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: “an individual protection device” in claim 1 and “a switching-off apparatus” in claim 6.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5, 8-10, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the individual protection devices" in line 2 and claims 3-5, 8-9, and 17 each recite the limitation “the at least one individual protection device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 2 lines 1-2 recites “…a respective one of the individual protection devices…” Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends from, recites a singular individual protection device. It is unclear if claim 2 requires just one or more than one individual protection devices. Did the applicant intend claim 1 to recite “…at least one individual protection device…”?
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the at least one access region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the at least one tufting station" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is also unclear as claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, requires “at least two tufting stations.” Similarly, claim 17 requires “the tufting station” instead of plural “tufting stations” that are required by claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 11-14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rioja et al., US 2023/0263299 A1.
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Rioja et al. disclose an apparatus for producing brushware (1) comprising: at least two tufting stations (3, 4, 23, 25, 26, 27) for tufting tufts of bristles in brushware bodies (Abstract, 2); a shared working space in which the tufting stations are arranged (8, see Figures); and an individual protection device for at least one of the tufting stations (16, 17; protective fence that is a light barrier or light grid, see paragraphs [0054]-[0057]), the individual protection device is configured to separate an access region that comprises the tufting stations from the working space (access region at 7, fence portion 17 separates the working space 8 from access region 7, Figures 1-5). Regarding claim 3, at least one individual protection device at least temporarily comprises a protective partition and forms a protective partition (fence portion 17) which separates the access region (7) from a remainder of the working space (8, see Figures). Regarding claim 4, at least one individual protection device comprises an optical protective partition comprising at least one of a light barrier, a light curtain, or a light grid (paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0054]). Regarding claim 6, there is a switching-off apparatus, which is configured to at least deactivate the other of at least two tufting stations when a protective partition of the individual protection device is breached (apparatus not shown, see paragraphs [0016] and [0055]). Regarding claim 11, the at least two tufting stations are functionally redundant to one another (3 and 4 are redundant, see Abstract and paragraphs [0021], [0069]). Regarding claim 12, the apparatus comprises at least one station for processing and/or handling at least one of brushware or brushware bodies (27, paragraph [0063]). Regarding claim 13, there is a transport apparatus (28) having at least one transport holder (29), which is configured to move at least one of brushware or brushware bodies between stations inside the working space (paragraph [0064]). Regarding claim 14, the transport apparatus comprises at least two transport planes (a plurality of axes, paragraph [0064]) in which the transport holder is moveable between the stations (paragraph [0064]). Regarding claim 19, there is a method comprising continuing to operate at least one of the two tufting stations in the working space when the individual protection device assigned to another one of the at least two tufting stations is activated and an access region containing the other tufting station is separated from the working space (paragraphs [0044]-[0045], see Figures 1-5).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahoransky, DE 4009585 A1 (see English translation) in view of Lohmann et al., EP 1437542 A1 (see English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Zahoransky discloses an apparatus (1) for producing brushware (4), the apparatus comprising at least two tufting stations for tufting tufts of bristles in brushware bodies (tamping machines 2, 2a, 2b); a shared working space in which the tufting stations are arranged (the space surrounding the apparatus 1 in Figure 1); and access region that comprises the tufting stations from the working space (unlabeled, each tufting station 2, 2a, 2b are in an access region). Regarding claim 11, the at least two tufting stations are functionally redundant to one another (Figure 1, in that 2, 2a, 2b are tamping machines). Regarding claim 12, there is at least one station for processing and/or handling at least one of brushware or brushware bodies (6, 7, or 8, see also Figures).
Zahoransky recognizes that brush manufacturing stations encounter malfunctions (paragraphs [0002], [0007]), but does not disclose an individual protection device configured to separate an access region from the working space, the individual protection device being an optical protective partition.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Lohmann et al. teach a an individual protection device that comprises an optical protective partition comprising a light barrier (6, Title, see English translation, protects people from risks that arise from proximity to machine tools). Regarding claim 5, the protection device comprises a light source (7, see English translation paragraph [0027]), a light sink (10), or a deflection mirror (20) for forming an optical protective partition (6, Figures 1-4). Regarding claim 6, there is a switching off apparatus configured to deactivate stations when a protective partition of the individual protection device is breached (binary switching signal, see English translation paragraph [0033] regarding interruptions of the beams by object 13). Lohmann et al. teaches that an individual protective device that is an optical protective partition that is a light barrier is advantageous when protecting individuals in safety critical areas of machines or machine installations to minimize the risk of injury to a person working in that area (see paragraphs [0003]-[0004], [0008]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the working space of the apparatus of Zahoransky to include an individual protection device that is an optical protective partition comprising a light barrier, as Lohmann et al. teach, so that an operator in the proximity of the tufting stations can reduce their risk of injury in the access region of the tufting stations, especially if there is a malfunction at a station.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahoransky, DE 4009585 A1 (see English translation) and Lohmann et al., EP 1437542 A1 (see English translation).
Zahoransky and Lohmann et al. disclose all elements previously discussed above, however neither particularly state that there are more than one individual protection devices so that one is provided for each tufting station wherein the individual protection device separates the access region from a remainder of the working space. Regarding claims 2-3, in Zahoransky there are multiple tufting devices (2, 2a, 2b) and each have an access region within the working space (the unlabeled area surrounding each station where 2, 2a, 2b are located in Figure 1).
As previously stated, Lohmann et al. teach that an individual protective device (an optical protective partition that is a light barrier) is advantageous when protecting individuals in safety critical areas of machines or machine installations to minimize the risk of injury to a person working in that area (see paragraphs [0003]-[0004], [0008]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the tufting stations and each respective access region of Zahoransky so that there is an individual protection device, such as the one taught by Lohmann et al. provided for each station and separates each access region from a remainder of the working space in order to separately protect any and all operators that are at any of the individual tufting stations. In addition MPEP 2144.04 recites that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of individual protection devices of Zahoransky and Lohmann et al. so that each tufting station has its own protection device.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahoransky, DE 4009585 A1 (see English translation) and Lohmann et al., EP 1437542 A1 (see English translation) as applied to claim 1, in view of Iida, WO 2007/010795 A1 (see English translation).
Zahoransky and Lohmann et al. disclose all elements previously discussed above, however fail to disclose a protective enclosure which surrounds the working space. With regards to claim 8, the access regions of Zahoransky is separable from the working space by the at least one individual protection device taught by Lohmann et al. (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Iida et al. teach a working space (100) within which a robot (15a, “picking work, machining work, assembling work and the like”) performs operations. Regarding claims 7-8, Iida teaches that it is advantageous to provide a protective enclosure around the working space (16, paragraph [0059]) in order to protect the operator or worker nearby (claim 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zahoransky and Lohmann et al. to further include a protective enclosure which surrounds the working space, as taught by Ilya et al., in order to protect the safety of a worker or operator that is near the apparatus.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahoransky, DE 4009585 A1 (see English translation) and Lohmann et al., EP 1437542 A1 (see English translation) as applied to claim 1, in view of Boucherie et al., WO 2021/204853 A1 (see English translation).
Zahoransky and Lohmann et al. disclose all elements previously discussed above. Zahoransky discusses tufting stations in general (2, 2a, 2b, see paragraph [0020]) but does not discuss in detail the tufting process or equipment used in tufting, and in particular does not disclose a transport holder configured to move brushware or brushware bodies or a tufting tool moveable to working positions in each of at least two transport planes.
Boucherie et al. teach an apparatus for producing brushware (Title) that comprises at least two tufting stations (18, English translation paragraphs [0018] and [0022]) for tufting tufts of bristles in brushware bodies (brush body 32). Regarding claim 13, within the apparatus and tufting station, there further comprises a transport apparatus having at least one transport holder (12, 30; Figures 1 and 5) which is configured to move at least one of brushware or brushware bodies between stations inside a working space (Figure 1, English translation paragraphs [0006]-[0007]). Regarding claim 14, the transport apparatus comprises at least two transport planes, in each of which at least one transport holder is moveable between the stations (moves vertically along H, Figure 2; moves about axis M in Figure 5). Regarding claim 15, at least one of the tufting stations comprises a tufting tool (18, 52) which is movable to working positions in each of the at least two transport planes of the transport apparatus (see directional arrows at 52 in Figures 3-4), and at least one of the tufting stations comprises a guide (unlabeled support of 52), along which the tufting tool is moveable to the working positions in the at least two transport planes of the transport apparatus (vertically at arrow P in Figure 3 and horizontally towards 12 in Figure 3). Regarding claim 16, the at least two tufting stations (English translation paragraph [0022]) include a number of tufting stations that corresponds to a number of the transport planes of the transport apparatus (two tufting stations and two planes, see above discussion), and each of the tufting stations comprise a respective one of the tufting tools (52) and each of the transport planes is assigned a respective one of the tufting tools (tool 52 can be present in both planes of the transport apparatus, see Figures). The tufting stations taught by Boucherie et al. equipped with a transport apparatus, transport holder, and transport planes is designed for increasing the process speed in which brushware can be manufactured (see English translation paragraphs [0025], [0027]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the tufting stations of Zahoransky and Lohmann et al. for the ones taught by Boucherie et al. so that the tufting stations can produce brushware and an increased speed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As best understood, none of the prior art made of record discloses, teaches, or suggests the invention of claims 9-10 and 17-18. Ilya et al. does not teach that the enclosure is openable in the access region, and the individual protection device is configured to be activated by opening the protective enclosure in the access region. Ilya et al. also does not teach a controller configured to activate the individual protection device when the protective enclosure is opened or is open in the access region, or to deactivate a tufting station.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg