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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-13, 15) in the reply filed on 9/8/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “which conduit” in line 3 should be corrected as --which the conduit--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a support device” in line 2 should be corrected as --[[a]] the support device--. 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: “a clamping element for fixing the brush in the brush receptacle” in claim 9.
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.
A review of the specification, para[0016],[0061] show that a clamping element can be inserted laterally into the groove portion, and as seen in figures.
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 1-13, 15 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: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a machining device”, and the claim also recites “a laser machining device” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, “a laser machining device” is interpreted as merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 11: Claim 11 recites “vacuum devices and/or support modules” in line 3. It is noted that claim 1 (which upon claim 11 depends) recites “vacuum devices” in line 6 and “support modules” 9. It is not clear whether “vacuum devices and/or support modules” refer to ones in claim 1 or if they are distinct and separate from each other. For examination purposes, “vacuum devices and/or support modules” is interpreted as --the vacuum devices and/or the support modules--.
Claim 15: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “A machining device”, and the claim also recites “a laser machining device” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, “a laser machining device” is interpreted as merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claims 2-10 and 13 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-9, 12-13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (5,932,065) in view of Codatto (5,326,085).
Regarding claim 1¸ Mitchell (‘065) discloses a holding device 140 (fig4) for holding a sheet material (abstract) in a machining device (abstract), the holding device comprising:
a working plate 150 (col.7 line14) having a plate upper side (a top side) extending along a plate plane (fig4),
vacuum devices 160a (fig4, col.7 lines24-27) extending along a holding direction (an upward direction perpendicular to the plate upper side, fig4), each having a base (a bottom portion, fig4) arranged on the plate upper side (fig4) and a nozzle head 165a (col.7 lines24-25) arranged on the base (fig4) for suctioning the sheet material,
support modules 160b (col.7 lines27-29, fig4) extending along the holding direction, each having a module base (a bottom portion, fig4) arranged on the plate upper side.
However, Mitchell does not explicitly disclose a use of a brush arranged on the module base. Mitchell discloses a use of an attachment head 165b on the support module 160a to support the sheet material (col.7 lines27-29).
Codatto (‘085) teaches a use of brushes with bristles (col.1 lines31-32) for supporting a sheet material to provide anti-friction supporting means. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell to use brushes with bristles as an attachment head on the support modules, as taught by Codatto, to provide anti-friction supporting means.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Mitchell and Codatto teaches the holding device according to claim 1. Mitchell further discloses wherein the vacuum devices 160a and/or the support modules 160b are arranged such that the holding direction runs perpendicular to the plate plane (fig4).
Regarding claim 3¸ the combination of Mitchell and Codatto teaches the holding device according to claim 1. Mitchell further discloses wherein the working plate 150 comprises a ferromagnetic material (col.7 lines39-42, a magnet to be releasably attached to the working plate 150), and wherein the vacuum device 160a and/or the support modules 160b each have a permanent magnet 169 (col.7 line39) for fixing the vacuum device 160a and/or the support modules 160b on the working plate 150 (col.7 lines39-42).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mitchell and Codatto teaches the holding device according to claim 1. Mitchell further discloses wherein the vacuum device 160a has an adapter piece (a body portion between the base with a magnet 169 and the nozzle head 165a, fig4) arranged between the base and the nozzle head 165a.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mitchell and Codatto teaches the holding device according to claim 1. Mitchell further discloses wherein a conduit 166 (col.7 lines22-23) running along the holding direction is provided in the vacuum device 160a, which the conduit fluidically connects a conduit input 167 (col.7 line23) arranged at the base for connecting a vacuum supply (col.7 lines21-24) and a conduit output 168 (col.7 line23) arranged on the nozzle head 165a.
Regarding claim 6¸ the combination of Mitchell and Codatto teaches the holding device according to claim 1. Mitchell, as modified by Codatto, teaches wherein the support modules 160b are arranged on the working plate 150 such that the brush plane runs perpendicular to the plate plane (the brush plane is along the holding direction which is perpendicular to the plate plane).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mitchell and Codatto teaches the holding device according to claim 1. Mitchell, as modified by Codatto, teaches wherein the support modules 160b each have a module bar (a body of the support module) between the module base and the brush.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Mitchell and Codatto teaches the holding device according to claim 1. Codatto further teaches wherein the support modules each have a brush receptacle (fig4, a receptacle of an element 8 wherein an element 9 sits in. Codatto teaches that the element 9, the ball, can be replaced with brushes with bristles as aforementioned) for receiving the brush.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Mitchell and Codatto teaches the holding device according to claim 8, wherein a clamping element (Codatto, the brush is fit in the brush receptacle) for fixing the brush in the brush receptacle is provided in the brush receptacle.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Mitchell and Codatto teaches the holding device according to claim 1. Mitchell further discloses wherein further at least one tube clamp 153 (col.7 line18) is provided for fixing tubes 157 (col.7 line18).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Mitchell and Codatto teaches the holding device according to claim 12. Mitchell discloses wherein the tube clamp 153 has a clamp base (a bottom portion which is attached to the working plate 150). However, Mitchell does not explicitly disclose how the clamp base is being fixed to the working plate 150. It is noted that Mitchell teaches a use of a magnet 169 (col.7 lines39-42) to fix the vacuum devices 160a and the support modules 160b. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell to use a magnet on the clamp base, for the purpose of releasably connecting the tube clamp to the working plate.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Mitchell and Codatto teaches a machining device, for machining sheet materials, said machining device having the support device according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mitchell (5,932,065) and Codatto (5,326,085) in further view of Poland (4,641,819).
Regarding claims 10-11, the combination of Mitchell and Codatto teaches the holding device according to claim 1, however, does not explicitly teach a use of a protective plate. Poland (‘819) teaches a use of a protective plate 70 (col.4 line9-10) extending parallel to a plate plane provided above a working plate 90 (col.4 line10, fig4), wherein the protective plate 70 is designed as a grid plate (fig4) and has grid recesses 94 (col.4 line11-12) for receiving support modules 14 (fig4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell to use a protective plate, as taught by Poland, so that support modules that are not being used can be stored below the protective plate (col.4 lines53-56).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shen et al (US 7,484,464 B2), Shen et al (US 6,644,637 B1), Collier et al (5,829,151), Blick (5,562,276), Bovone (5,433,657), Given (5,135,120), and Shoda (5,120,033) teach similar holding devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights