels in order to reduce sliding friction on the rail.
As to claim 16, Araki in view of Krause teaches the manufacturing system of claim 15, but does not teach the mobile cart further includes a handle and is configured to be pushed by a user.
However, any reasonable portion of the cart, including support members 11, are capable of acting as a handle for the purpose of pushing the cart. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for a handle configured to be pushed by a user in order to allow a user to manipulate the cart into and out of the work cell in the event of a power failure or emergency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 and 17-19 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.
Claim 20 is allowed.
As to claims 9 ,19, and 20, Examiner’s best art does not teach the features of claim 9 including all the limitations of the claims from which it depends. Specifically, claim 9 requires a controller configured to control both the cutting robot and the motor of the docking station simultaneously control rotation of the workpiece and cutting of the workpiece by the cutting robot. Examiner’s best art teaches a motor useful for rotating a workpiece and a robot useful for cutting a workpiece, but not a controller configured for performing both simultaneously.
As to claim 10, Examiner’s best art does not teach the specific pneumatic and electrical coupling claimed.
As to claim 11, Examiner’s best art does not teach the particular first and second brakes configured to prevent rotation as claimed.
As to claims 12 and 17, Examiner’s best art does not teach the encoders which send signals to a controller which is configured to receive those signals and generate a notification. The art of Krause teaches the robots may have encoders, but this is not generally applicable to the swing frame 12 of Araki.
As to claim 18, Examiner’s best art does not teach the control module configured to control the measuring robot and drive unit as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 23 December 2025