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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 09/19/2024. The preliminary amendment submitted on 09/19/2024 is acknowledged. Claims 23-24 are canceled. Claims 1-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “swivelled” should be spelled as “swiveled”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Note: Whenever the claims indicated inclusive (and) or alternative (or) limitations, only the alternative limitations were examined unless stated different in the rejection. Similarly, whenever the claims indicated optional limitations (e.g. “optionally"), the claim limitations were considered to be a preference and not a requirement unless stated different in the claim rejection.
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 reading unit for reading out information storage elements arranged on the object ” in claim 18. Where in the instant case, the reading unit is interpreted per the applicant’s disclosure in page 3, line 20 – page 4, line 12 to include the following: a camera to read a barcode or QR code, or an RFID scanner to read an RFID tag.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: swivel means in claim 1. Means of transport movement of the swivel device in claim 1. And means of a device according to claim 1 in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-22 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.
Regarding claim 1 (currently amended), the following limitations are indefinite:
The limitation “wherein the swivel means spaces the gripping device from the second axis of rotation (D2) in the radial direction” is indefinite because the term “the radial direction” lacks proper antecedent basis and is confusing as to the radial direction relative to which component that the swivel means spaces the gripping device from.
The limitation “at least at times simultaneously in such a way that the object can be transported by means of a transport movement of the swivel device resulting from the superimposition of the rotational movement of the carrier with the swivel movement of the swivel device” is indefinite because the term “at least at times” is unclear on if this is conditional, or if this function is even supposed to happen, because there is the possibility that is a condition that the movement is not simultaneous and how can this be “at least” since it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the term “at times” allows for a condition of not being able to happen, so is this trying to read as a double negative? This is unclear syntax and needs clarification on if this is a conditional statement or not.
Claims 2-22 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Regarding claim 4 (currently amended), the limitation “in such a way that the object can be moved by the device at least temporarily along a rectilinear path” is indefinite because the term “at least temporarily” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “temporarily” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 6 (currently amended), the limitation “the pick-up area corresponds to the delivery area” is indefinite because the term “the pick-up area” lacks proper antecedent basis. Is this supposed to the receiving area in claim 5? For purposes of examination the office will interpret the limitation to read as “the receiving area corresponds to the delivery area”.
Regarding claim 21 (currently amended), the limitation “wherein the rotational movement of the carrier about the first axis of rotation (D1) during a loading operation or during an unloading operation takes place at least at times simultaneously with the swivel movement of the swivel device about the second axis of rotation (D2)” is indefinite because the term “at least at times” is unclear on if this is conditional, or if this function is even supposed to happen, because there is the possibility that is a condition that the movement is not simultaneous and how can this be “at least” since it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the term “at times” allows for a condition of not being able to happen, so is this trying to read as a double negative? This is unclear syntax and needs clarification on if this is a conditional statement or not.
Claim 22 is rejected as being dependent on claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-10, 13, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sheridan et al (US PGPUB No. 2023/0249305).
Regarding claim 1 (currently amended), Sheridan discloses a device for transporting an object [Sheridan, fig 1] towards or away from a grinding machine [the Office interprets the device to not require the grinding machine since this is only recited within the preamble of the claim but only being required to be capable of working with a grinding machine, in the instant case the device of Sheridan is capable of working with a grinding device through CNC milling, see abstract], the device comprising:
(a) a base [Sheridan, fig 1, 8];
(b) a carrier arranged on the base [Sheridan, fig 1, 20], wherein the carrier is rotatable with respect to the base about a first axis of rotation (D1) [Sheridan, figs 1 and 9A, showing that 40 is rotated by 20, where the first axis of rotation is through the center of 20 as shown in fig 7],
(c) a swivel device arranged on the carrier for transporting the object [Sheridan, figs 1 and 9A-C, 40 is arranged on 20 and transports 14],
wherein
(d) the swivel device is pivotable with respect to the carrier about a second axis of rotation (D2) [Sheridan, figs 9C and 3, showing how 40 achieves rotation about a second axis through 40],
wherein the swivel device [Sheridan, fig 1, 40] has a swivel means [Sheridan, fig 2, 40 includes 100] and a gripping device for gripping and releasing the object [Sheridan, page 1, pp 0017, and fig 4, 40 includes gripper 42], wherein the swivel means spaces the gripping device from the second axis of rotation (D2) in the radial direction [Sheridan, figs 1 and 9A, 100 is a gear box that spaces 42, where fig 3, the second axis of rotation is through 116], wherein the swivel means is a swivel arm pivotably connected to a holder arranged on the carrier about the second axis of rotation (D2) [Sheridan, figs 3 and 7, 116 fixes to 123, where the housing of 100 is capable of being pivoted within the collar of 20 about the axis through 116]
(e) the device (1) is configured to carry out a rotational movement of the carrier about the first axis of rotation (D1) and a swivel movement of the swivel device about the second axis of rotation (D2) at least at times simultaneously in such a way that the object can be transported by means of a transport movement of the swivel device resulting from the superimposition of the rotational movement of the carrier with the swivel movement of the swivel device [Sheridan, figs 1 and 9C, showing that 20 and 40 are capable of rotating simultaneously about the axis through 20 and the axis through 40 such that the object is moved when gripped by 42].
Regarding claim 2 (currently amended), Sheridan further discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the first axis of rotation (D1) and the second axis of rotation (D2) are arranged relative to each other in such a way that the second axis of rotation (D2) is moved on a circular path around the first axis of rotation (D1) when the carrier rotates around the first axis of rotation (D1) [Sheridan, fig 1, since 20 is circular, when 20 rotates, 40 rotates in a circle such that D2 also rotates in a circle].
Regarding claim 4 (currently amended), Sheridan further discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the device is configured to superimpose the rotational movement of the carrier about the first axis of rotation (D1) and the swivel movement of the swivel device about the second axis of rotation (D2) in such a way that the object can be moved by the device at least temporarily along a rectilinear path [Sheridan, figs 1 and 9C, showing that 14 is capable of moving by the rotation of 20 and 40 in a rectilinear path].
Regarding claim 5 (currently amended), Sheridan further discloses the device according to claim 1 wherein the rotational movement of the carrier about the first axis of rotation (D1) and the swivel movement of the swivel device about the second axis of rotation (D2) can be superimposed on one another in such a way that (a) the object can be transported from a receiving area to a position of use, and (b) the object can be transported from the position of use to a delivery area [Sheridan, figs 1 and 9A-C, showing that the rotation of 20 and 40 are capable of grabbing 14 from the chuck and putting 14 within the chuck].
Regarding claim 6 (currently amended), Sheridan further discloses the device according to claim 5, wherein the pick-up area corresponds to the delivery area [Sheridan, fig 1, chuck 32 is capable of being a pick-up and delivery area].
Regarding claim 7 (currently amended), Sheridan further discloses the device according to claim 1 wherein a workpiece spindle for rotating the object is arranged on the carrier [Sheridan, fig 1, 32], and wherein the swivel device is configured to transport the object towards the workpiece spindle and away from the workpiece spindle [Sheridan, fig 9C, 40 is capable of moving 14 toward and away from 32].
Regarding claim 8 (currently amended), Sheridan further discloses the device according to claim 1wherein the gripping device has two gripper arms and the two gripper arms are configured to exert a clamping force on the object or to gripping underneath the object [Sheridan, fig 2, 56 and 58 and are capable of clamping 14].
Regarding claim 9 (currently amended), Sheridan further discloses the device according to claim 1 wherein the carrier has a vertical or at least partially cylindrical, carrier tower [Sheridan, fig 9A, showing the base of 20 has at least a partially cylindrical tower].
Regarding claim 10 (currently amended), Sheridan further discloses The device according to claim 9, wherein the holder is arranged movably on the carrier tower or arranged axially movably on the carrier tower with respect to the first axis of rotation (D1) [Sheridan, figs 9B-9C, shows that 20 is axially movable along the axis of 20].
Regarding claim 13 (currently amended), Sheridan further discloses the device according to claim 1 wherein the carrier is rotatable about the first axis of rotation (D1) in such a way that the carrier is configured to assume a maintenance position, and the grinding machine or the device is configured to be maintained or manually loaded in the maintenance position [Sheridan, fig 1, showing that 20 is capable of being positioned in front of the door to 8].
Regarding claim 15 (currently amended), Sheridan further discloses the device according to claim 1 further comprising a centering device for centering the object [Sheridan, fig 1, 34].
Regarding claim 21 (currently amended), Sheridan further discloses a method for loading and unloading a grinding machine with an object by means of a device according to claim l wherein the rotational movement of the carrier about the first axis of rotation (D1) during a loading operation or during an unloading operation takes place at least at times simultaneously with the swivel movement of the swivel device about the second axis of rotation (D2) [Sheridan, figs 9A-C, showing that 20 and 40 rotate to meet the workpiece and at least some of the movement happens simultaneously].
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.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheridan et al (US PGPUB No. 2023/0249305) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kato et al (US PGPUB No. 2016/0136744), hereinafter referred to as Sheridan and Kato, respectively.
Regarding claim 12 (currently amended), Sheridan discloses the device according to claim 1 by may not explicitly disclose further comprising a dressing device for dressing an abrasive of the grinding machine arranged on the carrier.
Kato teaches a device for transporting an object towards or away from a grinding machine, the device comprising:
(a) a base [Kato, fig 1, 11];
(b) a carrier arranged on the base [Kato, fig 1, 4], wherein the carrier is rotatable with respect to the base about a first axis of rotation (D1) [Kato, fig 1, and page 2, pp 0033, 4 is rotatable about a vertical axis 401],
(e) the device (1) is configured to carry out a rotational movement of the carrier about the first axis of rotation (D1) [Kato, page 2, pp’s 0024 and 0033], and
further comprising a dressing device for dressing an abrasive of the grinding machine arranged on the carrier [Kato, fig 1, 52 is arranged on 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the dressing tool of Kato on the carrier of Sheridan as an exchangeable tool because having the dresser allows for the user to easily and quickly form the grinding surface on a grinding device to work on the workpiece [Kato, page 1, pp 0010, summarized], which is beneficial to the CNC machining device of Sheridan because this reduces downtime by not having to remove the milling part from the CNC machining part.
Regarding claim 19 (currently amended), Sheridan further discloses (c) the device according to claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose a grinding machine for gear grinding a workpiece, or a pre-toothed workpiece, the grinding machine comprising: (a) a machine housing, (b) a grinding device arranged on the machine housing for grinding the workpiece, and (d) the machine housing of the grinding machine is the base of the device.
Kato discloses a grinding machine for gear grinding a workpiece, or a pre-toothed workpiece, the grinding machine comprising:
(a) a machine housing [Kato, fig 1, 31],
(b) a grinding device arranged on the machine housing for grinding the workpiece [Kato, fig 1, 7],
(c) a device comprising:
(a) a base [Kato, fig 1, 11];
(b) a carrier arranged on the base [Kato, fig 1, 4], wherein the carrier is rotatable with respect to the base about a first axis of rotation (D1) [Kato, fig 1, and page 2, pp 0033, 4 is rotatable about a vertical axis 401],
(e) the device (1) is configured to carry out a rotational movement of the carrier about the first axis of rotation (D1) [Kato, page 2, pp’s 0024 and 0033],
(d) the machine housing of the grinding machine is the base of the device [Kato, fig 1, 11 is the base of 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the device of Sheridan, namely the carrier and swivel device comprising the gripper to be onto the carrier of Kato and to replace the gripper of Kato because the rotating multi-tool of Sheridan allows for the device of Kato to have increased number of working effectors and tools to engage a wider variety of workpieces.
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheridan et al (US PGPUB No. 2023/0249305) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Casaulta (Swiss Patent Publication No. CH716376), hereinafter referred to as Sheridan and Casaulta, respectively.
Regarding claims 16 (currently amended), Sheridan further discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the carrier has an at least partially cylindrical, carrier tower [Sheridan, fig 9A, showing the base of 20 has at least a partially cylindrical tower].
Sheridan may not explicitly disclose wherein the device has a position-determining device for determining the position of the object, wherein the position-determining device comprises at least one sensor.
Casaultra teaches a device for transporting an object towards or away from a grinding machine, the device comprising:
(a) a base [Casaulta, fig 9, 410];
(b) a carrier arranged on the base, wherein the carrier is rotatable with respect to the base about a first axis of rotation (D1) [Casaulta, fig 9, 420],
(c) a swivel device for use with the carrier for transporting the object [Casaulta, figs 9-10, 100 and 210 make up a swivel device], wherein the swivel device has a swivel means [Casaulta, fig 10, 100] and a gripping device for gripping and releasing the object [Casaulta, fig 10, 210], and
wherein the device has a position-determining device for determining the position of the object [Casaulta, page 7, pp 0016], wherein the position-determining device comprises at least one sensor [Casaulta, page 7, pp 0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gripping device of Sheridan to incorporate the position-determining device within the gripper as taught by Casaulta because this allows the position of the position of the outer base jaw to be reliably determined in a single gripper operation [Casaulta, page 7, pp 0016, summarized].
Regarding claim 17 (currently amended), Sheridan as modified further discloses the device according to claim 16, wherein the position-determining device is arranged on the carrier tower so as to be movable, with respect to the first axis of rotation (D1), or pivotable with respect to the first axis of rotation (D1) [Sheridan, fig 1, since the position-determining device is within the gripper (40), and the gripper is on the carrier (20), the position-determining device is able to be movable with respect to both the first axis through 20 and the second axis through 40].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheridan et al (US PGPUB No. 2023/0249305) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of TQ Systems (German Patent Publication No. DE20201800642), hereinafter referred to as Sheridan and TQ Systems, respectively.
Regarding claim 18 (currently amended), Sheridan further discloses the device according to claim 1 but may not explicitly disclose the carrier comprises a reading unit for reading out information storage elements arranged on the object.
TQ systems teaches a production module [TQ Systems, fig 1, 1 and abstract] comprising a robot for working on a workpiece [TQ Systems, fig 1, 6 and/or 8], a workpiece inlet [TQ Systems, fig 1, 10] and a detection device to read a barcode, QR code, or RFID tag on the workpiece to identify the workpiece [TQ Systems, page 4, last paragraph, there the detection device is functionally equivalent to the read unit of the claimed invention because the prior art element performs the exact function in substantially the same way as claimed with substantially the same result].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a reading unit as taught by TQ Systems to the intake of the workpiece on the carrier of Sheridan because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) the combination of old elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to include the read unit as taught by TQ Systems in the system of Sheridan, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the read unit as interpreted under 112(f) as taught by TQ Systems in the system of Sheridan because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being the read unit as interpreted under 112(f) and the intake of the workpiece of Sheridan. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of being able to identify the workpiece by RFID tag, QR code or barcode using a camera or other read sensor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 11, 14, 20, and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Casulta (Swiss Patent Publication No. CH716376) teaches a device for transporting an object towards or away from a grinding machine, the device comprising:
(a) a base [Casaulta, fig 9, 410];
(b) a carrier arranged on the base [Casaulta, fig 9, 420], wherein the carrier is rotatable with respect to the base about a first axis of rotation (D1) [Casaulta, page 22, pp 0047],
(c) a swivel device [Casaulta fig 10, 100 and 210 form the swivel device] arranged next to the carrier for transporting the object [Casaulta, page 23, pp 0048 teaching that 100 and 210 are attached to a gripping arm support and is arranged next to 410 but is not connected to the machine bed for reasons of decoupling vibrations],
(d) the swivel device is pivotable with respect to the carrier about a second axis of rotation (D2) [Casaulta, page 23, pp 0048 teaching that 100 and 210 are pivoted about a second axis outside of 420],
wherein the swivel device has a swivel means [Casulta, fig 10, 100] and a gripping device for gripping and releasing the object [Casaulta, fig 10, 210].
Regarding claim 3 (currently amended), the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein the second axis of rotation (D2) is displaced in parallel with respect to the first axis of rotation (D1)” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. Where the second rotation axis of 40 of Sheridan is perpendicular to the first rotation axis of 20 of Sheridan and to change the orientation of the axis would render the device of Sheridan unable to perform its intended function. Further Casaulta teaches that the rotation axis of D2 relative to D1 is parallel, however, the combination of Casaulta and Sheridan or vice versa, would render both unable to be used as intended to make the axes parallel to each other as required by the claim.
Regarding claim 11 (currently amended), the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein the second axis of rotation (D2) is provided outside the carrier tower” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. Where the second rotation axis of 40 of Sheridan is perpendicular to the first rotation axis of 20 of Sheridan and to change the orientation of the axis would render the device of Sheridan unable to perform its intended function. Further Casaulta teaches that the rotation axis of D2 relative to D1 is parallel, however, the combination of Casaulta and Sheridan or vice versa, would render both unable to be used as intended to make the axes parallel to each other as required by the claim.
Regarding claim 14 (currently amended), the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “a workpiece spindle for rotating the object is arranged on the carrier” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. Where Casaulta teaches the workpiece spindle being arranged on the carrier, however this combination of Casaulta with Sheridan would render Sheridan unable to achieve its intended function and would not operate as intended.
Regarding claim 20 (currently amended), the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “a workpiece spindle for rotating the workpiece about a third axis of rotation (D3) is arranged on the carrier” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. Where Casaulta teaches the workpiece spindle being arranged on the carrier, however this combination of Casaulta with Sheridan would render Sheridan unable to achieve its intended function and would not operate as intended.
Regarding claim 22 (currently amended), the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “the swivel device is swiveled in a second direction of rotation opposite to the first direction of rotation about the second axis of rotation (D2) when the rotational movement of the carrier and the swivel movement of the swivel device take place simultaneously” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. Where the prior art Sheridan may be capable of this movement, but does not explicitly teach this movement and the other prior art is silent regarding such a movement. MPEP 2114(II) states “[A]pparatus 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) (emphasis in original). 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. In the instant case, claim 22 is directed towards the method, not an apparatus and therefore the function must be given the proper patentable weight and a teaching of the function must be explicitly taught or found prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wirz et al (US Patent No. 7,682,223) teaches a rotating gripping part on a carrier but is silent regarding the rotation of the carrier itself. Yao et al (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN108127467) teaches a gripper for a toothed workpiece but does not teach the axes of the gripper to the base being parallel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights