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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informality: the apostrophe in “LED’s” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 43 is objected to because of the following informality: the phrase “or a code of a higher ordinal” should be deleted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 35, 37, 42-46 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.
Regarding claim 35, the phrase "for instance" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The limitations after the phrase will not be interpreted as part of the claimed invention for examination purposes.
Regarding claim 37, the phrase "wherein optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The limitations after the phrase will not be interpreted as part of the claimed invention for examination purposes.
Regarding claim 42, the phrase "and optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The limitation after the phrase will not be interpreted as part of the claimed invention for examination purposes.
Claim 44 recites the limitation "the first and second transducers" in the 3rd line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 44 will be interpreted as the tool being claimed in claim 44 is for use with the assembly according to claim 27 for examination purposes.
Claims 45 and 46 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim 46 is separately rejected because the phrase “and optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The limitation after the phrase will not be interpreted as part of the claimed invention for examination purposes.
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.
Claims 27-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0043238 A1 by Bruggink, hereinafter “Bruggink”.
Regarding claim 27, Bruggink discloses a clamping system for a press brake or folding press (the clamping system shown in Fig. 1; ¶[0036]), the clamping system comprising:
a beam for holding one or more tools (beam receiving part 2 in Fig. 1 holding tool 5; ¶[0036]), and
a first transducer (first transducer light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 12 in Figs. 3-5; ¶[0041]) and a second transducer (second transducer LEDs 11 in Fig. 3-5), each of the first and second transducers being capable of transducing electrical energy to light and vice versa (LEDs 11 and 12 are both capable of transducing electrical energy to light and vice versa), the first transducer LEDs 12 being configured to transmit light towards tool 5 in beam receiving part 2 and the second transducer LEDs 11 being configured to receive light reflected from tool 5 in beam receiving part 2.
Bruggink does not expressly disclose LEDs 11 and 12 are each configured to both transmit and receive light. LEDs 11 are disclosed as only being “light-receptive sensors”. LEDs 12 are disclosed as only being a “light-emitting device”. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also use LEDs 11 as light-emitting devices and use LEDs 12 as light-receptive sensors because both are disclosed as being the same type of organic light-emitting diode technology. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized paragraphs [0011], [0015] and [0041] teach LEDs are capable of being both “light-emitting devices” and “light-receptive sensors” where all of the LEDs may be used as an emitter or a receiver to increase the number of possible data points.
Regarding claim 28, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 27 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further teaches the at least two transducers are LEDs. Paragraph [0041] discloses light-receptive sensors 11 and light-emitting devices 12 may be organic light-emitting diodes (OLED).
Regarding claim 29, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 27 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further teaches a controller for controlling the first and second transducer. Paragraphs [0020] through [0027] disclose a controller controlling the LEDs.
Regarding claim 30, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 29 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further teaches the controller is configured to send an electrical signal to the first transducer while receiving an electrical signal from the second transducer during at least a first interval. Fig. 3 shows the controller sends an electrical signal to the first transducer light-emitting device LED 12 which emits light L and receives an electrical signal from second transducer light-receptive sensor LED 11 by receiving reflected light R. See paragraphs [0038] and [0039].
Regarding claim 31, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 30 unpatentable as explained above. When applying the teaching explained in the rejection of claim 27 above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller referenced in paragraphs [0020] through [0027] to send an electrical signal to LED 11 to emit light while LED 12 would send an electrical signal to the controller based upon received reflected light.
Regarding claims 32-34, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 29 unpatentable as explained above. Paragraph [0041] discloses matrix 14 in Fig. 5 is comprised of a plurality of light-emitting device LEDs 12 and a plurality of light-receptive sensor LEDs 11 where light is emitted from the plurality of LEDs 12 and received by the plurality of LEDs 11. When applying the teaching explained in the rejection of claim 27 above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller referenced in paragraphs [0020] through [0027] to use all of the LEDs 11 and 12 as both light emitters and light receivers such that numerous patterns of emitter and receivers may be implemented to transmit data between the controller and tool 5.
Regarding claim 35, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 29 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further teaches the controller referenced in paragraphs [0020] through [0027] is configured to determine a characteristic of an electric signal received from transducer LEDs 11 based upon the location of the LED generating the electric signal. See paragraph [0039].
Regarding claim 36, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 27 unpatentable as explained above. Paragraph [0015] of Bruggink further teaches any kind of pattern of light-emitting devices and light-receptive sensors can be produced with OLED technology. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use transducer LEDs of mutually differing wavelength to achieve the predictable result of producing a different pattern of transducer LEDs by using LEDs of mutually differing wavelengths.
Regarding claim 37, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 27 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink discloses the beam comprises a longitudinal receiving space for receiving at least a part of the one or more tools when held by the beam (Fig. 1 shows the beam comprises longitudinal receiving space part 2 holding the upper part of tool 5; ¶[0036]), wherein the first and second transducers are arranged in the receiving space (Figs. 3 and 4 show transducer LEDs 11 and 12 arranged in the longitudinal receiving space structure 2 as described in paragraphs [0038] and [0039]).
Regarding claim 38, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 27 unpatentable as explained above. Paragraph [0041] discloses matrix 14 in Fig. 5 is comprised of a plurality of light-emitting device LEDs 12 and a plurality of light-receptive sensor LEDs 11.
Regarding claim 39, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 27 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further discloses a tool (tool 5 in Fig. 2; ¶[0037]) comprising a marking (marking means 6 in Fig. 2) having encoded therein at least an identification number (¶[0037] discloses marking means 6 has the identity of tool 5 encoded in the unique pattern of reflective areas 8).
Regarding claim 40, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 39 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further discloses the marking (marking means 6 in Fig. 2) has features of a characteristic dimension similar to or larger than a dimension of the first and/or second transducer (marking means 6 in Fig. 4 is illustrated with spatial features between reflective surfaces 8 which are similar to or larger than LEDs 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 41, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 39 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further discloses the marking (marking means 6 in Figs. 2 and 4) comprises features distinguishable by reflectance of reflective areas 8).
Regarding claim 42, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 41 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further discloses the identification number of the marking is encoded in a discrete code. Figs. 2 and 4 show marking means 6 is encoded in discrete reflective areas 8 to identify tool 5.
Regarding claim 43, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 41 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further discloses the code is of a higher ordinal than two. Fig. 2 shows at least three different types of reflective areas 8 such that a code of higher ordinal than two is disclosed.
Regarding claim 44, Bruggink discloses a tool for use in a press brake or folding press (tool 5 in Figs. 1 and 2) comprising a marking (marking means 6 in Figs. 1 and 2) having encoded therein at least an identification number (¶[0037] discloses marking means 6 has the identity of tool 5 encoded in the unique pattern of reflective areas 8) where the marking is configured to reflect light received from the first and second transducers in the assembly according to claim 27 (Figs. 3 and 4 show how light emitted from LEDs is reflected off reflective areas 8).
Regarding claim 45, Bruggink renders the tool according to claim 44 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further discloses the marking comprises features distinguishable by reflectance of the surface of the marking. Figs. 2 and 4 show marking means 6 comprises reflective surfaces 8.
Regarding claim 46, Bruggink renders the tool according to claim 45 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further discloses Bruggink further discloses the identification number of the marking is encoded in a discrete code. Figs. 2 and 4 show marking means 6 is encoded in discrete reflective areas 8 to identify tool 5.
Conclusion
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