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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 1 and 41. 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. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 12, “means” is objected to due to the manner in which the word is used, therefore it is suggested to change “means” to - -use- -; In claim 3, line 5, “bolt, in” is objected because it is unnecessary in the used context, therefore it is suggested to “bolt, in” to
- - bolt in- -; In claim 4, lines 3-4, “fixed in an open front plate the chassis and allows rendering a movement” is grammatically incorrect, therefore it is suggested to change “fixed in an open front plate the chassis and allows rendering a movement” to - -fixed in an open front plate of the chassis and allows movement- -; In claim 5, line 4, “means” is objected to due to the manner in which the word is used, therefore it is suggested to change “means” to - -use- -; In claim 9, line 4, “means” is objected to due to the manner in which the word is used, therefore it is suggested to change “means” to - -use- -; In claim 10, line 5, “means” is objected to due to the manner in which the word is used, therefore it is suggested to change “means” to - -use- -; In claim 11, lines 4-5, “means” is objected to due to the manner in which the word is used, therefore it is suggested to change “means” to - -use- -; In claim 15, line 8, “means” is objected to due to the manner in which the word is used, therefore it is suggested to change “means” to - -use- -; In claim 15, line 4, “means” is objected to due to the manner in which the word is used, therefore it is suggested to change “means” to - -use- -. 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.
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 1-19 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. In claim 3, line 2, it is unclear as to what is meant by “at least one pneumatic cylinder to generate a movement tolerance in the axial direction in Z.” In claim 8, lines 9-10, it is unclear as to what is meant by “whereby movement tolerance Z of the tool is generated.” In claim 15, line 8, it is unclear as to what is meant by “a housing that is prolonged at the front part thereof”; In claim 19, line 4, it is unclear as to what is meant by “for detecting movement in Z.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the liner fixing means" in line 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the different components" in line 12 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the at least one radial compensation element" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "it" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the liner" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the hexagon of the tool and the nut" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the at least one radial compensation element" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first compensating plate" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the opposing face of the first compensating plate" in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the rear face of the first compensating plate" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second compensating plate" in lines 7-8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the means and elements or subsystems" in lines 6-7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the upper plate" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the front plate" in lines 6-7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "it" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the grip fingers" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the washer" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the bolt" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the gearbox casing of the radial compensation element" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the washer" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the bolt" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "it" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the robot" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the die" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the front part" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the planetary gearbox" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the die" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the bolted attachment" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed on the attached PTO-892 are cited to show devices for automatically installing/removing fasteners.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMIE E COZART whose telephone number is (571)272-4528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 7:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JERMIE E COZART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
November 15, 2025
Prosecution Insights