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 .
Claim Interpretation
Throughout the claims, the term “accumulator” is used (see for example Claim 1 Ln 15) for the purpose of storing electrical energy. The term accumulator is typically used regarding the storage of fluid pressure. The term battery is typically used regarding the storage of electrical energy. It is suggested to change all instances of the term accumulator to battery within the claims and specification.
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 as follows:
Claim 11 Ln 7 states the claim limitation “fitting means”, that is modified by the functional language “for automatically inserting workpieces” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the term shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure “such as an arm of the robot”, described in the specification Pg 8 Ln 26 and equivalents thereof.
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 Objections
Claims 1-6 and 9-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Ln 5, please amend to --each of the at least one workpiece holder for temporarily holding [[workpieces]] a workpiece of at least one workpiece --.
Claim 1 Ln 8-9, please amend to --c) at least one pneumatic valve[[s]] for enabling or interrupting [[the]] a compressed air supply--.
Claim 1 Ln 10, please amend to --the at least one pneumatic valve[[s]]--.
Claim 2 Ln 5, please amend to --release [[a]] the workpiece--.
Claim 3 Ln 3-5, please amend to --that each of the at least one workpiece holders (A) is transferred into a released state by [[a]] action of pressure in order to release the workpiece, whereas in [[the]] an absence--.
Claim 3 Ln 7-8, please amend to --which [[a]] the workpiece inserted into the at least one workpiece holder--.
Claim 4 Ln 4, please amend to --[[the]] a charging state and/or [[the]] a voltage--.
Claim 4 Ln 6-8, please amend to --[[the]] an action of pressure on at least one pneumatically operated component of the workpiece carrier (T), wherein the least one pneumatically operated component comprises the [[central]] compressed air reservoir (L) or [[a]] the at least one workpiece holder (A)--.
Claim 4 Ln 10, please amend to --[[the]] operational readiness--.
Claim 5 Ln 10, please amend to --other [[in]] along the vertical [[direction]] axis--.
Claim 6 Ln 5, please amend to --[[the]] a vertical direction--.
Claim 9, please amend to -- The workpiece carrier according to claim 1, characterized in that a workpiece holder (A) or a selection of multiple workpiece holders (A) of the at least one work piece holder is associated with [[each]] a manually actuatable control element (B), wherein manually actuating the [[particular]] control element (B)[[,]] transfers the associated workpiece holder (A) or the selection of multiple workpiece holders the associated workpiece holder (A) or the selection of multiple workpiece holders--.
Claim 10 Ln 9, please amend to --with the compressed air--.
Claim 11, please amend to -- An arrangement [[of]] comprising a robot and [[a]] the workpiece carrier (T) according to claim 1,
wherein the robot [[has]] comprises:
a) [[a]] the robot controller (M) that is designed to wirelessly transmit the signals to the control unit (S) of the workpiece carrier and/or to receive the signals from [[same]] the control unit (S) of the workpiece carrier, and
b) fitting means for automatically inserting [[workpieces]] a workpiece of the at least one workpiece, provided in [[the]] an operating area of the robot, into the at least one workpiece holder[[s]] (A) of the workpiece carrier (T) or removing [[them]] the workpiece from the at least one workpiece holder[[s]] (A)--.
Claim 12, please amend to --[[The]] An arrangement [[according]] comprising a robot and the workpiece carrier (T) according to claim 1, characterized in that
the robot is designed to temporarily connect the workpiece carrier (T) to an external compressed air supply or external voltage supply in order to fill the compressed air reservoir (L) with compressed air or supply the [[accumulator]] voltage supply with power, respectively.--.
Claim 13, please amend to --The workpiece carrier according to claim 1, characterized in that
the battery is modularly removable from or insertable into the workpiece carrier (T) so that the battery is charged outside the workpiece carrier (T), and once charged [[state]] is insertable into the workpiece carrier (T)--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 Ln 15-16 states the limitation "the electrically operated components”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear to which previous term/device this limitation is referring. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as --[[the]] electrically operated components--.
Claim 2 Ln 3-4 states the limitation "via electropneumatic valves”. It is unclear if this term is the same as or distinct from the “at least one pneumatic valve” stated in claim 1 Ln 8. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as -- via the at least one pneumatic valve in the form of an electropneumatic valve[[s]]--.
Claim 4 Ln 7-8 states the limitation "in particular the central compressed air reservoir (L) or a workpiece holder”. If stated in a single claim, examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim (see MPEP 2173.05(c)). Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate.
Claim 5 Ln 4-6 states the limitation "with the basic shape of a prism, preferably a regular prism, most preferably a cube, wherein on multiple, preferably all, vertical side faces of the prism”. If stated in a single claim, examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim (see MPEP 2173.05(c)). Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate.
Claim 5 Ln 7 and 9 states the limitation "a workpiece holder” and “at least two work piece holders”. It is unclear if these workpiece holders are the same as or in addition to the at least one workpiece holder stated in claim 1 Ln 4. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as --[[a]] one of the at least one workpiece holder-- and --at least two of the at least one workpiece holder--
Claim 7 Ln 3-5 states the limitation "the workpiece holders (A) are individually activatable, in predefinable groups or collectively, in order to clamp or release a workpiece (W)”. It is unclear how workpiece holders are both individually activatable, in predefined groups. It is further unclear what is the difference between a predefined group and a collective. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as --the at least one workpiece holder[[s]] (A) is/are [[individually]] activatable as individuals, in predefinable groups or [[collectively]] a group comprising all the workpiece holders, in order to clamp or release [[a]] the at least one workpiece (W)--.
Claim 8 Ln 3-4 states the limitation "pneumatically operated components”. It is unclear if these components are the same as or distinct from the components of claim 1 Ln 4. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as -- pneumatically operated components of the workpiece carrier (T), comprising the air reservoir and/or the at least one workpiece holder, with compressed--.
Claims 3, 6 and 9-13 are rejected for their dependence upon claim 1.
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 1-4, 7-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Casset; Dominique US 4610440 A, hereinafter Casset.
Regarding claim 1, as far as is definite, Casset discloses (Fig. 1-5) a workpiece carrier (1) for arrangement in a machine tool, the workpiece carrier (T) including the following:
a) at least one pneumatically operated workpiece holder (4) for temporarily holding workpieces (“workpiece” Abstract),
b) a central compressed air reservoir (10) for supplying the at least one workpiece holder (Col 3 Ln 66-68),
c) pneumatic valves (110, 112) for enabling or interrupting the compressed air supply to the at least one workpiece holder (Col 4 Ln 51-59),
d) a control unit (32) for actuating the pneumatic valves (Col 4 Ln 11-16, Ln 61-65, Col 5 Ln 42-56),
e) wherein the control unit includes a wireless communication interface (207) for wirelessly transmitting signals between the control unit and a higher-level controller (201, 205, Col 8 Ln 42-49), in particular a robot controller, and
f) a voltage supply (24), designed as an accumulator, for the electrically operated components of the workpiece carrier (Col 4 Ln 9-18),
wherein the workpiece carrier is designed as a device that is independent of an external power supply during operation (Col 4 Ln 9-18, Abstract).
Col 2 Ln 10-19 states that the medium of operation may also be “compressed-air”.
Regarding claim 2, as far as is definite, Casset discloses (Fig. 1-5) the at least one workpiece holder (4) is designed as a pneumatic vice or chuck (Abstract, Col 2 Ln 10-19) that is activated via electropneumatic valves (110, 112, Col 4 Ln 11-16, Ln 61-65, Col 5 Ln 42-56) by means of the control unit (32) in order to clamp or release a workpiece (“workpiece”).
Regarding claim 3, as far as is definite, Casset discloses (Fig. 1-5) each workpiece holder (4) is transferred into a released state by the action of pressure in order to release a clamped workpiece (“workpiece”, Col 6 Ln 3-9),
whereas in the absence of the action of pressure (rest state) the workpiece holder is transferred into a clamping state via which a workpiece inserted into the workpiece holder is fixedly clamped (Col 6 Ln 40-46, although, not explicitly depicted, the device depicted is a single acting actuator that actuates under pressure, and returns via spring (166) under lack of pressure, the location or orientation of the actuator fundamentally decides the direction of ‘pressure on/off’ actuation and is within the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 4, as far as is definite, Casset discloses (Fig. 1-5) further including at least one sensor (156) for detecting
a) the charging state and/or the voltage of the voltage supply (U), and/or
b) the action of compressed air on at least one pneumatically operated component of the workpiece carrier (T), in particular the central compressed air reservoir (L) or a workpiece holder (A) (Col 6 Ln 19-23), and/or
c) the operational readiness of the control unit (S).
Regarding claim 7, as far as is definite, Casset discloses (Fig. 1-5) the workpiece holders (4) are individually activatable, in predefinable groups or collectively, in order to clamp or release a workpiece (Col 4 Ln 51-58).
Regarding claim 8, as far as is definite, Casset discloses (Fig. 1-5) further including manually actuatable control elements (“manual operating device”) in order to act on pneumatically operated components of the workpiece carrier (T) with compressed air or separate them from the compressed air, as an alternative to the control unit (S) or in the event of a malfunction (Col 2 Ln 64-68).
Regarding claim 9, as far as is definite, Casset discloses (Fig. 1-5) a workpiece holder (A) or a selection of multiple workpiece holders (A) is associated with each control element (B), so that by manually actuating the particular control element (B), the associated workpiece holder (A) or the workpiece holder selection is transferable into a state that clamps or releases a workpiece (Col 2 Ln 64-68 indicates that individual workpiece holders are manually operable).
Regarding claim 10, as far as is definite, Casset discloses (Fig. 1-5) a) at least one air delivery nozzle is provided, via which the compressed air reservoir (L) may be filled with compressed air from an external compressed air source, and/or
b) the workpiece carrier (1) includes a compressor (6) that is connectable to the voltage supply (24) in order to fill the compressed air reservoir (10) with compressed air (Col 4 Ln 11-16).
Regarding claim 12, as far as is definite, Casset discloses (Fig. 1-5) an arrangement comprising a robot (201/204/205/207/208) and the workpiece carrier (1) according to claim 1, characterized in that
the robot is designed to temporarily connect the workpiece carrier to an external compressed air supply or external voltage supply (208) in order to fill the compressed air reservoir (L) with compressed air or supply the voltage supply with power, respectively (Col 8 Ln 49-53).
Regarding claim 13, as far as is definite, Casset discloses (Fig. 1-5) the battery is modularly removable from or insertable into the workpiece carrier (T) so that the battery is charged outside the workpiece carrier (T), and once charged is insertable into the workpiece carrier (Col 4 Ln 33-38)--.
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.
Claims 5-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casset as stated above for claim 1 and in view of Gladkowski , hereinafter DE 102005009177 A1, hereinafter Gladkowski. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (workpiece carriers); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (orientations of workpiece holders on workpiece carriers). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 5, as far as is definite, Casset discloses (Fig. 1-5) the workpiece carrier (1) extends about a vertical axis (the up and down direction depicted in Fig. 1) with the basic shape of a prism (depicted as a prism), preferably a regular prism, most preferably a cube.
Casset fails to explicitly state that on multiple, preferably all, vertical side faces of the prism a) a workpiece holder (A) is situated or b) at least two workpiece holders (A) are situated one on top of the other in the vertical direction (Z). Instead, Casset discloses workpiece holders (4) disposed on another surface.
Gladkowski discloses (Fig. 1) a workpiece carrier extending about a vertical axis (the up and down direction depicted in Fig. 1) with the basic shape of a prism (depicted as a prism), preferably a regular prism, most preferably a cube.
wherein on multiple (depicted, disclosed as on four side faces), preferably all, vertical side faces of the prism a) a workpiece holder (A) is situated or b) at least two workpiece holders (72, 73, 74) are situated one on top of the other in the vertical direction ([0016] states that the workpiece carrier comprising up to 16 workpiece holders resulting in 4 on each vertical face).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (situating four workpiece holders on four vertical side for a total of sixteen workpiece holders) for another (situating a plurality of workpiece holders on a horizontal side), and the results of the substitution (clamping workpieces) would have been predictable. Because both Casset and Gladkowski teach workpiece carriers, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute situating four workpiece holders on four vertical side for a total of sixteen workpiece holders for the situating a plurality of workpiece holders on a horizontal side to achieve the predictable result of clamping workpieces at a particular location.
Regarding claim 6, as far as is definite, Casset discloses (Fig. 1-5) the workpiece carrier (1) has four vertical sides (depicted as having at least four vertical sides).
Casset fails to explicitly state that each with four workpiece holders (A) situated one on top of the other in the vertical direction, to provide a total of sixteen workpiece holders (A).
Instead, Casset discloses workpiece holders (4) disposed on another surface.
Gladkowski discloses (Fig. 1) a workpiece carrier extending about a vertical axis (the up and down direction depicted in Fig. 1) with the basic shape of a prism (depicted as a prism), preferably a regular prism, most preferably a cube.
wherein on multiple (depicted, disclosed as on four side faces), preferably all, vertical side faces of the prism a) a workpiece holder (A) is situated or b) at least two workpiece holders (72, 73, 74) are situated one on top of the other in the vertical direction ([0016] states that the workpiece carrier comprising up to 16 workpiece holders resulting in 4 on each vertical face).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (situating four workpiece holders on four vertical side for a total of sixteen workpiece holders) for another (situating a plurality of workpiece holders on a horizontal side), and the results of the substitution (clamping workpieces) would have been predictable. Because both Casset and Gladkowski teach workpiece carriers, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute situating four workpiece holders on four vertical side for a total of sixteen workpiece holders for the situating a plurality of workpiece holders on a horizontal side to achieve the predictable result of clamping workpieces at a particular location.
Regarding claim 11, as far as is definite, Casset discloses (Fig. 1-5) an arrangement comprising a robot (201/204/205/207) and the workpiece carrier (1) according to claim 1,
wherein the robot comprises:
the robot controller (201) that is designed to wirelessly transmit the signals to the control unit (32) of the workpiece carrier and/or to receive the signals from the control unit of the workpiece carrier (Col 8 Ln 42-49).
Casset fails to explicitly state that the robot comprises:
b) fitting means for automatically inserting a workpiece of the at least one workpiece, provided in an operating area of the robot, into the at least one workpiece holder (A) of the workpiece carrier (T) or removing the workpiece from the at least one workpiece holder (A).
Gladkowski discloses (Fig. 1) an arrangement comprising a robot (201/204/205/207) and a workpiece carrier (1),
wherein the workpiece carrier extending about a vertical axis (the up and down direction depicted in Fig. 1) with the basic shape of a prism (depicted as a prism), preferably a regular prism, most preferably a cube,
wherein on multiple (depicted, disclosed as on four side faces), preferably all, vertical side faces of the prism a) a workpiece holder (A) is situated or b) at least two workpiece holders (72, 73, 74) are situated one on top of the other in the vertical direction ([0016] states that the workpiece carrier comprising up to 16 workpiece holders resulting in 4 on each vertical face),
wherein the robot comprises:
b) fitting means for automatically inserting a workpiece of the at least one workpiece, provided in an operating area of the robot, into the at least one workpiece holder (A) of the workpiece carrier (T) or removing the workpiece from the at least one workpiece holder (A) ([0011] indicates that a robot can automatically load and unload the workpiece carrier, thereby enabling 5-sided machining [0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Casset, by providing a workpiece carrier design/shape, as taught by Gladkowski, for the purpose of enabling a robot with fitting means to automatically inserting a workpiece for 5-sided machining.
Relevant Art
The following is a listing of relevant art:
US 11883916 B1, US 20210379675 A1, US 20140103593 A1, US 20060277734 A1, US 20020069498 A1, US 5582396 A discloses workpiece carriers with a plurality of workpiece holders on vertical sides.
US 4901990 A discloses a workpiece carrier with internal pneumatic actuation.
US 20130181386 A1, US 20080217872 A1 discloses a pneumatic workpiece holder.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW WIBLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9836. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached on 571-272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745