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
Examiner thanks Applicant for incorporating structure such that some of the previous 112(f) invocations are withdrawn herein.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner has provided an updated grounds of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, in view of Yamaguchi. Please see below for additional details.
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 measuring device in claims 1 and 8. When looking to the specification, the measuring device is described to be a light barrier 90, transmitter 91, and receiver 93; please see page 9 of the Specification. This limitation shall be construed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. D.M.I., Inc. v. Deere & Co., 755 F.2d 1570, 1574, 225 USPQ 236, 238 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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 § 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.
(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, 5, and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi (JP 6126657 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses a machine for processing sheet metal parts, comprising:
a brush unit with at least one abrasive brush configured to horizontally rotate and brush a surface of the sheet metal parts to be processed (see Figure 7B regarding rotating brushes 31A, 31B and workpiece W; see also [0006], [0039]; wherein the recitation of ‘horizontally’ does not have a frame of reference, i.e. a floor or a different surface, and thus the prior art discloses the claimed invention under broadest reasonable interpretation);
an actuator configured to vertically move the brush unit to adjust a processing gap ([0009]: a frame moving motor for relatively moving a brush frame toward a conveyor belt; see also [0033], [0036]);
a measuring device configured to measure a plurality of diameters of the at least one abrasive brush while the at least one abrasive brush is freely rotating at different speeds (see diameter detecting means disclosed in [0007]; see also [0010], [0038], [0040-0041], [0047-0048]; [0054]; wherein [0061] discloses circumferential speeds in plural and measured diameters; see also [0062]);
a memory configured to store the plurality of measured diameters and the different speeds in association with each other ([0049] discloses storing diameters and the peripheral speeds of the rotating brush; see also [0050], [0061]; [0062]), and
a processor configured to calculate a vertical position of the at least one abrasive brush depending on a selected speed and a diameter of the plurality of diameters corresponding to the selected speed (see [0011-0012], [0049-0051], [0061]: rotation of the brush motor 43 is controlled based on the detected diameters of the rotating brushes such that the circumferential speeds of the brushes coincide with the circumferential speeds of the rotating brushes and stored in the memory; see also depth and positioning control disclosed in [0062]).
Regarding claim 2, Yamaguchi discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Yamaguchi further discloses wherein the measuring device is an optical sensor (see [0012], [0040-0041], [0045-0048], [0050], [0055-0056], [0064]).
Regarding claim 3, Yamaguchi discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Yamaguchi further discloses wherein the measuring device is a light barrier which is interrupted by the at least one abrasive brush when the brush unit is lowered (see [0012], [0040-0041], [0045-0048], [0050], [0055-0056], [0064]; see also Figures 7A, 7B, and 8).
Regarding claim 5, Yamaguchi discloses a method for calibrating and adjusting a machine for processing a sheet metal part comprising a brush unit with at least one abrasive brush configured to horizontally rotate and brush a surface of the sheet metal part to be processed and an actuator configured to for vertically move the brush unit, (see Figure 7B regarding rotating brushes 31A, 31B and workpiece W; see also [0006], [0039]; see [0009]: a frame moving motor for relatively moving a brush frame toward a conveyor belt; see also [0033], [0036]) the method comprising steps of:
measuring a plurality of diameters of the at least one abrasive brush while the at least one abrasive brush is freely rotating at different speeds (see diameter detecting means disclosed in [0007]; see also [0010], [0038], [0040-0041], [0047-0048]; [0054]; wherein [0061] discloses circumferential speeds in plural and measured diameters; see also [0062]);
storing the plurality of diameters and different speeds in association with each other ([0049] discloses storing diameters and the peripheral speeds of the rotating brush; see also [0050], [0061]; [0062]);
calculating a vertical position of the abrasive brush depending on a selected speed and a diameter of the plurality of diameters corresponding to the selected speed; and vertically moving the brush unit until the brush unit reaches the calculated vertical position above the sheet metal part (see [0011-0012], [0049-0051], [0061]: rotation of the brush motor 43 is controlled based on the detected diameters of the rotating brushes such that the circumferential speeds of the brushes coincide with the circumferential speeds of the rotating brushes and stored in the memory; see also depth and positioning control disclosed in [0062]; see also [0058], [0050]).
Regarding claim 7, Yamaguchi discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Yamaguchi further discloses wherein the plurality of diameters includes diameters of the at least one abrasive brush measured at at least three speeds of the different speeds (wherein [0059] discloses minimum diameters in plural form and preset use limit diameters in plural form, see also [0061], and Figure 8).
Regarding claim 8, Yamaguchi discloses a device for calibrating and adjusting a sheet metal processing machine comprising a brush unit with at least one abrasive brush configured to horizontally rotate and brush a surface of a sheet metal part to be processed and an actuator configured to vertically move the brush unit to adjust a processing gap (see Figure 7B regarding rotating brushes 31A, 31B and workpiece W; see also [0006], [0039]; see [0009]: a frame moving motor for relatively moving a brush frame toward a conveyor belt; see also [0033], [0036]), comprising:
an input interface configured to receive measurement data from a measuring device, which measures a plurality of diameters of the at least one abrasive brush while the at least one abrasive brush is freely rotating at different speeds (see input device 63, [0050]; see diameter detecting means disclosed in [0007]; see also [0010], [0038], [0040-0041], [0047-0048]; [0054]; wherein [0061] discloses circumferential speeds in plural and measured diameters; see also [0062]);
a memory unit configured to store the plurality of measured diameters and the different speeds in association with each other ([0049] discloses storing diameters and the peripheral speeds of the rotating brush; see also [0050], [0061]; [0062]); and
a processor configured to calculate a vertical position of the brush unit relative to the sheet metal part depending on a selected speed and a diameter of the plurality of diameters corresponding to the selected speed (see [0011-0012], [0049-0051], [0061]: rotation of the brush motor 43 is controlled based on the detected diameters of the rotating brushes such that the circumferential speeds of the brushes coincide with the circumferential speeds of the rotating brushes and stored in the memory; see also depth and positioning control disclosed in [0062]).
Regarding claim 9, Yamaguchi discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Yamaguchi further discloses wherein the measurement data received by the input interface comprises respective diameters of the plurality of diameters measured at at least three speeds of the different speeds (wherein [0059] discloses minimum diameters in plural form and preset use limit diameters in plural form, see also [0061], and Figure 8).
Regarding claim 10, Yamaguchi discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program product comprising program code that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to carry out the steps of the method of claim 5 (see at least [0049] regarding the computer and control device, as well as [0050], [0060] disclosing machine program member 79, and machining condition memory 81 in [0061]).
Regarding claim 11, Yamaguchi discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Yamaguchi further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to, when the selected speed falls between two of the different speeds stores in the memory, calculate the vertical position based on a diameter interpolated from the plurality of diameters stored in the memory (see at least calculating average and rotation of brush motor 43 control in [0061]; see also [0050], [0054]).
Regarding claim 12, Yamaguchi discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Yamaguchi further discloses wherein the bristles of the at least one abrasive brush stand up due to centrifugal force as a rotational speed of the at least one abrasive brush increases, such that the plurality of measured diameters includes different diameters of the at least one abrasive brush measured at the different speeds (see [0006-0007], [0011], [0012-0013], [0050], [0054], [0059], [0061]).
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (JP 6126657 B2) in view of Giese (US 2024/0149386).
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi discloses the claimed invention as applied above. Yamaguchi discloses the abrasive brushes interrupt the light barrier during one complete rotation (see [0012], [0040-0041], [0045-0048], [0050], [0055-0056], [0064]).
However, Yamaguchi does not explicitly teach the configuration of wherein the brush unit is rotatable about a vertical axis of the brush unit and has at least four horizontally rotating abrasive brushes.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Giese teaches of a brush configuration comprising brush unit is rotatable about a vertical axis of the brush unit and has at least four horizontally rotating abrasive brushes (see [0024-0025], [0067], [0072-0073], see circulation, see also [0077]); see also Figure 2, wherein there are at least four roller brushes shown).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Yamaguchi to reflect the quantity and configuration of brushes as taught by Giese. One would be motivated to do so in order to impart effective and uniform machining of a workpiece surface ([0026], [0003]).
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 MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights