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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 6, it is suggested that the phrase “of the vehicle” in line 6 be amended to recite --of the accommodation rack-- to provide more accurate claim language since the plurality of shelf members are provided in the accommodation rack and this rack is removed from the vehicle and supported by the receiving section when the exchange of the exchangeable members occurs, as shown, for example, in Figures 5A-6C.
With respect to claim 7, in line 13, similar to claim 6 above, it is suggested that the phrase “of the vehicle” be deleted to insure the claim language is clear.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 7 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.
With respect to claim 7, the language in the last 4 lines of the claim is unclear in meaning and scope as to what constitutes “a front side of an upper part of the printing device” and how this structure is “blocked” or “not blocked” when the accommodation rack is in the various positions as recited. In particular, the area of the printing device being blocked is described in vague and indefinite terms and it is unclear how the different positions of the accommodation rack results in this area being “blocked or not blocked.” Furthermore the term “blocked” and “not blocked” are not clear in scope and meaning as to what constitutes being “blocked” or “not blocked”--for example, is this intended to mean being physically covered by another structure and if so, which structure is doing the “blocking?”
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under each of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshino et al. (WO 2021/014545 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Yoshino et al. teaches a vehicle 6A comprising:
a plurality of shelf sections 31, each shelf section configured to support an exchangeable member Ty for a printing process (i.e., a solder printing device as described on page 1 of the English language translation); and
an opening section communicating with an outside (note the accommodation rack 3A having the plurality of shelf sections 31 is described as being open on one side to allow the trays Ty to be moved to and from the rack 3A as desired--see page 2 of the English language translation),
wherein the shelf sections 31 of the plurality of shelf sections are aligned at predetermined intervals in a vertical direction (see Figure 2), and
wherein the plurality of shelf sections and the opening section are provided in an accommodation rack 3A conveyed by the vehicle 6A, the accommodation rack 3A being removable from the vehicle. Particular attention is invited to Figure 2 and the English language translation of Yoshino et al. attached to this Office Action.
With respect to claim 2, Yoshino et al. teaches wherein the vehicle is configured to travel autonomously (page 3 of the translation describes the vehicle as an automatic guided vehicle).
With respect to claim 4, Yoshino et al. teaches wherein each of the shelf sections 31 has a same size, as shown in Figure 2.
Claims 1 and 4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishitani (US 2016/0143196 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Ishitani teaches a vehicle (i.e., base 22 with casters 21) comprising:
a plurality of shelf sections 43m, each shelf section configured to support an exchangeable member PL, TR for a printing process; and
an opening section communicating with an outside (see Figs 5A-5B),
wherein the shelf sections 43m of the plurality of shelf sections are aligned at predetermined intervals in a vertical direction (Fig. 5A), and
wherein the plurality of shelf sections and the opening section are provided in an accommodation rack 40 conveyed by the vehicle, the accommodation rack 40 being removable from the vehicle. Particular attention is invited to Figures 1-3, 5A-5B, 8, 9A-9B, 11A-11B and paragraphs [0039]-[0043].
With respect to claim 4, Ishitani teaches wherein each of the shelf sections has a same size, as shown in Figure 5A.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Losiewicz et al. (US 2020/0396843 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Losiewicz et al. teaches a printing system (Fig. 16) comprising:
a printing device 150; and
a vehicle 160 comprising:
a plurality of shelf sections 172, each shelf section configured to support an exchangeable member 174 for a printing process; and
an opening section (I.e., open front described in paragraph [0136]) communicating with an outside,
wherein the shelf sections of the plurality of shelf sections are aligned at predetermined intervals in a vertical direction (paragraphs [0136], [0138]), and
wherein the plurality of shelf sections and the opening section are provided in an accommodation rack 170 conveyed by the vehicle 160,
wherein the printing device is configured to receive the vehicle (see Figure 16),
wherein the printing device is configured to exchange at least one exchangeable member supported by one of the shelf sections of the vehicle of the accommodation rack, the accommodation rack 170 being movable between an upper position and a lower position (see paragraphs [0137]-[0139], [0141]),
wherein in the upper position of the accommodation rack, a front side of an upper part of the printing device is blocked, and
wherein in the lower position of the accommodation rack, the front side of the upper part of the printing device is not blocked.
With respect to the last 4 lines of claim 7, note that to the extent that this language has any clear meaning, Losiewicz et al. would appear to meet this claim language. In particular, since the accommodation rack of Losiewicz et al. is movable between upper and lower positions, it would appear that when the accommodation rack is in the upper position, at least a portion of “a front side of an upper part” of the printing device would be blocked by the rack itself, while when the accommodation rack is in the lower position, at least a portion of “a front side of an upper part” of the printing device would not be blocked by the rack.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Losiewicz et al. (US 2020/0396843 A1) as modified by Ishitani (US 2016/0143196 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Losiewicz et al. teaches a printing system (Fig 16) comprising:
a printing device 150; and
a vehicle 160 comprising:
a plurality of shelf sections 172, each shelf section configured to support an exchangeable member 174 for a printing process; and
an opening section (I.e., open front described in paragraph [0136]) communicating with an outside,
wherein the shelf sections of the plurality of shelf sections are aligned at predetermined intervals in a vertical direction (paragraphs [0136], [0138]), and
wherein the plurality of shelf sections and the opening section are provided in an accommodation rack 170 conveyed by the vehicle 160,
wherein the printing device is configured to receive the vehicle (see Fig 16), and
wherein the printing device is configured to exchange at least one exchangeable member (i.e., new/used stencils, new/used paste cartridges, new/used squeegee blades, new/used tooling as described in paragraph [0136]) supported by one of the shelf sections 172 of the vehicle 160.
Losiewicz et al. does not explicitly teach the accommodating rack provided in the vehicle is “removable” from the vehicle. However, Ishitani teaches the provision of a vehicle including at least one removable accommodation rack configured to hold exchangeable members for a component mounting process is well known in the art, as exemplified by the vehicle 21, 22 and accommodation rack(s) 40 of Ishitani as shown in Figure 2. See the above comments with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 4 in view of Ishitani as set forth above. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the printing system of Losiewicz et al. with a vehicle having a removable accommodation rack as taught by Ishitani to allow for the accommodation rack to be easily removed from the cart and exchanged for another accommodation rack for efficient restocking purposes of the exchangeable members or to allow for a quick changeover for another production run.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishitani (US 2016/0143196 A1) in view of Losiewicz et al. (US 2020/0396843 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Ishitani teaches a vehicle as recited with the possible exception of the vehicle being configured to travel autonomously. However, Losiewicz et al. teaches it is well known in the art to provide a vehicle for exchanging printing members that is configured to autonomous travel, as described in paragraphs [0090], [0115], [0135], [0153], and [0174]. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vehicle of Ishitani to be configured for autonomous travel to allow for efficient automatic operation of the cart.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4, and 6 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.
Additionally, Applicant's arguments filed December 3, 2025 with respect to claim 7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the rejection. With respect to claim 7, applicant argues that in Losiewicz, the cart 160 always blocks a front side of the upper part of the stencil printer 150 regardless of whether the carriage 170 is in an upper position or a lower position. Thus, applicant argues that Losiewicz does not teach that in a lower position of the accommodation rack, the front side of the upper part of the printing device is not blocked. The Examiner disagrees with this argument and maintains that Losiewicz meets the claim language as recited, to the extent that this language is clear in meaning and scope. Note that the claim language does not specify that the printing device is “blocked” or “not blocked” by the vehicle or cart. Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that Losiewicz meets the claim language as broadly recited since the accommodation rack will also function to “block” and “not block” a portion of the printer, depending on which position the accommodation rack is in. Note the detailed explanation in the rejections above under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 112.
In view of the above reasoning, the Examiner is not persuaded of any error in the above rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Spitzer et al. (US 6,247,769 B1) teaches a vehicle for transporting exchangeable members having similarities to the claimed subject matter that are readily apparent.
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 LESLIE J THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:00 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, Stephen D Meier can be reached at 571-272-7149. 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.
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853