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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Drawings
The replacement Figs. 7-8 filed 01/20/2025 are acceptable. The original Figs. 1-6 and 9-12 filed 11/08/2024 are acceptable.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the phrase “Proposed is” (line 1) that could be implied. Correction is required. MPEP § 608.01(b). No new matter should be entered.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the X-axis and Y-axis above the jig” (line 10). This limitation is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, which render the claim unclear and ambiguous. Further, this limitation is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what it means because the directions “X-axis” and “Y-axis” are undefined relative to any feature of the system. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 2-7 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the rotary plate is lifted inside the storage box by rotation of the rotary bar and supplies the fasteners received in the receiving groove to the guide groove located at the second end of the rail”. This claim is indefinite because it is a single claim that claims both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus. IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“it is unclear whether infringement...occurs when one creates a system that allows the user to change the predicted transaction information...or...when the user actually uses the input means to change transaction information”); MPEP § 2173.05(p). This limitation is a method step of using and/or operating the device (i.e., the device is in operation and is performing the recited step). For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as “wherein the rotary plate is [configured to be] lifted…”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the pusher aligns the fasteners by pushing out the fasteners coming out of the guide groove by movement of the sliding bar”. This claim is indefinite because it is a single claim that claims both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus. IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“it is unclear whether infringement...occurs when one creates a system that allows the user to change the predicted transaction information...or...when the user actually uses the input means to change transaction information”); MPEP § 2173.05(p). This limitation is a method step of using and/or operating the device (i.e., the device is in operation and is performing the recited step). For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as “wherein the pusher [is configured to] align[] the fasteners…”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the pusher aligns the fasteners by pushing out the fasteners coming out of the guide groove by movement of the sliding bar”. This limitation is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what it means because it is unclear what is meant by “pushing out the fasteners coming out of the guide groove” in this context. For example, although this phrase is used in the specification (Spec. ¶ 0078), this portion of the specification does not appear to match the operation of the pusher described elsewhere (Spec. Figs. 5-6; ¶¶ 0087-0088), where the pusher pushes fasteners out of (or off from) the receiving groove 543a of rotary plate 543, thereby preventing fasteners not properly aligned in the receiving groove 543a and/or having the wrong head size from passing through the pusher’s groove and into the guide groove 521. Examiner suggests amending this limitation as follows: “wherein the pusher aligns the fasteners by pushing out improperly aligned or improperly sized fasteners coming out of a receiving groove of a rotary plate by movement of the sliding bar.” For examination purposes, this will be the interpretation used.
Claim 1 is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations listed below, which render the claims unclear and ambiguous. For examination purposes, these limitations are interpreted as best understood.
“the upper surface” (claim 1, line 4) (claims 2-7 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 1).
Double Patenting
Examiner is aware of Applicant’s copending application: 18/941,831, titled “AUTOMATIC SUPPLY AND ASSEMBLY DEVICE FOR FASTENERS”, which has pending claims directed to similar subject matter. Currently, the claims in this application and the copending application are sufficiently delineated and are patentably distinct from each other. Accordingly, a statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is not appropriate at this time, but may be applied should the claims of this application and/or the copending application be amended such that the claims of this application are no longer patentably distinct from the claims of the copending application. MPEP § 804.
Applicant is advised of its duty of disclosure, candor, and good faith to identify its own copending applications and patents that disclose similar subject matter, as well as prior art and other information from the prosecution of its own copending applications and patents, that are material to the patentability (including double patenting) of this application. MPEP §§ 2001.04, 2001.05, 2001.06, 2001.06(a)-(e).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Byun in view of Yuzui and Yonezawa
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over KR 100926375 B1 (“Byun”) (citations are to the translation filed herewith) in view of US 4493450 A (“Yuzui”) and US 5954319 A (“Yonezawa”).
Byun pertains to an automatic screw fastening and assembly machine (Abstr.; Figs. 1-12; ¶¶ 0001-0005). Yuzui pertains to a workholder used in the assembly of a vehicle part (Abstr.; Figs. 1-10). Yonezawa pertains to a rotary clamp for holding a workpiece (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5). These references are in the same field of endeavor of manufacturing assembly equipment that includes workholders and fastening devices used to assemble workpieces having multiple separate components.
Regarding claim 1, Byun discloses an assembly system that assembles accessories to a crash pad lower assembly panel using fasteners (Abstr.; Figs. 1-9, system as shown in Fig. 1 is capable of the recited intended use; ¶¶ 0001-0005, 0023, two parts of a workpiece 10 (“LCD TV”) are being assembled together by a screw 30 using the system; Examiner notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)),
the assembly system comprising:
a work table (Figs. 1-9, worktable 110);
an orthogonal robot provided on the work table and configured to be movable in the X-axis and Y-axis above the jig (Figs. 1-9; ¶ 0022, robot including elements 140 and 200, capable of moving in the X, Y, and Z orthogonal axes via elements 120, 130, 140);
and an assembly device coupled to the orthogonal robot (Figs. 1-9; ¶¶ 0019-0022, assembly device 200 and 300).
Byun does not explicitly disclose:
a jig provided on a first side of the upper surface of the work table and configured to support a front surface of the crash pad lower assembly panel;
a pressing rod provided on the work table and configured to pressurize the crash pad lower assembly panel supported on the jig;
However, the Byun/Yuzui/Yonezawa combination makes obvious this claim.
Yuzui discloses:
a jig provided on a first side of the upper surface of the work table and configured to support a front surface of the crash pad lower assembly panel (Fig. 1, jig 6 on a first side of the upper surface of table 1 and is capable of supporting a workpiece; Examiner notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II); Examiner notes that the “crash pad lower assembly panel” and its “front surface” are not positively claimed and do not have a defined shape, size, or configuration).
Yonezawa discloses:
a pressing rod provided on the work table and configured to pressurize the crash pad lower assembly panel supported on the jig (Figs. 1-9, pressing rod 2 (see Spec. Fig. 2; ¶ 0045, “pressing rod 300”) on worktable 1 and is capable of pressing (“pressurize”) a workpiece against the worktable 1 (or against a jig on the worktable 1) (see Spec. ¶ 0044));
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Yuzui and Yonezawa with Byun by adding a clamp (“pressing rod”) and a jig to the worktable 110 to hold an intended workpiece. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the clamp and the jig would provide more stability to the workpiece (i.e., more securely holding the workpiece in place on the worktable), especially if the workpiece is not flat (thus requiring also a jig), while it is being assembled by the assembly device 200/300 of Byun. Further, since the assembly device 200/300 moves relative to the workpiece and worktable, it would cause vibrations to the worktable which may alter the position of the workpiece if not tightly secured.
Regarding claim 2, the Byun/Yuzui/Yonezawa combination makes obvious the assembly system of claim 1 as applied above. Byun further discloses:
wherein the assembly device comprises:
a main frame coupled to the orthogonal robot (Figs. 5-9, main frame includes the L-shaped bracket that element 140 is mounted to);
a rail having a first side coupled to a lower end of the main frame and a second side inclined so as to be located higher than the first side, and having a guide groove formed longitudinally on an upper side thereof and configured to guide the fasteners (Figs. 5-9; ¶¶ 0040-0041, rail 340 has a first side (near reference 350) coupled to the L-shaped bracket of the main frame, and a second side (near reference 330) that is inclined and higher than the first side, rail 340 having a guide groove (see Fig. 5 at reference 340) on the upper side that is capable of guiding fasteners 30);
a storage box provided at a second end of the rail and configured to store the fasteners therein (Figs. 5-9; ¶¶ 0039-0040, box 310 at second end of rail 340 to store fasteners 30);
a supply unit configured to be lifted in the storage box and supply the fasteners stored in the storage box to the guide groove located at the second end of the rail (Figs. 5-9; ¶¶ 0039-0041, elements 330, 332 are capable of lifting arm 320 in box 310 to supply fasteners 30 to the groove of rail 340 at the second end);
a holding plate coupled to the lower end of the main frame and located apart from a first end of the rail (Figs. 5-9; ¶¶ 0041-0046, holding plate 371 is coupled to the L-shaped bracket of the main frame and located apart from the first end of rail 340 (see Figs. 5-9, near reference 362));
a withdrawal unit coupled to the lower end of the main frame and configured to individually withdraw one by one the fasteners received in the guide groove located at the first end of the rail to the holding plate (Figs. 5-9; ¶¶ 0041-0046, stopper 350 (“withdrawal unit”) coupled to lower end of the main frame (to the L-shaped bracket via rail 340) and capable of individually withdrawing fasteners individually received in the guide groove of rail 340 at the first end to the holding plate 371 (i.e., the stopper 350 blocks downward motion of fasteners 30 until actuated to release a fastener 30));
and an assembly driver coupled to the main frame so as to be movable upward and downward and configured to assemble a fastener located in the holding plate by lowering the fastener (Figs. 1-9; ¶¶ 0041-0046, assembly driver 200 coupled to main frame (via element 140) and is capable of moving up and down to assemble fasteners 30 to a workpiece (“to assemble a fastener”) by lowering fasteners 30 held in holding plate 371).
Regarding claim 7, the Byun/Yuzui/Yonezawa combination makes obvious the assembly system of claim 1 as applied above. Yonezawa further discloses:
wherein the pressing rod comprises:
an actuator installed on the work table so that a shaft thereof is disposed orthogonal to the work table (Figs. 1-9, actuator of “pressing rod” 2 including housing 3 and shaft 5, where shaft 5 is orthogonal to the worktable 1);
a support coupled orthogonal to the shaft and configured to be rotated and lifted by the actuator (Figs. 1-9; 3:12-65, support 6 is coupled orthogonal to shaft 5 and capable of being rotated and lifted by the shaft 5 of the actuator);
and a pressure block extending downward from an end of the support (Figs. 1-9, pressure block 7 extends downward from an end of support 6).
The obviousness rationale for claim 7 is the same as for claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 3, the Byun/Yuzui/Yonezawa combination makes obvious the assembly system of claim 2 as applied above. Byun further discloses:
wherein the supply unit comprises:
a fan-shaped plate coupled to a lower portion of the second side of the rail, with an arc portion thereof facing downward (Figs. 5-9; ¶¶ 0039-0041, fan-shaped plate 320 coupled to a lower portion of the second side (near reference 330) of rail 340), with an arc portion facing at least partially downward (see Fig. 6, arc portion on bottom-left portion of element 320)).
Byun, Yuzui, and Yonezawa do not disclose:
a rotary bar having a first side located outside the fan-shaped plate and a second side axially coupled to a center of the fan-shaped plate so as to be rotatable (Examiner interprets the “rotary bar” to be a separate part from the “fan-shaped plate”);
and a rotary plate having a first side coupled to the first side of the rotary bar and a second side located in the storage box, and having a receiving groove formed on the second side thereof and configured to allow the fasteners to be received therein (Examiner interprets the “rotary plate” to be a separate part from the “fan-shaped plate” and the “rotary bar”),
wherein the rotary plate is [configured to be] lifted inside the storage box by rotation of the rotary bar and supplies the fasteners received in the receiving groove to the guide groove located at the second end of the rail (Examiner interprets this limitation as a “configured to” limitation and not a method step; see § 112(b) rejection for interpretation of this limitation).
Regarding claim 4, the Byun/Yuzui/Yonezawa combination makes obvious the assembly system of claim 2 as applied above. Byun, Yuzui, and Yonezawa do not disclose:
wherein the withdrawal unit comprises:
a rotary frame axially coupled to the lower end of the main frame;
a leg frame extending downward from the rotary frame;
and a stopper coupled to an end of the leg frame and configured to restrict movement of the fasteners located at the first end of the rail,
wherein the stopper restricts movement of the fasteners received in the guide groove located at the first end of the rail by being inserted into or removed from the guide groove located at the first end of the rail by rotation of the rotary frame (Examiner interprets “by being inserted into or removed from the guide groove” as referring to the insertion or removal of the stopper into or out from the guide groove (see Spec. Figs. 7-9; ¶¶ 0072)).
Regarding claim 5, the Byun/Yuzui/Yonezawa combination makes obvious the assembly system of claim 2 as applied above. Byun, Yuzui, and Yonezawa do not disclose:
an alignment unit located above the rail and configured to be moved along the rail to align the fasteners received in the guide groove, wherein the alignment unit comprises:
a sliding bar located above the rail and configured to be movable along the rail;
a pusher located above the second end of the rail and coupled to the sliding bar;
and a groove formed in the pusher and having a shape corresponding to each of the fasteners,
wherein the pusher [is configured to] align[] the fasteners by pushing out the fasteners coming out of the guide groove by movement of the sliding bar (Examiner interprets this limitation as a “configured to” limitation and not a method step; see § 112(b) rejections for interpretation of this limitation).
Regarding claim 6, the Byun/Yuzui/Yonezawa combination makes obvious the assembly system of claim 2 as applied above. Byun, Yuzui, and Yonezawa do not disclose:
a refill unit provided on the work table and configured to refill the fasteners into the storage box, wherein the refill unit comprises:
a support installed on an edge of the work table;
a refill box installed at an upper end of the support and inclined so that a first side thereof adjacent to the storage box is located lower than a second side thereof;
a lifting block configured to be lifted along an inner side surface of the refill box;
a discharge port extending outward and downward from a side of an upper end of the refill box;
and a door installed at an end of the discharge port so as to be openable and closable.
The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious all of the limitations of claims 3-6 in combination as claimed.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 1-7 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because the references pertain to automatic screw fastening and assembly machines similar to the disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/ Date: August 23, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights