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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 18/931,522 and the preliminary amendment filled on 10/30/2024.
Claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “each stitch” on line 10 should apparently be “each of the plurality of the stitches”. Claim 11 is also objected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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 claims 1, 8, 11 and 15 the phrase “partially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification doesn’t provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of the ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 recites the phrase "the stich”, where in claim 1 cites “plurality of stitches”. Therefore, it is not clear which stich of the plurality of stitches is referred by the phrase “the stitch” cited in claim 7.
Claim 1 cites “thread section along a path”, where in claim 2 cites “thread section of the stitches” and “the thread section”. It is not clear whether “the thread section” is referred to “thread section along a path” or “thread section of the stitches”. Further clarification and/or claim amendment is required.
Claim 2 cites the phrase “the position”. It is not clear whether the position is referred to “adjustment position” or “ready position” or a different position, such as “[[the]]a position to be sewed”. Further clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites the phrase “the depressed state” on line 5, which lacks sufficient antecedent basis because there is no previous citation of any depressed state in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the phrase “the depressing degree” on line 3, which lacks sufficient antecedent basis because there is no previous citation of any depressing degree in the claim.
Claim 7 cites “holding the thread”, where in claim 1 cites “sewn threads” which is more than one thread. Therefore, the phrase “the thread” in claim 7 is not clear whether it is referred to one of the sewn threads or different than sewn threads or referred to the thread section. Further clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the phrase “the posture” on line 4, which lacks sufficient antecedent basis because there is no previous citation of any posture in the claim.
Claims 2-10 and 12-16 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim(s).
Claim 12 recites the phrase “the controller” on line 4, which lacks sufficient antecedent basis because there is no previous citation of any controller in the claim.
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: “controller” in Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9 and 12; has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
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.
A review of the specification, and the drawing, the element “controller” is interpreted as a hardware.
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.
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 1-10 and 12-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim elements “controller” in claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9 and 12; is limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the corresponding entire claimed function and/or to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such as one of ordinary skills in the art would understand which structure for controller performs the corresponding claim function in claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9 and 12.
Therefore, the claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9 and 12 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because of their dependency on the rejected base claim(s).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above from the 112(f) interpretation and 112 (b) rejection, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure for “controller” to perform the corresponding claimed function in claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9 and 12. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Therefore, the claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-10 and 13-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because of their dependency on the rejected base claim(s).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Objections (having allowable subject matter)
Claims 1-16 are objected and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 112 (a), and claims objections for informalities, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1 , Sano (JP 2018046894 A, this reference is from IDS and the attached English translation of JP 2018046894 A is used for claim mapping) teaches a robot (See Para. [0012], “A robot arm that holds the sewing machine”) for adjusting sewn threads (See Para. [0014], [0064], “the control device controls the lifting mechanism so that after the needle drop of the first stitch at the start of sewing, making it possible to reduce or eliminate remaining thread at the sewing start end of the upper thread”), comprising:
a robotic arm configured to hold an adjusting tool (See Para. [0012], [0016], [0022], “a robot arm that holds the sewing machine”, and/or see Para. ]0020], [0071], “the robot arm 110 can support the needle bar side end of the sewing machine arm section 23. Therefore, the needle drop position of the double chain stitch sewing machine 10 can be positioned close to the tip of the robot arm 110”);
Another closest prior art, Lee (KR 100527817 B1, see attached English translation of KR 100527817) teaches a method for sewing leather to a steering wheel for a vehicle (see Para. [14]).
Nevertheless, the cited closest reference as discussed above fail to suggest, disclose or teach individually or in combination to render obvious limitations of “a controller configured to: cause the adjusting tool to partially go across a thread section along a path defined between a bottom side of the thread section and an outer surface of an object, wherein the sewn threads comprises a first end fixed to the object and a second end, a plural of stitches are formed across a sewing zone on the object between the first end and the second end, and each stitch comprises the thread section including a top side and the opposite bottom side; and move the adjusting tool upward away from the outer surface so as to adjust pitches between the stitches” and in combination with other limitations of the claim 1.
Claims 2-10 depend either directly or indirectly upon independent claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-10 would be allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Claim 11 is a method claim corresponding to the robot claim 1 and having the same allowable subject matter of claim 1 above. Therefore, the claim 11 would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1.
Claims 12-16 depend either directly or indirectly upon independent claim 11. Therefore, claims 12-16 would be allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657