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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/490,206 in view of Persson WO 2022/063394 and/or Stocker WO 2009/093064. The claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant case are the same except for the obvious differences of the recited workpiece positioner connected to the table and having an axis of rotation different from the axis of rotation of the rotary table. However, the use of a robotic table having a rotary table support having an axis of rotation and a workpiece positioner having an axis of rotation different from the axis of rotation of the rotary table is well known in the art as evidence by both Persson who teaches a rotary table (14) having an axis of rotation (34, 70) and a plurality of work positioners (22, 24) located on the rotary table and having an axis of rotation (40, 42) different from the axis of rotation of the rotary table. The prior art of Stocker further teaches a rotary table (20) having an axis of rotation and a plurality of work positioners (26, 28) located on the rotary table and having an axis of rotation different from the axis of rotation of the rotary table. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the rotary table to include a workpiece positioner as claimed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 12 and 19 recites “wherein the first support frame”. This appears to be a typographical error and should recite --wherein the support frame--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 8-9, 11-13, 15, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Passmore et al. US 2004/0138782.
PNG
media_image1.png
570
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Passmore discloses a rotary table assembly (10) for rotatably supporting a workpiece (F1-F3), the rotary table assembly comprising: a table (18) having a table top surface positioned in a first plane, the table having a first axis of rotation (about 36, see Fig. 3); a support frame (14) for supporting the table, the support frame having a support surface spaced apart from the first axis of rotation of the table at a first precise, predetermined distance, the support surface positioned in a second plane at least substantially parallel to the first plane and spaced apart from the first plane at a second precise, predetermined distance, a workpiece positioner (22, 23, 24) fixedly connectable to the table, the workpiece positioner having at least one support for supporting a workpiece off the table top surface, the at least one support having at least a second axis of rotation, and a gearbox (18, ¶0032) fixedly connected to the table for precisely rotating the table.
As for claim 9, Passmore discloses wherein the second axis of rotation (indexers 22, 23, 24, ¶0033) of the at least one support of the workpiece positioner is at least substantially perpendicular to the first axis of rotation of the table when the workpiece positioner is connected to the table (see Fig. 1 above).
As for claim 11, Passmore discloses a second workpiece positioner (22, 23, 24) fixedly connectable to the table opposite the first workpiece positioner (22, 23, 24), the second workpiece positioner having at least a second support for supporting a workpiece off the table top surface, the at least the second support having at least a third axis of rotation (¶0033), the first workpiece positioner and the second workpiece positioner interchangeable with one another for duplicating operations performed on a workpiece on either side of the table (18).
As for claim 12, Passmore discloses wherein the support frame (14) includes a support leg (bottom rectangular/square tubing not labeled, see Fig. 1 above) positioned beneath the support surface, a plurality of support legs extending at least substantially radially with respect to the first axis of rotation of the table for supporting the table in cooperation with the support leg (see fig. 1), a longitudinal chassis connecting the support surface, the support leg and the plurality of support legs together, and a gear box mount (18, 21) defined by the longitudinal chassis, the gearbox (18) support by the gearbox mount (See Fig. 1).
As for claim 13, Passmore discloses wherein the longitudinal chassis comprises a chassis extension.
PNG
media_image2.png
572
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for 15, Passmore discloses a robotic table system comprising: a rotary table assembly (10) for rotatably supporting a workpiece (F1-F3), the rotary table assembly including a table (18) having a table top surface positioned in a first plane, the table having a first axis of rotation (36), a support frame (14) for supporting the table, the support frame having a support surface spaced apart from the first axis of rotation of the table at a first precise (see Fig. 1-2), predetermined distance, the support surface positioned in a second plane (top surface of 14) at least substantially parallel to the first plane and spaced apart from the first plane at a second precise, predetermined distance, a workpiece positioner (22, 23, 24) fixedly connectable to the table, the workpiece positioner having at least one support for supporting a workpiece (F1-F3, see Figs. 4-8) off the table top surface, the at least one support having at least a second axis of rotation (indexer, ¶0033), and a gearbox (18, ¶0032) fixedly connected to the table for precisely rotating the table; and a robotic device (11, 12) couplable with the rotary table assembly (10) at the support surface (14), the robotic device having control programming configured to cause the robotic device to perform operations (welding) upon a workpiece according to a program of instructions, the operations based upon the first precise, predetermined distance and the second, precise predetermined distance, the robotic device controlling rotation of the table and the first workpiece positioner as part of the operations (¶0031 and ¶0034-38).
As for claim 16, Passmore discloses wherein the second axis of rotation of the at least one support of the workpiece positioner (22, 23, 24) is at least substantially perpendicular to the first axis of rotation (36) of the table when the workpiece positioner is connected to the table (see Figs. 1-8, ¶0033).
As for claim 18, Passmore discloses a second workpiece positioner (22, 23, 24) fixedly connectable to the table opposite the first workpiece positioner (22, 23, 24), the second workpiece positioner having at least a second support for supporting a workpiece (F1-F3) off the table top surface, the at least the second support having at least a third axis of rotation (see Figs. 1-8, ¶0033), the first workpiece positioner and the second workpiece positioner interchangeable with one another for duplicating operations performed on a workpiece on either side of the table (see Figs. 1-8).
As for claim 19, Passmore discloses wherein the support frame (14) includes a support leg (bottom rectangular/square tubing not labeled, see Fig. 1 above) positioned beneath the support surface, a plurality of support legs extending at least substantially radially with respect to the first axis of rotation of the table for supporting the table in cooperation with the support leg (see fig. 1), a longitudinal chassis connecting the support surface, the support leg and the plurality of support legs together, and a gear box mount (18, 21) defined by the longitudinal chassis, the gearbox (18) support by the gearbox mount (See Fig. 1).
As for claim 20, Passmore discloses wherein the longitudinal chassis comprises a chassis extension.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nuchter et al. US 2009/0102109.
Nuchter discloses a rotary table assembly (1) for rotatably supporting a workpiece (2), the rotary table assembly comprising: a table (31) having a table top surface positioned in a first plane, the table having a first axis of rotation (30,35, see Fig. 14); a support frame (29, 31) for supporting the table, the support frame having a support surface spaced apart from the first axis of rotation of the table at a first precise, predetermined distance (see Fig. 32 below), the support surface positioned in a second plane at least substantially parallel to the first plane and spaced apart from the first plane at a second precise, predetermined distance, a workpiece positioner (8,9,11,12) fixedly connectable to the table (via 16, 17, 18; see Figs. 32-34), the workpiece positioner having at least one support for supporting a workpiece (2) off the table top surface, the at least one support having at least a second axis of rotation (39), and a gearbox (see Fig. 32 below) fixedly connected to the table for precisely rotating the table.
PNG
media_image3.png
468
710
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for claim 9, Nuchter discloses wherein the second axis of rotation (39) of the at least one support (8, 9, 11, 12) of the workpiece positioner is at least substantially perpendicular to the first axis of rotation (30, 35) of the table (31) when the workpiece positioner is connected to the table (see Figs. 32-34 above).
As for claim 10, Nuchter discloses wherein the workpiece positioner (8, 9, 11, 12) comprises a headstock tailstock positioner assembly (see Figs. 32-34).
As for claim 11, Nuchter discloses a second workpiece positioner (8, 9, 11, 12) fixedly connectable to the table opposite the first workpiece positioner (8, 9, 11, 12), the second workpiece positioner having at least a second support for supporting a workpiece (2) off the table top surface, the at least the second support having at least a third axis of rotation (39), the first workpiece positioner and the second workpiece positioner interchangeable with one another for duplicating operations performed on a workpiece on either side of the table (see Figs. 32-34).
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) 1-2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passmore et al. US 2004/0138782.
Passmore discloses an interchangeable robotic table system comprising: a first rotary table assembly (10) for rotatably supporting a workpiece (F1-F3), the first rotary table assembly including a first table (18, 21) having a first table top surface positioned in a first plane, the first table having a first axis of rotation (36), a first support frame (14) for supporting the first table, the first support frame having a first support surface spaced apart from the first axis of rotation of the first table at a first precise (see Fig. 2), predetermined distance, the first support surface positioned in a second plane at least substantially parallel to the first plane and spaced apart from the first plane at a second precise, predetermined distance (see Fig. 2, 18 spaced from 14), a first workpiece positioner (22, 23, 24) fixedly connectable to the first table (18, 21), the first workpiece positioner having at least one support for supporting a workpiece (F1-F3) off the first table top surface, the at least one support having at least a second axis of rotation (indexer, 22-24, ¶0033), and a first gearbox (18, 21; ¶0032) fixedly connected to the first table for precisely rotating the first table; and a robotic device (11, 12) interchangeably couplable with the first rotary table assembly at the first support surface, the robotic device having control programming configured to cause the robotic device to perform operations upon a workpiece according to a program of instructions, the operations based upon the first precise, predetermined distance and the second, precise predetermined distance, the robotic device controlling rotation of the first table or the second table and the first workpiece positioner or the second workpiece positioner as part of the operations (¶0031 and ¶0034-38).
Passmore does not specify a second rotary table assembly for rotatably supporting a workpiece, the second rotary table assembly including a second table having a second table top surface positioned in a third plane, the second table having a third axis of rotation, a second support frame for supporting the second table, the second support frame having a second support surface spaced apart from the third axis of rotation of the second table at the first precise, predetermined distance, the second support surface positioned in a fourth plane at least substantially parallel to the third plane and spaced apart from the third plane at the second precise, predetermined distance, a second workpiece positioner fixedly connectable to the second table, the second workpiece positioner having at least one support for supporting a workpiece off the second table top surface, the at least one support having at least a fourth axis of rotation, and a second gearbox fixedly connected to the second table for precisely rotating the second table and wherein the robotic device is interchangeably couplable to the first and second rotary table assembly at the first and second support surfaces. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, through mere duplication to provide additional rotary table assemblies with support structures as disclosed by Passmore to include additional means for processing multiple workpieces at once by the robotic devices. (In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
As for claim 2, the modified Passmore teaches wherein the second axis of rotation of the at least one support of the first workpiece positioner (22, 23, 24) is at least substantially perpendicular to the first axis of rotation (36) of the first table when the first workpiece positioner is connected to the first table (see Fig. 1 above, indexer rotates perpendicular to 36; ¶0033).
As for claim 4, the modified Passmore teaches wherein the first rotary table assembly further comprises a third workpiece positioner (22, 23, 24) fixedly connectable to the first table opposite the first workpiece positioner (22, 23, 24), the third workpiece positioner having at least a second support for supporting a workpiece (F1-F3) off the first table top surface, the at least the second support having at least a fifth axis of rotation, the first workpiece positioner and the third workpiece positioner interchangeable with one another for duplicating operations performed on a workpiece on either side of the first table (see Fig. 1).
As for claim 5 (see claim 12 rejection), Passmore teaches wherein the first support frame (14) includes a first support leg (bottom rectangular/square tubing not labeled, see Fig. 1 above) positioned beneath the first support surface, a plurality of first support legs extending at least substantially radially with respect to the first axis of rotation of the first table for supporting the first table in cooperation with the first support leg (see fig. 1), a first longitudinal chassis connecting the first support surface, the first support leg and the plurality of first support legs together, and a first gear box mount (18, 21) defined by the first longitudinal chassis, the first gearbox (18) support by the first gearbox mount (See Fig. 1); and the second support frame (14) includes a second support leg (bottom rectangular/square tubing not labeled, see Fig. 1 above) positioned beneath the second support surface, a plurality of second support legs extending at least substantially radially with respect to the second axis of rotation of the second table for supporting the second table in cooperation with the second support leg (see fig. 1), a second longitudinal chassis connecting the second support surface, the second support leg and the plurality of second support legs together, and a second gear box mount (18, 21) defined by the second longitudinal chassis, the second gearbox (18) support by the second gearbox mount (See Fig. 1
As for claim 6 (see claim 13 rejection), Passmore teaches wherein at least one of the first longitudinal chassis or the second longitudinal chassis comprises a chassis extension.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passmore et al. US 2004/0138782 in view of Nuchter et al. US 2009/0102109.
The modified Passmore teaches all the limitations as recited above but does not specify wherein the first workpiece positioner comprises a headstock tailstock positioner assembly. However, the use of headstock tailstock positioners for positioning a workpiece to be processed is well known in the art as evidence by Nuchter who teaches a rotary assembly (1) having a headstock tailstock workpiece positioner (8, 9, 11, 12) for positioning a workpiece to be processed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify and/or substitute the indexer of Passmore with a headstock tailstock positioner as taught by Nuchter as an alternative workpiece positioning device for positioning a workpiece to be processed in selective positions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE V HALL JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5948. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/TYRONE V HALL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723