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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated December 2, 2025 filed in response to the Non-final Rejection dated September 10, 2025.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejection in the previous Office action are maintained as explained below.
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 1-8 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 1 has been amended to recite the limitation "the first changing station" in the 18th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted to read “the first-stage changing station” for examination purposes.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite the limitation "the second changing station" in the 19th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted to read “the second-stage changing station” for examination purposes.
Claims 2-6 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
Claim 7 has been amended to recite the limitation "the first changing station" in the 13th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted to read “the first-stage changing station” for examination purposes.
Claim 7 has been amended to recite the limitation "the second changing station" in the 14th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted to read “the second-stage changing station” for examination purposes.
Claim 8 has been amended to recite the limitation "the first changing station" in the 18th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted to read “the first-stage changing station” for examination purposes.
Claim 8 has been amended to recite the limitation "the second changing station" in the 19th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted to read “the second-stage changing station” for examination purposes.
Response to Arguments
On page 6 of the Amendment, applicant argues Kim (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0091699 A1) fails to disclose or teach claims 1, 7 and 8 as amended. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While it is true the rejection of claims 1, 7 and 8 as stated in the previous Office action does not anticipate the claims as amended, the same rejection may equally be reasonably stated in another way which does anticipate the claims. That is, the location of a first-stage changing station may reasonably be interpreted as being disposed between a processing robot and the processing station and the location of a second-stage changing station may reasonably be interpreted as being disposed between the processing robot and the processing station as explained in the rejection below. Accordingly, the rejections made in the previous Office action are maintained.
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 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0091699 A1 by Kim, hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a hemming system (system 100 in Figs. 1 and 2; ¶[0044]-[0049]) comprising:
a processing station (transfer rails 40 in Figs. 1 and 2 are arranged in a cross-like shape to intersect at a center processing station; ¶[0064]-[0067]. See “Processing Station” annotation to Fig. 1 of Kim reproduced below);
a processing robot disposed around the processing station and configured to perform hemming on a workpiece disposed in the processing station (see hemming robot 60 annotated “Processing Robot” below; ¶[0049] and [0083]-[0085]);
a die storage configured to store each of dies in association with a respective type of workpiece, the dies being configured to be used when the hemming is performed (Die exchanging unit 90 in Fig. 1 is shown with stored dies in a dies storage area; ¶[0095]-[0096]. See “ Die Storage” annotation t below.);
a first-stage changing station in which a die that will be used by the processing robot when the processing robot performs hemming on a next different type of workpiece and hence corresponds to the next different type of workpiece is disposed on standby (the changing station position annotated as “First-Stage Changing Station” in Fig. 1 below; ¶[0067])
first transfer means for transferring the die disposed in the first-stage changing station to the processing station (transfer rail 40 in Figs. 1 and 2 of the First-Stage Changing Station transfer die 50 from the changing station position to the Processing Station);
a second-stage changing station in which the die disposed in the processing station is temporarily disposed (the changing station position annotated as “Second-Stage Changing Station” in Fig. 1 below);
second transfer means for transferring the die disposed in the processing station to the second-stage changing station (transfer rail 40 in Figs. 1 and 2 of the Second-Stage Changing Station transferring die 50 from the Processing Station to the Second-Stage Changing Station); and
a mobile robot configured to move the die from the second-stage changing station to the die storage and move the die from the die storage to the first-stage changing station (robot R3 in Fig. 1 moves die 50 from the Second-Stage Changing Station to die exchange unit 90 and moves die 50 from the Die Storage of die exchange unit 90 to the First-Stage Changing Station; ¶[0095]-[0096]),
wherein the first-stage changing station is disposed between the processing robot and the processing station (the First-Stage Changing Station and Processing Robot may reasonably be interpreted as annotated below such that the First-Stage Changing Station is disposed between the Processing Robot and the Processing Station), and the second-stage changing station is disposed between the processing robot and the processing station (the Second-Stage Changing Station may reasonably be interpreted as annotated below such that the Second-Stage Changing Station is disposed between the Processing Robot and the Processing Station).
PNG
media_image1.png
909
1222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kim anticipates the hemming system according to claim 1 as explained above. Kim further discloses, wherein:
the first transfer means is a first LM guide including a linear guide mechanism configured to guide a die disposed in the first-stage changing station toward the processing station in a straight line, and an actuator configured to drive the linear guide mechanism (transfer rail 40 in Figs. 1 and 2, at the First-Stage Changing Station as annotated above, is a linear guide mechanism configured to guide die 50 in the initial position toward the Processing Station annotated above in a straight line which has an actuator adapted to move the dies back and forth as described in ¶[0064]), and
the second transfer means is a second LM guide including a linear guide mechanism configured to guide a die disposed in the Processing Station toward the second-stage changing station in a straight line, and an actuator configured to drive the linear guide mechanism (transfer rail 40 in Figs. 1 and 2, at the Second-Stage Changing Station as annotated above, is a linear guide mechanism configured to guide die 50 in the center intersection processing station toward the initial position, adjacent die exchange unit 90, in a straight line which has an actuator adapted to move the dies back and forth as described in ¶[0064]).
Regarding claim 4, Kim anticipates the hemming system according to claim 1 as explained above. Kim further discloses, wherein:
a plurality of the processing robots, the first-stage changing station, and the second-stage changing station are arranged around the processing station in a circumferential configuration (plurality of processing robots 60, First-Changing Station annotated above, and Second-Stage Changing Station annotated above are arranged around the Processing Station annotated above),
the first and second-stage changing stations are arranged so that they are opposed to each other with the processing robot interposed therebetween (the First-Changing Station and Second-Changing Station as annotated above are arranged opposed to each other with annotated Processing Robot interposed therebetween), and
the first transfer means radially extends, between the processing robots, from the processing station located at the center of the circumference to the first-stage changing station (transfer rail 40 of the First-Changing Station as annotated above radially extends between the annotated Processing Robot and the annotated Processing Station), and
the second transfer means radially extends, between the processing robots, from the processing station located at the center of the circumference to the second-stage changing station (transfer rail 40 of the Second-Changing Station as annotated above radially extends between the annotated Processing Robot and the annotated Processing Station).
Regarding claim 5, Kim anticipates the hemming system according to claim 4 as explained above. Kim further discloses wherein the mobile robot (robot R3 in Fig. 1) is disposed adjacent to the first and second-stage changing stations, and the die storage in such a manner that the mobile robot is interposed between the first and second-stage changing stations and the die storage. The annotated figure above shows how Kim may be reasonably interpreted as disclosing robot R3 is located between the Changing Stations and the Die Storage.
Regarding claim 6, Kim anticipates the hemming system according to claim 1 as explained above. Kim further discloses:
a carrying-in apparatus configured to carry in the workpiece to the processing station (robot R1 in Figs. 1 and 2 is a carrying-in apparatus; ¶[0054]);
a carrying-out apparatus configured to carry out the workpiece from the processing station (robot R2 in Figs. 1 and 2 is a carrying-out apparatus; ¶[0093]-[0094]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses a hemming method (method carried out by system 100 in Figs. 1 and 2) comprising:
performing, by a processing robot disposed around a processing station, hemming on a workpiece disposed in the processing station (the Processing Robot as annotated above is disposed around a Processing Station as annotated above where hemming is performed as disclosed in ¶[0049]);
transferring, by first transfer means, a die disposed in a first-stage changing station to the processing station (rail 40 of the First-Stage Changing Station as annotated in Fig. 1 above is a first transfer means transferring die 50), the first-stage changing station being configured so that a die corresponding to a next type of workpiece is disposed on standby therein, the die being one that the processing robot will use when it performs hemming on the next type of workpiece (¶[0067] discloses die 50 may correspond to a different type of workpiece);
transferring, by second transfer means, the die disposed in the processing station to a second-stage changing station in which the die disposed in the processing station is temporarily disposed (rail 40 of the Second-Stage Changing Station as annotated above is a second transfer means transferring die 50 from the Processing Station to the Second-Stage Changing Station);
and
moving, by a mobile robot, the die disposed in the second-stage changing station to a die storage and move a die stored in the die storage to the first-stage changing station (mobile robot R3 in Fig. 1 moves die 50 disposed in the Second-Stage Changing Station to the Die Storage and moves die 50 to the First-Changing Station).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses a hemming system (system 100 in Figs. 1 and 2; ¶[0044]-[0049]) comprising:
a processing station (transfer rails 40 in Figs. 1 and 2 are arranged in a cross-like shape to intersect at a Processing Station as annotated in Fig. 1 above; ¶[0064]-[0067]);
a processing robot disposed around the processing station and configured to perform hemming on a workpiece disposed in the processing station (see hemming robot 60 annotated “Processing Robot” annotated in Fig. 1 above);
a die storage configured to store each of dies in association with a respective type of workpiece, the dies being configured to be used when the hemming is performed (Die exchanging unit 90 in Fig. 1 is shown with stored dies in a dies storage area; ¶[0095]-[0096]. See “ Die Storage” annotation to Fig. 1 of Kim reproduced above.);
a first-stage changing station in which a die that will be used by the processing robot when the processing robot performs hemming on a next different type of workpiece and hence corresponds to the next different type of workpiece is disposed on standby (the changing station position annotated as “First-Stage Changing Station” in Fig. 1 below; ¶[0067])
a first guide configured to transfer the die disposed in the first-stage changing station to the processing station (transfer rail 40 in Figs. 1 and 2 of the First-Stage Changing Station transfer die 50 from the changing station position to the Processing Station);
a second-stage changing station in which the die disposed in the processing station is temporarily disposed (the changing station position annotated as “Second-Stage Changing Station” in Fig. 1 above.);
a second guide configured to transfer the die disposed in the processing station to the second-stage changing station (transfer rail 40 in Figs. 1 and 2 of the Second-Stage Changing Station transferring die 50 from the Processing Station to the Second-Stage Changing Station); and
a mobile robot configured to move the die from the second-stage changing station to the die storage and move the die from the die storage to the first-stage changing station (robot R3 in Fig. 1 moves die 50 from the Second-Stage Changing Station to die exchange unit 90 and moves die 50 from the Die Storage of die exchange unit 90 to the First-Stage Changing Station; ¶[0095]-[0096]).
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding claim 3, Kim anticipates the hemming system according to claim 1 as explained above. But Kim does not expressly disclose a control unit as claimed in claim 3. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a control unit is being used to control hemming system 100 such that the processing robots 60, transfer rails 40 and mobile robot R3 shown in Figs. 1 and 2 are controlled to perform roller hemming. The hemming system shown in Figs. 1 and 2 is arranged such that its control unit is capable of:
when the hemming in a current cycle is completed, the control unit transfers and temporarily disposes a die, which has been used in the hemming in the current cycle, from the processing station to the second-stage changing station by controlling the second transfer means (system 100’s control unit transfers die 50 from the Processing Station as annotated above to the Second-Stage Changing Station as annotated above by controlling the Station’s rail 40), and at the same time, transfers a die, which has been disposed on standby in the first-stage changing station and will be used in hemming in a next cycle, to the processing station by controlling the first transfer means (system 100’s control unit transfers die 50 in the First-Stage Changing Station to the Processing Station using the Station’s transfer rail 40).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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, Christopher 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.
/P.D.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725