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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8 and 10-15) in the reply filed on April 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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.
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 1-8 and 10-15 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, lines 5, 10, 15 and 17, it is unclear whether a predetermined conveyance device, a front conveyance device, and a rear conveyance device are referring to “a conveyance device” as claimed in line 5. It appears that “a conveyance device” as claimed in line 5 is an overall description that covers a predetermined conveyance device (line 10), a front conveyance device (line 15), and a rear conveyance device (line 17). Therefore, it is unclear whether “a conveyance device” as claimed in line 5 is a different device from a predetermined conveyance device (line 10), a front conveyance device (line 15), and a rear conveyance device (line 17).
Regarding claim 1, line 26, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation, “the crankshaft” in the claim as it appears that this crankshaft belongs to each of the front press device and the rear press device based on the claimed subject matter. The claim recited “a crankshaft” in line 3 for a press device. It is unclear whether “a press device” as claimed in line 3 is an overall press device representing a structure for a front press device (line 11) and a rear press device (line 13), or the press device as claimed in line 3 is a different press device from the front and rear press devices.
Regarding claim 1, line 32, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation, “the crankshaft” in the claim. See similar reason in the rejection of line 26 above.
Regarding claim 2, line 6, there is no antecedent basis for “the slide of the front press device”. Claim 1, line 2 recited a slide for a press device, which appears to be a different press device from the front press device.
Regarding claim 2, lines 9, 15, and 18, there is no antecedent basis for each of the dies (line 9), the slide, and the dies (line 18) in the claim due to the confusion between the press device and the front and rear press devices as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10-15 would be allowable if rewritten to encompass the same scope of the current claims and 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “a press system comprising: …a storage unit configured to store information on multiple regions set to avoid interference between the predetermined conveyance device and the front press device, interference between the predetermined conveyance device and the rear press device, interference between the predetermined conveyance device and the front conveyance device, and interference between the predetermined conveyance device and the rear conveyance device, the front press device and the rear press device each send a signal corresponding to an angle of a crankshaft to the control means, the predetermined conveyance device, the front conveyance device, and the rear conveyance device each send a signal corresponding to a state of conveyance of the workpiece to the control means, the control means determines whether to permit entry to each of the multiple regions for each of the multiple regions based on signals corresponding to the angle of the crankshaft sent from the front press device and the rear press device, as well as signals corresponding to the state of conveyance of the workpiece sent from the predetermined conveyance device, the front conveyance device, and the rear conveyance device, and sends an entry permission signal for each of the multiple regions to the predetermined conveyance device based on determined results, and the predetermined conveyance device performs the loading or the unloading based on the entry permission signal”, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
WO-2009096271 A1 to Takahashi et al. discloses a press line control apparatus (40), which comprises a master signal generator (32) for outputting a master signal (1), a plurality of individual master generators (42) for outputting individual master signals (4) synchronized with the master signal (1), and stop control devices (50) for stopping, if a press or a carrier device becomes abnormal at a portion thereof, the devices individually. The individual master generators (42) of the devices, which may interfere with the device having abnormally stopped, are stopped at a position to avoid the interference, and the individual master generators (42), which do not interfere, are run to and stopped at the ordinary stop position. The operation continues if it is determined that there is no interference. Takahashi does not disclose the determination of whether to permit entry to each of the multiple regions for each of the multiple regions based on signals corresponding to the angle of the crankshaft sent from each of the front press device and the rear press device, as well as signals corresponding to the state of conveyance of the workpiece sent from the predetermined conveyance device, the front conveyance device, and the rear conveyance device, and sends an entry permission signal for each of the multiple regions to the predetermined conveyance device based on determined results, and the predetermined conveyance device performs the loading or the unloading based on the entry permission signal.
WO 2020/116479 A1 to Otani et al. discloses a transfer press system capable of easily and accurately determining the presence or absence of interference. A transfer press system (A) according to the present invention is provided with: an interference determination means (6) which determines the presence or absence of interference by comparing an operation interference line (R, R', R1-3) created, from an operation transfer motion of a transfer device (1) and an operation press motion of a press device (2), as a trajectory of a tip end of an arm part (1b) with respect to a corner part (21) of a die, with coordinates of the corner part (21) calculated from the operation press motion; and a motion adjustment means (7) which, when the interference determination means (6) determines that interference is present, changes the operation transfer motion and/or the operation press motion. This reference does not disclose the determination of an entry to each of the regions so that a predetermined conveyance device to perform a loading or an unloading based on the entry permission signal as claimed in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights