DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II claims 14-24 in the reply filed on 12-31-2025 is acknowledged. The restriction is made final.
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: “an upstream transferrer” in claim 14, line 5; “a transfer driver that moves” in claim 14, line 7; “a downstream transferrer” in claim 17, line 2; “a contact surface that contacts” in claim 17, line 5; “a deforming structure that deforms” in claim 17, line 6; “roller drivers” in claim 21, line 4, “support drivers” in claim 22 lines 2 and 3 and “transverse-direction support drivers” in claim 23, line 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.
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
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.
Claim(s) 14-16,20,21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siebert (DE 102018133552) in view of Karls (DE 4235192). Siebert discloses a press brake (100, Fig. 1; [0003]) for bending a sheet workpiece ([0024], lines 2 and 3) including a die (106) that supports the workpiece (die is underneath the workpiece, Fig. 1) and a punch (104) that is located above the die (106) and presses the workpiece. Siebert discloses a workpiece transfer device (110,112) including an upstream workpiece transfer driver (manipulator, 110) and a downstream workpiece transfer driver (manipulator, 112) which comprise support surfaces (120; Fig. 4) for the workpiece. The upstream support surface (120) includes an upstream transferrer comprising movable stops (116; Fig. 4) on the upstream transfer driver (manipulator, 110) that is located on an upstream side (left side; Fig. 1) with respect to the press brake in a transfer direction (B, Fig. 2) of the workpiece. The upstream transfer driver (110) drives the stops (116, [0033], lines 1-7) to push against an upstream end of the workpiece to move the workpiece to the press and the upstream transfer driver (110) also includes driven rollers (118; [0030], lines 9-13) that are configured to move the workpiece in the transfer direction. Siebert discloses that the downstream transfer driver (manipulator, 112) is located on a downstream side (right side; Fig. 1) with respect to the press brake in the transfer direction (B, Fig. 2) and supports the workpiece from below (Fig. 1). The downstream transfer driver (112) is designed identically to the upstream transfer driver ([0032], line 7) and is configured to pivot and is adjustable in a Z height direction ([0030], lines 4-6) so as to adjust in conformity with a shape of the workpiece after pressing of the workpiece when the workpiece is bent along the deflection curve of bending line (A, Fig. 1; [0025]). Regarding claims 20 and 21, Siebert discloses rollers (118) which are arc-shaped supports (Fig. 4) for the workpiece, the rollers are driven rollers ([0030], lines 9-13) and each of the rollers are driven individually in one-to-one correspondence and are configured to move toward and away from the workpiece and also pivot relative to the workpiece since the upstream manipulator (110) is configured to be pivoted about pivot (C, Fig. 3) and is configured to be moved in a Z height direction ([0030], lines 4-6). Regarding claim 24, the rollers (118) are roller guides which are configured to move the workpiece in the transfer direction (B) translationally and they move the workpiece rotationally in a direction transverse to the transfer direction [0034].
Siebert discloses control circuitry [0029] comprising a detection unit (114) which signals the transport device to remove a faulty workpiece but does not disclose that the control circuitry is configured to control the transfer driver to intermittently transfer the workpiece in the transfer direction by moving the upstream transferrer in the transfer direction while pushing the upstream transferrer against an upstream end of the workpiece.
Karls teaches control circuitry comprising a control unit (24; [0053]) which signals an upstream transferrer (30,32; [0054]) to intermittently push an upstream end of a sheet workpiece (12) to a bending position at a predetermined target position for hinge bending by bending supports (14a,14b). Regarding claims 15 and 16, Karls teaches a distance sensor (38) for measuring an actual position of the sheet workpiece on the bending support (14) and the control unit compares the actual workpiece position to the predetermined target position [0055] and the control unit (24) is configured to control the upstream transferrer (30,32) based on the distance sensing [0070] so that the workpiece is accurately positioned at the target position. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to connect the detection unit of Siebert with a control unit as taught by Karls in order to signal the manipulator of Siebert to drive the upstream transferrer to push the workpiece toward the press depending on a size of the workpiece so that the workpiece is transferred to a predetermined target position for bending.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siebert (DE 102018133552) in view of Karls (DE 4235192) and further in view of Kowal (10,207,308). Siebert does not disclose that the upstream or downstream transfer device includes a sucker. Kowal teaches a transfer device (9) for transferring a sheet workpiece (12) horizontally (col. 6, lines 60-62) wherein the transfer device includes a plurality of vacuum suckers (18; col. 7, lines 34-42) to attach to the workpiece. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the upstream or downstream transfer device of Siebert to include vacuum suckers as taught by Kowal in order to securely hold the workpiece during transfer.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siebert (DE 102018133552) in view of Karls (DE 4235192) and further in view of Shi et al. (CN 111318594). Siebert discloses rollers (118) which are arc-shaped supports (Fig. 4) for the workpiece, the rollers are driven rollers ([0030], lines 9-13) and are configured to move toward and away from the workpiece and also pivot relative to the workpiece since the upstream manipulator is configured to be pivoted about pivot (C, Fig. 3) and is configured to be moved in a Z height direction ([0030], lines 4-6) but Siebert does not disclose pivoting and lifting drivers for the upstream manipulator. Shi teaches upstream and downstream sheet workpiece manipulator supports (400) which are driven to lift and pivot to conform to the bent workpiece by support drives comprising support rods (200,300) and a drive cylinder (500). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to lift and pivot the upstream workpiece transfer driver and the downstream workpiece transfer driver of Siebert with support drives as taught by Shi in order to position the upstream and downstream transfer drivers in a tilted position to conform to the bent workpiece.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 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. The prior art of record does not disclose that each of the upstream and downstream transferrers includes a contact structure that contacts an end face of the workpiece; a deforming structure that deforms to permit displacement of the contact structure when the contact structure is subjected to a pressure equal to or higher than a predefined level or a pressure acting in a direction that is not along the transfer direction of the workpiece; and a connector that holds the deforming structure and that is connected to the transfer driver, including the limitations of base claim 14. Claim 18 would be allowable as it depends from allowable claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baek (KR 102039978B1) discloses an upstream transferrer (120,130,150) for feeding a workpiece end to a press brake (240,340) and a downstream support (410) which is configured to conform to a bent shape of the workpiece and transfer the workpiece downstream.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725