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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the drawing objection of “convex surface,” “apparatus adapted to aligning the assembly tool,” “assembly table,” “fixed assembly table,” and “assembly table and convex surface translate below a fixed assembly tool,” “resistive heater,” “ceramic heater,” “semiconductor heater” “positive thermal coefficient heater,” “thick film heater,” and “infrared heater,” not being shown are persuasive. However, as per the second table (see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, Pg. 9) Applicant admits that “Bernoulli gripper,” “constant-force spring,” “rectangular spring,” “torsion spring,” “articulated joint, and “machine vision” are not shown, but argues that “such elements are well known in the art and can be understood by their industrial and common meaning,” and further cites MPEP 608.02 as stating, “applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented.”
The Examiner responds that MPEP § 608.02 (and 35 U.S.C. § 113 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.81(a), as relied upon in Applicant’s arguments) are in reference to Applicant’s disclosure requirements, whereas 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) is specifically drawn to drawing requirements and clearly states “[t]he drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims (emphasis added). Thus, Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the drawing objection of these limitations are not persuasive and the drawing objection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the Specification Objections are persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 9 for the limitation “an apparatus adapted to aligning the assembly tool,” Applicant argues that “one embodiment of this apparatus comprises the locating elements shown in FIGS. 1 and 8A-8F and which are indicated by reference numeral 431.”
The Examiner responds that MPEP 2181(II)(C) states in part, “The structure disclosed in the written description of the specification is the corresponding structure only if the written description of the specification or the prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).” MPEP 2181(II)(C) further states, “The requirement that a particular structure be clearly linked with the claimed function in order to qualify as corresponding structure is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and is also supported by the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, that an invention must be particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed.” Applicant’s Specification does not clearly link claimed “apparatus adapted to aligning the assembly tool” with pins 431. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claim 9 is maintained.
As per Applicant’s arguments, “elastomer sheet” are understood to be disclosed “connector elements 413a, 413b, 414a, and 414b.
Pertaining to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, Applicant cites Jess’ disclosures pertaining to different embodiments, such as, “the attractors 20 are limited in their lateral movement with respect to one another,” “the distance between any two individual attractors 20 is not permitted to vary too much,” and then argues that amended Claim 1 “overcomes Jess and that claims 2-3, 6-9, and 12 are allowable by virtue of their dependence thereon.”
The Examiner responds that Jess’ disclosure of “limited in their lateral movement” and “not permitted to vary too much” does not mean there is no lateral movement and, in fact, clearly discloses that some lateral movement between the attractors is a designed feature of Jess’ invention. Thus, the Examiner disagrees that amendments to Claim 1 overcome Jess. As a result, the Examiner maintains the position that Jess anticipates the amended limitation of “at least one connector element allows for variable distance between adjacent gripper heads.”
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are based on the assumption that Jess does not anticipate newly amended claim limitations and does not provide any further argument(s) on the combination of references. Given that the Examiner has shown that Jess does, in fact, anticipate independent Claims 1 and 9, no further response to the 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “Bernoulli gripper,” “constant-force spring,” “rectangular spring,” “torsion spring,” “articulated joint, and “machine vision” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: as amended, the second to last phrase of Claim 9 recites, “and too;”. The Examiner believes this is a strike-through error and that “tool” should have been struck through with “the assembly…” Appropriate correction is required.
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: “apparatus adapted to aligning the assembly tool” and “locating elements” in claims 9 and 11 respectively.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9. The limitation “apparatus adapted to aligning the assembly tool” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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)(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 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jess et al. (US 10,407,262).
Jess discloses;
Claim 1. A pick-and-place assembly tool comprising:
a support frame (22) operably coupled to a plurality of gripper heads (20) formed in an array (12), each gripper head comprising:
a plate (bottom surface of 20) having one or more suction elements (Col. 3, Ln. 52-54); and one or more connector elements (28) flexibly coupled to an adjacent gripper head at a distance wherein the array of gripper heads is adapted to passively conform to a convex surface (18) while at least one connector element allows for variable distance between adjacent gripper heads (the distance between respective plates of adjacent pairs of 20 changes when joints 36 and 38 bend) (Col. 3 and 7-8, and Fig. 1-3).
Claim 2. The assembly tool of claim 1 wherein the suction element is selected from the group consisting of: a hole, a suction cup, and a Bernoulli gripper (Jess discloses that the suction elements can be suction cups, Col. 3, Ln. 52-54).
Claim 3. The assembly tool of claim 1 wherein the one or more connector elements is selected from the group consisting of: a constant-force spring, a rectangular spring, a torsion spring, an articulated joint, and an elastomer sheet (Jess discloses that the connector elements are articulated joints, Col. 9 and Fig. 2-3).
Claim 6. The assembly tool of claim 1 wherein the array comprises a plurality of rows (Fig. 5).
Claim 7. The assembly tool of claim 6 wherein the one or more connector elements restricts the degrees of freedom between the gripper heads.
Claim 8. The assembly tool of claim 7 wherein the one or more connector elements restrict the elongation between the gripper heads within the rows and allow a variable displacement between the rows (in Fig. 2-3, with rows going into and out of the page, the gripper heads within each row maintain the same spacing between each other due to respective connectors and joints, while the connectors and joints illustrated in Fig. 2-3 allow variable displacement between the rows).
Claim 9. A system for picking flat and placing curved comprising: a pick-and-place assembly tool(48) adapted to aligning the assembly tool to an assembly surface and a convex surface (Col. 8 and 12, and Fig. 2 and 9).
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.
Claims 4-5 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jess in view of Petrovsi et al. (US 10,099,385).
Jess discloses;
Claim 12. A method of picking flat and placing curved, the method comprising: providing a pick-and-place assembly tool comprising: a support frame (22) operably coupled to a plurality of gripper heads (20) formed in an array (12), each gripper head comprising: a plate (bottom surface of 20) having one or more suction elements (Col. 3, Ln. 52-54); and one or more connector elements (28) flexibly coupled to an adjacent gripper head at a distance, wherein the array of gripper heads is adapted to passively conform to a convex surface while at least one connector element allows for variable distance between adjacent gripper heads (the distance between respective plates of adjacent pairs of 20 changes when joints 36 and 38 bend); aligning the pick-and-place assembly tool to an assembly surface (16) whereupon a flexible workpiece (14) is disposed; lowering the assembly tool onto the workpiece; engaging the suction of the gripper heads; lifting the assembly tool and captive workpiece; translating the assembly tool to a position over the convex surface; aligning the assembly tool to the convex surface; lowering the assembly tool onto the convex surface; disengaging the suction of the gripper heads; and lifting the assembly tool to a position over the convex surface (Col. 7-10 and Fig. 1-4).
Jess is silent to;
Claim 4. The assembly tool of claim 1 wherein each gripper head of the plurality of gripper heads comprises a heating element adapted to supply heat to the workpiece.
Claim 5. The heating element of claim 4 wherein the heating element is selected from the group consisting of: a resistive heater, a forced air heater, a ceramic heater, a semiconductor heater, a positive thermal coefficient heater, a thick film heater, a microwave heater and an infrared heater.
Claim 11. The system of claim 9 wherein apparatus adapted to alignment is selected from the group consisting of: mechanical locating elements and machine vision.
Claim 12. At least one gripper head comprises a heating element adapted to provide heat to a workpiece.
Claim 13. The method of claim 12 comprising the additional step of heat-tacking the workpiece to the convex surface before disengaging the suction of the gripper heads (Col. 5, Ln. 23-27).
However, Petrovski discloses an assembly tool (132) having a plurality of gripper heads (670) and a positioning device (150), an apparatus adapted to aligning the assembly tool to an assembly table and a convex surface, and a method of picking flat and placing curved, and further teaches;
Claim 4. The assembly tool of claim 1 wherein each gripper head of the plurality of gripper heads comprises a heating element (690) adapted to supply heat to the workpiece (Col. 5 and Fig. 6).
Claims 5 and 12. A heating element (690), disclosed as a “thermally shielded heating element,” which is understood to be a resistive heater and provides heat to a workpiece (Col. 5 and Fig. 6).
Claim 11. An imaging system (134), which is understood to be machine vision (Col. 3, Ln. 26, and Fig. 1).
Claim 13. The method of claim 12 comprising the additional step of heat-tacking the workpiece to the convex surface before disengaging the suction of the gripper heads (Col. 5, Ln. 23-27).
Therefore, in view of Petrovski’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jess’s disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success to include a heating element to insure a ply being placed would adhere to the previous ply, and machine vision to provide real-time feedback to the controller to insure proper alignment between the assembly tool and convex surface during placement of the flexible workpiece.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jess in view of Petrovski, and further in view of Wiedemann et al. (US 7,653,977).
Jess is silent to;
Claim 14. The method of claim 12 wherein the assembly surface and convex surface translate below a fixed assembly tool.
However, Wiedemann discloses a method of operating an assembly tool (7) with workpieces (2), and further teaches that the robot is stationary (Col. 3, Ln. 44-46) and the workpieces translate with respect to the robot to provide higher efficiency and better utilization of the assembly tool (Col. 3-4 and Fig. 5).
Therefore, in view of Wiedemann’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jess’ disclosure to include the cited teachings of Wiedemann with a reasonable expectation of success to provide higher efficiency and better utilization of the assembly tool.
With respect to the limitations that have been cited as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the structures cited in the art of record as disclosing or teaching these limitations are either structurally similar to the respective structure in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure or perform the same claimed function.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; DE 102019130375.
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 RONALD P JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-8311. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/RONALD P JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights