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
Claims 11 and 18 – 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/22/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “built-in safety feature” recited in claim 9 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7 recites, “the arc flash guard.” Examiner suggests replacing this with “the flash guard” to establish proper antecedent basis, since claim 1 recites a “flash guard” rather than an “arc flash guard.” 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: “built-in safety feature … adapted to interrupt movement of the arm” 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 limitation “built-in safety feature” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.” MPEP § 2181-IV.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 9 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.
Claim limitation “built-in safety feature” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 8 – 10, 12, and 16 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nighswander et al. (US 2024/0391091) in view of Samodell et al. (US 2006/0108342).
Regarding claim 1, Nighswander discloses a highly-mobile deployable multi-station collaborative robot fabrication system (fabrication system) for performing welding or cutting tasks in fabrication shop, in factory environments or on large structures in difficult to access or elevated locations (“cobot welding system” [Abstract]; “collaborative robot systems” [0001]), the fabrication system comprising:
a mobile base having first and second adjacent workstations (Figs. 1 and 2, “carts 102A, 102B, 102C” [0025] are shown having a base comprising a frame and wheels, and workstations comprising “tabletops 109, which define the workspace for cobot 101” [0028]);
at least one programmable collaborative robot system operatively connected to the mobile base (Fig. 1 shows “cobot 101” [0028] operatively connected to one of the carts 102);
a material processing implement operatively connected to the at least one programmable collaborative robot system (Fig. 1, “Welding torch 105 is mounted to an arm of cobot 101” [0026]);
a power supply operatively connected to the material processing implement (“system 100 can include a suitable power supply 104 for the welding operation” [0024]); and
a control system including a robot controller and a teach pendant having an application programming interface (API) display (“control system of system 100 can further include input/output device 720, which can be formed as handheld tablet 720 (tablet 720 is not shown in FIG. 2 but can be presumed to be stored in storage container 116). Tablet 720 is operatively coupled with controller 219. Tablet 720 is configured for enabling a user to interface with tablet 720, for example to input selectively information or commands into tablet 720 and to display output information, such as by way of a display screen. As is known, tablet 720 is configured for enabling the fabricator to teach cobot 101 with reference to performing a welding operation” [0044]).
Nighswander does not expressly disclose a flash guard operatively connected to the mobile base intermediate the first and second workstations.
Samodell is directed to a “robotic welding cell unit” [Title]. Samodell discloses a flash guard operatively connected to a base intermediate first and second workstations (“a fixed flash barrier can also be provided between the first welding station and the second welding station” [0006]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a flash guard operatively connected to the mobile base intermediate the first and second workstations. This allows for protecting a worker form welding operations being performed in nearby workstations, as recognized by Samodell: “Flash barriers can be provided in the unit to protect personnel during the loading of work pieces into the unit. For example, the doors can slide into the unit protecting a worker from the welding operation going on in the first welding station while he is loading or removing a work piece from the second welding station” [0006].
PNG
media_image1.png
594
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Nighswander
Regarding claim 8, Nighswander discloses wherein the at least one programmable collaborative robot system comprises a robot arm including a plurality of arm segments (Fig. 1 shows a plurality of arm segments) sequentially pivotally and/or rotatably interconnected to one another and structured and arranged to have a preselected reach length or distance (see Fig. 1; “cobot 101 may have, for example, a proper external covering or “skin” to cover internal parts of cobot 101, softened (i.e., rounded) edges or joints, … Any suitable cobot 101 may be used. For example, cobot 101 may be a six-axis robot made by FANUC, such as FANUC CRX-10iA/L (the power needed can be whatever is suitable, such 110 V, 20 amp). Though it can be appreciated that the present invention is not limited to any specific dimensions or sizes, cobot 101 can optionally have a reach of 55 inches” [0023]).
Regarding claim 9, Nighswander discloses wherein the at least one programmable collaborative robot system includes built-in safety feature in the robot arm, the built-in safety feature being adapted to interrupt movement of the arm, should it come in contact with the operator or another object (“cobot 101 may have … sensors that may sense the presence or touch of a human being so that cobot 101 can stop or appropriately slow down the movement of cobot 101” [0023]).
Regarding claim 10, Nighswander discloses wherein the material processing implement is a welding torch (Fig. 1, “Welding torch 105 is mounted to an arm of cobot 101” [0026]).
Regarding claim 12, Nighswander discloses wherein one of the first and second adjacent workstations includes a gridded upper work surface or table adapted to perform fabrication operations on piece parts or assemblies positioned thereon and the other one of the first and second adjacent workstations includes a work holding apparatus configured to support elongated or cylindrically shaped workpieces while fabrication operations are performed thereon (see Fig. 1; “Tabletop 109 includes a plurality of holes 113” [0025]; “Holes 113 are configured to receive therein a respective pin 114, one or a plurality of which is configured to help hold a workpiece 115 and/or a welding fixture in place for a welding operation” [0025]; Fig. 1 shows a workstation with a gridded work surface where fabrication can be performed, and another workstation with work holding apparatus / pins 114 that are capable of supporting elongated or cylindrically shaped workpieces).
Regarding claim 16, Nighswander discloses wherein both the first and the second adjacent workstations configured to perform welding operations on elongated or cylindrically shaped workpieces held in position by a work holding apparatus (Fig. 1 shows multiple adjacent workstations, each comprising a tabletop 109 with a plurality of holes 113 configured to receive therein a respective pin 114, one or a plurality of which is configured to help hold a workpiece 115 [0025]. The claimed language “configured to perform welding operations on elongated or cylindrically shaped workpieces held in position by a work holding apparatus” is the intended use of the claimed apparatus. When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114).
Regarding claim 17, Nighswander discloses wherein each of the first and second adjacent workstations includes a gridded upper work surface or table (see Fig. 1; “Tabletop 109 includes a plurality of holes 113” [0025]) and one or more handles operatively connected to the frame and extending outwardly therefrom, the handles being adapted to permit an operator to move the system to a designated location for performing fabrication operations (see annotated Fig. 1) and wherein both the first and the second adjacent workstations are further configured to perform welding operations on elongated or cylindrically shaped workpieces held in position by a work holding apparatus (“Holes 113 are configured to receive therein a respective pin 114, one or a plurality of which is configured to help hold a workpiece 115 and/or a welding fixture in place for a welding operation” [0025]; work holding apparatus / pins 114 can be positioned on any of the workstations, and pins 114 are capable of holding elongated or cylindrically shaped workpieces).
Claims 2 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nighswander et al. (US 2024/0391091) in view of Samodell et al. (US 2006/0108342), further in view of Kotera (US 2018/0304391).
Regarding claim 2, Nighswander does not expressly disclose wherein the control system includes a programming or hand-guided jog button operatively connected to the robot controller and teach pendant and adapted to allow an operator to set up and program the fabrication system in an intuitive and graphical manner.
Kotera is directed to a teaching system and teaching method of a welding robot [Title]. Kotera discloses wherein a control system includes a programming or hand-guided jog button operatively connected to a robot controller and teach pendant and adapted to allow an operator to set up and program a fabrication system in an intuitive and graphical manner (Fig. 1, “teach pendant 21a that causes the robot 1 to perform jog feeding when teaching the robot 1 is connected to the robot control device 21” [0024]; “an operator moves the robot 1 by the teach pendant 21a or hand guide and iteratively determines a position of the tip of the welding wire 20 protruding from the tip of the welding torch 8 at a desired teaching position of the workpiece” [0028]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the control system includes a programming or hand-guided jog button operatively connected to the robot controller and teach pendant and adapted to allow an operator to set up and program the fabrication system in an intuitive and graphical manner. This is a known, alternative means for controlling the robot, applied to a known device, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Nighswander discloses wherein the mobile base comprises:
a frame operatively connected to and adapted to support the first and second adjacent workstations (see annotated Fig. 1);
a plurality of supporting legs operatively connected to the frame, each of the plurality of supporting legs including a levelling device or foot operatively connected thereto (see annotated Fig. 1);
a storage area or platform operatively connected to each of the plurality of supporting legs, the storage area or platform having wheels or casters mounted to a bottom surface thereof (see annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
642
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Nighswander, annotated
Regarding claim 4, Nighswander discloses wherein each of the first and second adjacent workstations includes a gridded upper work surface or table (see Fig. 1; “Tabletop 109 includes a plurality of holes 113” [0025]) and one or more handles operatively connected to the frame and extending outwardly therefrom, the handles being adapted to permit an operator to move the system to a designated location for performing fabrication operations (see annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Nighswander discloses wherein each gridded upper work surface or table includes a plurality of apertures formed therein (see Fig. 1; “Tabletop 109 includes a plurality of holes 113” [0025]), each of the apertures being adapted to releasably receive a clamp or other securement device for holding a workpiece, fixture or assembly in a fixed position during the performance of a fabricating sequence (“Holes 113 are configured to receive therein a respective pin 114, one or a plurality of which is configured to help hold a workpiece 115 and/or a welding fixture in place for a welding operation” [0025]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nighswander et al. (US 2024/0391091) in view of Samodell et al. (US 2006/0108342), further in view of Takahashi et al. (CN 108233650).
Regarding claim 6, Nighswander discloses wherein the at least one programmable collaborative robot system comprises a robot arm (Fig. 1 shows wherein cobot 101 comprises a plurality of arms, “an arm of cobot 101” [0026]), a base operatively connected to the robot arm (see annotated Fig. 1).
Nighswander does not expressly disclose an electrically isolating pad positioned intermediate the base and a mounting bracket operatively connected to the mobile base or cart.
Takahashi is directed to a rotary motor and robot device [Title]. Takahashi discloses an electrically isolating pad (Fig. 4, “insulation sheet 53” [page 6 of attached translation]) positioned intermediate a base (Fig. 4, “base 52” [page 6]) and a bracket (Fig. 4, “fixing members 54” [page 6]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an electrically isolating pad positioned intermediate the base and a mounting bracket operatively connected to the mobile base or cart. This prevents the cart from becoming energized and causing harm to a user.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nighswander et al. (US 2024/0391091) in view of Samodell et al. (US 2006/0108342), further in view of Barglof et al. (US 2025/0041980).
Regarding claim 13, Nighswander does not expressly disclose wherein the work holding apparatus includes a headstock and a tailstock, each adapted to releasably engage and hold a workpiece during processing.
Barglof is directed to “robot welding” [0002]. Barglof discloses a work holding apparatus including a headstock and a tailstock, each adapted to releasably engage and hold a workpiece during processing (Fig. 18, “rotary headstock positioner assembly 300 supports a workpiece (not shown) to be rotated in an industrial process such as but not limited to welding” [0066]; “headstock positioner 310 of the rotary headstock positioner assembly 300” [0066]; “tailstock positioner 340 opposite the headstock positioner 310” [0067]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the work holding apparatus includes a headstock and a tailstock, each adapted to releasably engage and hold a workpiece during processing. This allows for supporting a workpiece that is to rotated during processing.
Claims 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nighswander et al. (US 2024/0391091) in view of Samodell et al. (US 2006/0108342) and Barglof et al. (US 2025/0041980), further in view of Watkins (US 5,921,159).
Regarding claim 14, Nighswander does not expressly disclose wherein the headstock further includes a rotational positioning device including a lock mechanism, the lock mechanism further having a positioning member or handle operatively connected thereto.
Watkins is directed to tool holder for holding a workpiece that is rotated during processing [Col. 1, lines 9-34]. Watkins discloses wherein a headstock includes a rotational positioning device including a lock mechanism (Figs. 2 and 3, lock mechanism includes “index plate 22”; “index plate 22 is fixedly attached to or integrally formed with a first axle 23 and is free to rotate with respect to a block 24” [Col. 4, lines 57-59]), the lock mechanism further having a positioning member or handle operatively connected thereto (Fig. 2, “handle 16”; “If the operator does not want the turret to lock in place at the next slot, the operator has to hold the handle in the unlocked position while rotating the turret for as many revolutions as desired” [Col. 2, lines 61-65]; “If the operator disengages the locking mechanism and then releases the handle, the engagement of the projection with the slot in the bearing surface prevents the turret from rotating beyond the next tool position. As soon as the projection finds the next slot it will shoot forward under the force of the springs and the pins will enter the index plate at the same time. Accordingly, there is protection against sudden unexpected movement of the turret” [Col. 2, line 66 – Col. 3, line 6]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the headstock further includes a rotational positioning device including a lock mechanism, the lock mechanism further having a positioning member or handle operatively connected thereto. This allows for rotating the workpiece to a desired rotational position for processing.
Regarding claim 15, Nighswander does not expressly disclose wherein the lock mechanism comprises an indexing disk having a plurality of equally spaced apart indexing slots formed therein, each slot being adapted to receive a spring biased locking member or pin therein, the slots and the pin cooperating with one another to maintain a workpiece in a preselected position while fabricating operations are being performed thereon.
Watkins discloses wherein the lock mechanism comprises an indexing disk (Fig. 2, “index plate 22” [Col. 6, line 3]) having a plurality of equally spaced apart indexing slots formed therein (Fig. 2, “apertures 31” [Col. 6, lines 2-3]; the apertures closest to the outer edge of index plate 22 are shown as equally spaced apart in Fig. 2), each slot being adapted to receive a spring biased locking member or pin therein, the slots and the pin cooperating with one another to maintain a workpiece in a preselected position while fabricating operations are being performed thereon (“ turret 10 is in the locked position with the first pin 34 and the second pin 37 inserted into the apertures 31 in the index plate 22” [Col. 6, lines 1-3]; “If the operator disengages the locking mechanism and then releases the handle, the engagement of the projection with the slot in the bearing surface prevents the turret from rotating beyond the next tool position. As soon as the projection finds the next slot it will shoot forward under the force of the springs and the pins will enter the index plate at the same time. Accordingly, there is protection against sudden unexpected movement of the turret” [Col. 2, line 66 – Col. 3, line 6]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the lock mechanism comprises an indexing disk having a plurality of equally spaced apart indexing slots formed therein, each slot being adapted to receive a spring biased locking member or pin therein, the slots and the pin cooperating with one another to maintain a workpiece in a preselected position while fabricating operations are being performed thereon. This allows for locking the workpiece in place while the workpiece is processed.
PNG
media_image3.png
525
542
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Watkins
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or suggest wherein the mounting bracket comprises a cantilevered riser mounted to the mobile base or cart and an upper flexible edge of the arc flash guard.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761