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: a case conveying unit, a case identification information reading unit, a case opening unit, a cutting blade conveying unit, an input interface in claim 1 and a case moving part and a case conveying part in claim 2.
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.
A case conveying unit is interpreted as a belt conveyor (24) and guide rail (32) according to paragraph [0049] or equivalents thereof.
A case identification information reading unit is interpreted as a barcode reader according to paragraph [0064] or equivalents thereof.
A case opening unit is interpreted as clamps or claws according to paragraph [0073] or equivalents thereof.
An input interface is interpreted as a touch panel, a mouse or a keyboard according to paragraph [0043] or equivalents thereof.
A case moving part is interpreted as a guide rail (32) and a moving component (34) according paragraph [0049] or equivalents thereof.
A case conveying part is interpreted as a guide rail according paragraph [0056] or 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkawara (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0172345).
Regarding Claim 1, Ohkawara teaches a cutting blade stock apparatus that stocks a
plurality of cutting blades (Fig. 17, 82) used for cutting of a workpiece (Fig. 1, 11), the cutting blade stock apparatus comprising:
a case placement stage (Fig. 17, 214) at which a case (Fig. 17, 216) capable of housing the cutting blade (Fig. 17, 82) is placed ([0145]);
a case conveying unit (Fig. 17, 206) that conveys the case (Fig. 17, 216) placed at the case placement stage ([0171]: cause the automated blade conveying vehicle 206 to travel along the conveyance passage 6);
a shelf (Fig. 16, 6) that supports and stocks the case conveyed by the case conveying unit (Fig. 18 shows that the blade conveying unit (206) stocked with the cases are supported by the conveyance passage (6).);
a case identification information reading unit (Fig. 17, 214b) that reads case identification information given to the case ([0146]);
a cutting blade conveying unit (Fig. 18, 226, 228, 230) that carries out the cutting blade (Fig. 18, 82) from the case (Fig. 17, 216) ([0174]: The control apparatus 96 controls operation of the blade conveying arm 230 … to carry out the cutting blade 82 from the chassis 214 …); and
an input interface (Fig. 18, 98) to which information that specifies the cutting blade to be carried out by the cutting blade conveying unit (Fig. 18, 230) is input ([0174]: When receiving the control signal from the control unit 12, the receiver 98…; it would have been obvious that the control signal from the control unit 12 includes information on which cutting blade to be carried out in order for the cutting blade conveying unit to perform the operation).
Although Ohkawara does not explicitly teach a case opening unit that opens the case, examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to store workpiece(s) in a case with a cover that would be need to be opened with a case opening unit to access the workpiece(s) to perform a work.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a single cover over all recesses in the chassis 214 or a plurality of covers each covering one of multiple recesses in the chassis 214 which would be opened later with a case opening unit (e.g. device or human) in order to securely store the blade within the recess and prevent foreign objects from entering into the recess
Regarding Claim 4, Ohkawara teaches the cutting blade stock apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the cutting blade conveying unit (Fig. 18, 226, 228, 230) carries in the cutting blade that has been used ([0177]: the used cutting blade 82 is placed on the blade case 216).
Regarding Claim 5, Ohkawara teaches the cutting blade stock apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the cutting blade conveying unit (Fig. 18, 226, 228, 230) carries in the cutting blade (Fig. 17, 82) that has been used through a conveyance port (Fig. 18, 92d) ([0150]: Each opening 92d is formed with a size that allows the cutting blade 82 to pass through the opening 92d) ([0177]: it would been obvious that the blade holding part 228 would transfer the blade to the blade holding part 228 through an opening 92d).
Regarding Claim 6, Ohkawara teaches the cutting blade stock apparatus according to
claim 5, wherein the cutting blade conveying unit (Fig. 18, 226, 228, 230) carries out the specified cutting blade through the conveyance port (Fig. 18, 92d) ([0150]: Each opening 92d is formed with a size that allows the cutting blade 82 to pass through the opening 92d).
Regarding Claim 8, Ohkawara teaches the cutting blade stock apparatus according to
claim 1, further comprising:
a plurality of the case placement stages (Fig. 17, 214) ([0142]: two automated conveying vehicles).
Regarding Claim 9, Ohkawara teaches the cutting blade stock apparatus according to
claim 1, wherein the case (Fig. 17, 216) is allowed to be placed at an optional position in the case placement stage (Fig. 17, 214) (In Fig. 17, the case can be one of a plurality of cases (216) in the chassis (214).).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkawara (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0172345) in view of Su et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0234156).
Regarding Claim 7, Ohkawara teaches the cutting blade stock apparatus according to
claim 1, but do not explicitly teach further comprising:
a blade identification information reading unit that reads blade identification information given to the cutting blade.
Su teaches a blade identification information reading unit ([0222]: camera, barcode reader) that reads blade identification information (Fig. 11A, 212) given to the cutting blade (Fig. 11A, 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a blade identification information to the cutting blade and a blade identification information reading unit to read the blade identification information in the apparatus of Ohkawara as taught by Su in order to ensure that a cutting blade is correctly stored in its corresponding case as suggested in Su [0225].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 10 and 11 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. Sekiya (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0070701) teaches a case placement stage (18), a blade conveying unit (28), a shelf (30), a cutting blade conveying unit (8) and other limitations such as a shelf, a case opening unit, and an input unit would be either well known or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. However, it does not teach or suggest “a case conveying unit that conveys the case capable of housing the cutting blade and a case identification information reading unit that reads case identification information given to the case”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN S YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7141. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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.
/JUN S YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 3/3/2026