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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legal phraseology (e.g. “means”).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Receiving means (e.g. claim 1) - e.g. a through hole or recess (paragraphs 45 and 47)
Coupling means (e.g. claim 1) - e.g. a top portion or pin with a conical, pyramid, cylindrical, cube, or other shape (paragraphs 33-34, 39)
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:
Receiving element (e.g. claim 1) - e.g. a through hole or recess (paragraphs 45 and 47)
Coupling element (e.g. claim 1) - e.g. a top portion or supporting portion with conical, pyramid, cylindrical, cube, or other shape (paragraphs 33-35)
Automation device (e.g. claim 13) - e.g. a robot, tool changer, or pallet changer (paragraph 55)
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.
Claims 1-16 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 recites “machining-related object”. This term refers to a broad class of objects, and while breadth is not indefiniteness, the scope of objects that may be considered specifically as “machining-related” is not entirely clear, especially given the wide variety of machining tasks and objects potentially considered related thereto.
Claims 11 and 13-15 recite similar limitations as above.
Claim 6 recites “the coupling element”, whereas plural (e.g. four) had been previously established. It is thus unclear to which this refers. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as --the coupling elements [have]--.
Claim 8 recites “the U-shaped coupling means”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this is presumed to refer to --the U-shaped gripper--.
Claim 9 recites “the receiving element”, whereas plural had been previously established. It is thus unclear to which this refers. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as --the receiving elements--.
Claim 9 recites “the receiving mean”, whereas plural had been previously established. It is thus unclear to which this refers. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as --the receiving means--.
Claim 12 recites “a gripper” in line 2. It is unclear if this is referring to the gripper of claim 1 or a different one. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as --the gripper--.
Claim 13 recites “in proximity of” in line 4. The scope of “proximity” is not entirely clear. For examination purposes, “in proximity of” will be interpreted as any distance where the lifter and machine tool can be considered to be functionally within a common overall system.
Claim 16 recites “the angle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as --an angle--.
Claim 16 recites that “the angle…is in a range of 10 to 40 degrees”. However, to the extent that an angle is defined as subtending between two lines or surfaces, and the claim does not specify what features of the conical shaped top portions define the angle (e.g. is the angle between a tapered surface and a vertical line, the tapered surface and a horizontal line, or an included angle between opposing angled surfaces, etc.?), it is unclear what part of the cone has such an angle and consequently what the specific geometry of the conical shaped top portion is.
Any claims not discussed above are rejected by virtue of their dependency on at least claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN106005933, with reference to translation).
Claim 1: Zhu discloses a transport system (e.g. shown overall in Fig. 1) for transporting a machining-related object (e.g. a workpiece, noting that the “machine-related” designation thereof does not necessarily limit the system) comprising: a carrier (pallet 600) configured to hold the machining-related object (paragraph 60), the carrier including a plurality of receiving elements (620 - e.g. Fig. 8) and a plurality of receiving means (641/642/661 - Id.); a vehicle (cart 500) including a plurality of coupling elements (540/541) configured to engage with the receiving elements (620) of the carrier (paragraph 62); and a lifter (100/200/300) arranged at an outside of the autonomous vehicle, wherein the lifter includes a gripper (300/310/320) and a driver (motors 220, 312) configured to move the gripper in at least one direction (paragraphs 49-50), wherein the gripper is provided with a plurality of coupling means (330) for being engaged with the receiving means (641/642/661) of the carrier (paragraph 63).
Though the system is generally described as autonomous (“automated”, e.g. paragraphs 2, 8, 47), the vehicle per se is not explicitly described as such. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have automated the vehicle since it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). For example, automated vehicles such as so-called automated guided vehicles (AGVs) are well known in automated factory settings and would obviously reduce the need for human labor or intervention.
Claim 2: The lifter is configured to move the gripper upwards until the coupling means are engaged with the receiving means and to move the gripper further upwards until the coupling elements are disengaged from the receiving elements to transfer the carrier from the autonomous vehicle to the lifter (e.g. paragraph 76 and evident from the structural configuration established above).
Claim 3: The lifter is configured to move the gripper downwards until the coupling elements are engaged with the receiving elements and to move the gripper further downwards until the coupling means are disengaged from the receiving means to transfer the carrier from the lifter to the autonomous vehicle (e.g. paragraph 77 and evident from the structural configuration established above).
Claim 4: The coupling elements (540/541) have a top portion having a conical shape (a tapered frustoconical shape as evident in Fig. 5) and the coupling means (330) have a top portion having a conical shape (a similar tapered frustoconical shape as evident in Fig. 2).
Additionally or alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the coupling elements/means conical since it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 34-35, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for a conical shape and lists other acceptable shapes.
Claim 5: Four coupling means (330) are provided on the gripper of the lifter (two per arm, totaling four). Zhu does not disclose four coupling elements (540/541) on the autonomous vehicle (two are shown). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided four coupling elements since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 62, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the number of coupling elements and states that more or fewer may be provided. For example, more coupling members would predictably provide additional support or constraint between the vehicle and carrier.
Claim 6: The coupling [elements have] a supporting portion (540), a guide portion (541) arranged on top of the supporting portion and a cone on top of the guide portion (conical tip evident in Fig. 6), and wherein the supporting portion is configured such that the carrier sits on the supporting portion when the carrier is engaged with the coupling elements (evident from Figs. 5 and 8, where the undersides of 620 would presumably rest on portions 540). Additionally, as noted above, it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 34-35, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for a conical shape and lists other acceptable shapes.
Claim 7: The transport system according to claim 1, wherein the coupling means (330) has a guiding section (generally the base) and a pin having a conical shape (conical tip portion discussed above) formed on the guiding section. Additionally, as noted above, it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 34-35, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for a conical shape and lists other acceptable shapes.
Claim 8: The gripper has a U-shape (a generally U-shape comprising seat 312 and arms 310 and 320 extending substantially perpendicularly therefrom, analogously to that of the instant invention) and the coupling means (330) are arranged on two legs (310, 320) of the U-shaped coupling means.
Claim 9: The receiving element[s] (620) and the receiving mean[s] (641/642/661) are each a through hole or a recess. They do not necessarily have a cone shape. However, as noted above, it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 47, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for a conical shape and lists other acceptable shapes provided they can engage each other (as is the case in Zhu).
Claim 10: The carrier (600) is a plate (it is generally plate shaped) having the receiving elements and the receiving means formed thereon (as cited above).
Claim 11: The carrier (600) is a tray (it is substantially tray-like) comprising a tray base (generally the planar body of 600) having the receiving elements and the receiving means formed thereon (as cited above), a supporting element fixed on the tray base, wherein at least one holder is mounted on the supporting element for holding the machining-related objects (supporting elements and holders may be broadly equated to the base and walls of the respective U-shaped channels supporting the cylindrical workpieces thereon as shown in Fig. 7).
Claim 12: The lifter includes a column (100) provided with a guide rail (110), [the] gripper (300/310/320) movably mounted on the guide rail of the column (via 200 - paragraph 49), and wherein the driver (motor 220) is configured to move the gripper on the guide rail (Id.).
Claim 14: Zhu discloses a method for transporting a machining-related object with the transporting system according to claim 1 (as discussed above), the method comprising: arranging the carrier (600) on the lifter (100/200/300); controlling the autonomous vehicle (500) to move to the lifter (the vehicle must be close to the lifter to receive or deliver pallets, see Fig. 1); and transferring the carrier having the machining-related object from the lifter to the autonomous vehicle by moving the gripper such that the coupling elements are engaged with the receiving elements and the coupling means are disengaged with the receiving means (implied in paragraph 77 and as evident from the structural configuration established above).
Claim 15: Zhu further discloses controlling the autonomous vehicle having the carrier thereon to move to the lifter; and transferring the carrier having the machining-related object from the autonomous vehicle to the lifter by moving the gripper such that the coupling means are engaged with the receiving means and the coupling elements are disengaged with the receiving elements (implied in paragraphs 74-76 and as evident from the structural configuration established above).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Tsutsumi et al. (WO2015075774, cited in IDS, with reference to translation).
Claim 13: Zhu discloses the transporting system according to claim 1 as discussed above, as well as an automation device (picking robot) for transferring the machining-related object from the lifter to a processing area (e.g. paragraph 76), wherein the lifter is fixedly arranged (as shown in Figs. 1-3) in proximity (i.e. within reach of the processing area via the picking robot) of the processing area. The “processing” is not discussed in detail and so Zhu does not necessarily disclose a plurality of machine tools, or transferring the machining-related object from the lifter to one of the plurality of machine tools.
However, Tsutsumi et al. teaches a system wherein a robot picks workpieces from a pallet and delivers them to one of a number of a plurality of machine tools (10 - e.g. pages 2, 5-6, 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided machine tools as the processing of Zhu depending upon the nature of the workpiece and the desired end product to be made.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (CN208645239, with reference to translation).
Zhu teaches the transport system substantially as claimed except for wherein the angle of the conical shaped top portions is in a range of 10 to 40 degrees. However, Xu teaches a similar system wherein conical locating pins have a taper angle of 30-60 degrees, or ideally 40-50 degrees (e.g. paragraphs 14-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used such range of a taper angles since it balances the horizontal and vertical positioning adjustment range and effect of the positioning pin (Id.). It is also noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights