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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “A cutting plotter comprising: the medium supporting device according to claim 1; the medium feeding mechanism; a work stage detachably connected to the support of the medium supporting device; and a pen carriage” should read: “A cutting plotter comprising: the medium supporting device according to claim 1; the medium feeding mechanism[[;]] including: a work stage detachably connected to the support of the medium supporting device; and a pen carriage”. 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:
the “medium feeding mechanism”, of Claim 1
the “connecting portion” of Claims 2-3;
the “engagement piece” and “manipulating piece” of claim 6.
With regard to the term “medium feeding mechanism”, in claims 1-2, 5-6, and 7:
first, the term “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “medium feeding”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “medium feeding” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the medium feeding mechanism.
With regard to the term “connecting portion”, in claims 1-2, 5-6, and 7:
first, the term “portion” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “connecting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “connecting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the connecting portion.
With regard to the term “engagement piece”, in claims 1-2, 5-6, and 7:
first, the term “piece” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “engagement”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “engagement ” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the engagement piece.
With regard to the term “manipulating piece”, in claims 1-2, 5-6, and 7:
first, the term “piece” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “manipulating”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “manipulating” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the manipulating piece.
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.
Examiner notes that the Claim limitations of Claims 6-8, reading a “locking mechanism” are not being treated under 35 USC 112(f) even though the limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language, because the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the recited function; e.g. spring.
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 11-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The limitation of Claim 11, reading: “wherein the electrostatic chucking mat further includes a drive film affixed to a back surface of the substrate, the drive sheet includes” is indefinite. It is not clear if the drive sheet is intended to refer to a drive sheet that is different from the protective sheet of claim 10, or the drive film of claim 11, or if the term drive sheet should read “protective sheet” or “drive film”.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPUB 20050186010, Shibata.
Regarding Claim 1, Shibata discloses:
A cutting plotter medium supporting device 6 comprising:
a support (combination of adhesive layer 62, base 60, and holding parts 61) configured to be removably connected to a cutting plotter (combination of parts 1-6, par 0065) provided with a medium feeding mechanism (combination of driving roller 2 and pinch roller 3) configured to reciprocally move a medium (sheet material 7) in a first direction (par. 0065); and
an electrostatic chucking mat (combination of electrode patterns 65 and base 60) configured to be supported by the support movably in the first direction and generate an electrostatic chucking force by being energized (par 0086-0088), the electrostatic chucking mat being moved by the medium feeding mechanism while the medium is chucked by the electrostatic chucking force (par 0086-0089).
Regarding Claim 2, in Shibata: the support (combination of adhesive layer 62, base 60, and holding parts 61) includes a connecting portion 61 connected to the cutting plotter (par 0068).
Regarding Claim 3, in Shibata the connecting portion 61 includes a first structure (ends of the parts 61) configured to mate with a second structure (pinch roller 3) provided on the cutting plotter (1, par. 0088).
Regarding Claim 13, Shibata discloses: A cutting plotter (combination of parts 1-6, par 0065) comprising:
the medium supporting device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above);
the medium feeding mechanism (2 and 3);
a work stage (portion of body of cutting plotter body 1, which is in front of the roller parts 2 and 3, and which helps removably support the support, due to its operational connection to the pinch rollers) detachably connected to the support of the medium supporting device (due to its operational connection to the pinch rollers, par. 0066);
and a pen carriage 4 configured to move above the work stage in a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction (fig 1, par 0068) and which is parallel to a horizontal direction (fig. 1) and support a cutting pen 5 movable in an up-down direction (to press into the workpiece, par 0067), wherein the medium feeding mechanism is configured to cause the electrostatic chucking mat on which the medium is chucked by the electrostatic chucking force to move reciprocally in the first direction (par 0067-0070).
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of FR 2844470 A1, Ganci.
Shibata lacks the medium supporting device according to claim 2, wherein the connecting portion includes a first contact terminal connected to a second contact terminal of the cutting plotter, the first contact terminal is electrically connected to the electrostatic chucking mat, and the second contact terminal is connected to a power supply of the cutting plotter.
Ganci discloses an electrostatic holding means device, in the same field of endeavor as the electrostatic holding means device of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a medium supporting device (“electrostatic holding means”, seventh par. of page 3 of attached copy of Ganci) having a connecting portion (“electric voltage source”) which includes a first contact terminal (“first terminal”) connected to a second contact terminal (“second terminal”) of the device, the first contact terminal is electrically connected to the electrostatic chucking holder (seventh par. of page 3 of attached copy of Ganci), and the second contact terminal is connected to a power supply of the cutting plotter, (seventh par. of page 3 of attached copy of Ganci), in order to power the electrostatic holder in a disconnectable manner, (seventh par. of page 3 of attached copy of Ganci).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibata by the connecting portion includes a first contact terminal connected to a second contact terminal of the cutting plotter, the first contact terminal is electrically connected to the electrostatic chucking mat, and the second contact terminal is connected to a power supply of the cutting plotter in order to power the electrostatic holder in a disconnectable manner, as taught in Ganci.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Ganci as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20040125432, Ishizuya.
Shibata as modified above the electrostatic chucking mat including: a substrate movably supported by the support; and an electrode pattern formed on the substrate, and the medium supporting device further comprises a flexible cable electrically connecting the electrode pattern to the first contact terminal, and the flexible cable is housed inside the support.
Ishizuya discloses an electrostatic holding means device in the same field of endeavor as the electrostatic holding means device of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes an electrostatic chucking mat (par 0192) including: a substrate 11 movably supported by the support (par 0192); and an electrode pattern (on electrode fil 23a,) formed on the substrate (par 0192), and the medium supporting device further comprises a flexible cable (par 0192 wiring line 23b) electrically connecting the electrode pattern to a first contact terminal (“external power source), and the flexible cable is housed inside a support 11, fig. 5, in order to allow the position of the supporting surface be moveable to change it’s position, when a user so desires, par 0192.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibata by having the medium supporting device according to claim 4, wherein the electrostatic chucking mat includes: a substrate movably supported by the support; and an electrode pattern formed on the substrate, and the medium supporting device further comprises a flexible cable electrically connecting the electrode pattern to the first contact terminal, and the flexible cable is housed inside the support in order to allow the position of the supporting surface be moveable to change it’s position, when a user so desires, as taught by Ishizuya.
Claims 9-12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of in view of Ishizuya.
Regarding Claim 9, Shibata lacks the medium supporting device according to claim 1, wherein the electrostatic chucking mat includes: a substrate movably supported by the support; and an electrode pattern formed on a front surface of the substrate.
Ishizuya discloses an electrostatic holding means device in the same field of endeavor as the electrostatic holding means device of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes an electrostatic chucking mat (par 0192) including: a substrate 11 movably supported by the support (par 0192); and an electrode pattern (on electrode fil 23a,) formed on the substrate (par 0192), in order to allow the position of the supporting surface be moveable to change it’s position, when a user so desires, par 0192.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibata by having wherein the electrostatic chucking mat includes: a substrate movably supported by the support; and an electrode pattern formed on a front surface of the substrate in order to allow the position of the supporting surface be moveable to change it’s position, when a user so desires, as taught by Ishiyuza.
Regarding Claim 10, in Shibata, the medium supporting device according to claim 9, further comprises a protective sheet 62 placed on the electrostatic chucking mat (fig 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Shibata lacks wherein the electrostatic chucking mat further includes a drive film affixed to a back surface of the substrate, the drive sheet includes an end protruding outwardly from an end surface of the substrate in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and the drive film has a thickness thinner than a thickness of the substrate.
Ishiyuza discloses wherein the electrostatic chucking mat further includes a drive film (23a) affixed to a back surface of the substrate (11), the drive sheet/film (23a) includes an end protruding outwardly from an end surface of the substrate in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (fig 5 and fig 4, showing the film extending in directions perpendicular to the substrate top surface), and the drive film 23a has a thickness thinner than a thickness of the substrate 11 (fig 5), par 0192, in order to allow the position of the supporting surface be moveable to change it’s position, when a user so desires, par 0192.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibata by having wherein the electrostatic chucking mat further includes a drive film affixed to a back surface of the substrate, the drive sheet includes an end protruding outwardly from an end surface of the substrate in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and the drive film has a thickness thinner than a thickness of the substrate, in order to allow the position of the supporting surface be moveable to change it’s position, when a user so desires, as taught by Ishiyuza.
Regarding Claim 12, in Shibata, the medium supporting device according to claim 11, also includes:
wherein the medium feeding mechanism includes: a drive roller 2 extending in the second direction (fig. 1);
and a pinch roller 3 configured to move the medium by sandwiching the medium between the drive roller and the pinch roller, wherein the electrostatic chucking mat is configured to move by the end of the drive film being sandwiched between the drive roller and the pinch roller (par. 0066).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20090239405, Amidon.
Shibata lacks the apparatus having wherein the connecting portion includes a locking mechanism configured to prevent the support connected to the cutting plotter from disengaging from the cutting plotter, the locking mechanism includes: an engagement piece supported movably in the up-down direction, the engagement piece being configured to engage with a hole which is formed on the cutting plotter and which is open to a downward direction; a spring configured to bias the engagement piece toward an upward direction; and a manipulating piece formed on the engagement piece for pressing the engagement piece downward (Claim 6), wherein the engagement piece includes a protrusion configured to be inserted into the hole on the cutting plotter and removed from the hole (Claim 7), and the protrusion includes an upper surface that goes down as approaching the cutting plotter (Claim 8).
Amidon discloses a device for releasably supporting an electrically connected device (20) to a base portion (220) of an electrically powered system (combined parts 240 and 220, par 0124), in the same field of endeavor as the a device for releasably supporting an electrically connected device (electrostatic feed device) to a base portion (plotter and base) of an electrically powered system (plotter and feed device) tool of the present invention and discloses that such, a system, in Amidon, includes a connecting portion (210/250/265) including a locking mechanism (250/230) configured to prevent a support 240 connected to a base 260 from disengaging from the base (par. 0215), the locking mechanism includes: an engagement piece (210/250) supported movably in the up-down direction (fig 14, up direction being toward holes 230), the engagement piece being configured to engage with a hole 230 which is formed on the base 260 and which is open to a downward direction (from above the part 260 toward the portion of the arms 210, fig 14);
a spring (resilient portions of tabs 250 which lock the tabs into the holes 230, par 0125) configured to bias the engagement piece toward an upward direction (fig 14 par 0125); and a manipulating piece 25 formed on the engagement piece for pressing the engagement piece downward (end of par. 0025)(Claim 6), wherein the engagement piece includes a protrusion (upward facing part of tab 125) configured to be inserted into the hole 230 on the base 260 and removed from the hole 230 (fig 14, par 0125)(Claim 7), and the protrusion includes an upper surface (upper most surface of 125, in fig 14) that goes down as approaching the cutting plotter (end par 0125) (Claim 8) in order to secure the electrical interface portions with one another in a secure user releasable manner (par 0124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibata by including apparatus having wherein the connecting portion includes a locking mechanism configured to prevent the support connected to the cutting plotter from disengaging from the cutting plotter, the locking mechanism includes: an engagement piece supported movably in the up-down direction, the engagement piece being configured to engage with a hole which is formed on the cutting plotter and which is open to a downward direction; a spring configured to bias the engagement piece toward an upward direction; and a manipulating piece formed on the engagement piece for pressing the engagement piece downward (Claim 6), wherein the engagement piece includes a protrusion configured to be inserted into the hole on the cutting plotter and removed from the hole (Claim 7), and the protrusion includes an upper surface that goes down as approaching the cutting plotter (Claim 8). in order to secure the electrical parts to one another in a secure user releasable manner as taught by Amidon.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 20170136647, 3198047, 20210380360 and 4373412 disclose state of the art electrostatic work holding mechanisms, while USPNs/USPGPUBs 20210380360 and 4373412 disclose plotter mechanisms. Thus, each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on 571-272-4502. 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724