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
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:
a manipulator, the manipulator configured to move the fixture in claim 1.
to a manipulator, the manipulator configured to rotate, move, and position the end effector with respect to the grinding surface in claim 11.
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 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.
Claim 17 is 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 claim 17, claim 17 recites “wherein the workpiece includes a needle”. Claim 11, from which claim 17 depends, recites “a plurality of workpieces”. Please amend claim 17 for antecedent basis purposes, such as “a workpiece of the plurality of workpieces…” or “wherein each of the plurality of workpieces includes/comprises a needle”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memmelaar (US 20210245325) in view of Chau (US 5575708).
Regarding claim 1, Memmelaar discloses a fixture for holding a plurality of workpieces (see [0002]), the fixture comprising:
a plurality of holders coupled to a frame, each holder configured to receive and secure a workpiece, each holder being rotationally coupled to the frame ([0007]: a plurality of holders, each rotationally coupled to a frame and configured to receive and secure a workpiece; see also [0013-0014], Figures 3, 14, 16, and 18);
an actuator operatively coupled to the plurality of holders to drive rotation of the holders with respect to the frame (see actuator disclosed in [0007-0009], [0014], [0052-0053], [0070]);
a coupler configured to couple the fixture to a manipulator, the manipulator configured to move the fixture (see [0051]: attachment end 118 is configured to attached the fixture to a robot; see also [0014-0015], [0071-0072]);
wherein the fixture is configured to rotate a plurality of workpieces by the actuator (see at least [0052-0053]).
However, Memmelaar does not explicitly teach a linear actuator configured to linearly translate the plurality of holders; and wherein the fixture is configured to rotate and simultaneously linearly translate the plurality of workpiece by the linear actuator.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Chau teaches a linear actuator configured to linearly translate the plurality of holders; and rotating the holders, as well as linearly translate the plurality of workpiece by the linear actuator (see Figure 2; wherein the fourth servo motor 86 is operable to selectively drive movement of the auxiliary frame member 82 and thereby reciprocally translate the fixture 14 and the needles N therewith, see Col. 6 line 64-Col. 7, line 42; see also Col. 4, lines 34-41; see also Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the teachings of Chau, i.e. the ability to linearly translate a needle workpiece holder, into the invention of Memmelaar. One would be motivated to do so in order to ensure the position of the workpieces correlates with the desired outcome geometry of the workpieces in an additional manner, thus permitting for corrections and an additional layer of control during operation (Chau: Col. 7, line 43-Col. 8, line 8).
Regarding claim 2, Memmelaar in view of Chau teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches wherein each of the holders are coupled to a respective holder gear, and wherein the actuator includes a shaft having a shaft gear, wherein the shaft gear is operatively coupled to the holder gears to drive rotation of the holders with respect to the frame ([0009]: each of the holders are coupled to a respective holder gear, and the actuator includes a shaft and a shaft gear to drive rotation of the holders; see also [0010]).
Regarding claim 3, Memmelaar in view of Chau teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches wherein the linear actuator includes an electric rod actuator for translating the plurality of holders (Chau: see servomotor 86 provided as a drive means, Col. 7, lines 1-19; see also the circuitry shown in Figure 12, as well as Figure 8; see also Col. 7, line 43-Col. 8, line 8).
Regarding claim 5, Memmelaar in view of Chau teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches an endcap fixed to a rod of the linear actuator, the endcap being configured to connect the linear actuator to the frame (Chau: see support member 84 as well as the drive screw 88 of servomotor 86, Figure 8).
Regarding claim 6, Memmelaar in view of Chau teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches wherein the linear actuator is enclosed by a cover plate and a case (Chau: see Figures 1 and 8 regarding servo motor 86 which has a case and plate adjacent thereto).
Regarding claim 7, Memmelaar in view of Chau teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of workpiece includes a needle (Memmelaar: see [0073]).
Regarding claim 8, Memmelaar in view of Chau teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches wherein the plurality of holders includes a plurality of collets, each of the plurality of collets configured to releasably secure a workpiece ([0008]: the holders may be collets configured to releasably secure the workpieces).
Regarding claim 9, Memmelaar in view of Chau teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches wherein the manipulator is a robot (Memmelaar: [0012-0013]: the manipulator is a robot).
Regarding claim 10, Memmelaar in view of Chau teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches wherein the robot includes a robot arm having a distal end including a rotational actuator, and wherein the fixture is configured to be coupled to the distal end of the robot arm such that the actuator of the fixture is operatively coupled to the rotational actuator of the robot (Memmelaar: see [0012-0013]: the manipulator may be a robot. The robot may include an arm having a distal end including a rotational actuator. The fixture may be configured to be coupled to the distal end of the arm such that the actuator of the fixture is operatively coupled to the rotational actuator of the robot.).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memmelaar (US 20210245325) in view of Abbate (US 5571042).
Regarding claim 1, Memmelaar discloses a fixture for holding a plurality of workpieces (see [0002]), the fixture comprising:
a plurality of holders coupled to a frame, each holder configured to receive and secure a workpiece, each holder being rotationally coupled to the frame ([0007]: a plurality of holders, each rotationally coupled to a frame and configured to receive and secure a workpiece; see also [0013-0014], Figures 3, 14, 16, and 18);
an actuator operatively coupled to the plurality of holders to drive rotation of the holders with respect to the frame (see actuator disclosed in [0007-0009], [0014], [0052-0053], [0070]);
a coupler configured to couple the fixture to a manipulator, the manipulator configured to move the fixture (see [0051]: attachment end 118 is configured to attached the fixture to a robot; see also [0014-0015], [0071-0072]);
wherein the fixture is configured to rotate a plurality of workpieces by the actuator (see at least [0052-0053]).
However, Memmelaar does not explicitly teach a linear actuator configured to linearly translate the plurality of holders; and wherein the fixture is configured to rotate and simultaneously linearly translate the plurality of workpiece by the linear actuator.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Abbate (US 5571042) teaches of a linear actuator configured to linearly translate the plurality of holders; and wherein the fixture is configured to rotate and simultaneously linearly translate the plurality of workpiece by the linear actuator (see hydraulic cylinder(s) 66 which move the needles in the needle claim 46 toward and away the grinding element, see Figure 6; see also Col. 6, line 59-Col. 7, line 41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the teachings of Abbate, i.e. the ability to linearly translate a needle workpiece holder, into the invention of Memmelaar. One would be motivated to do so in order to provide a multi-axis compound movement device which provides an additional movement such that the plunge speed of the needles towards the grinding device is controlled, thus enabling controlled and selectable movement which provides predeterminable grinding and abrading to achieve a specified needle edge geometry (Abbate: see Col. 6, line 59-Col. 7, line 41).
Regarding claim 11, Memmelaar discloses a grinding system comprising:
a grinding surface (see Figure 9, grinding surface 320; see also [0060]);
an end effector including a frame with a plurality of holders and a plurality of workpieces, each holder configured to receive and secure a workpiece, each holder being rotationally coupled to the frame ([0014]: end effector may include a frame with a plurality of holders. Each holder may be configured to receive and secure a workpiece. Each holder may be rotationally coupled to the frame. The actuator may be operatively coupled to the plurality of holders to drive rotation of the holders with respect to the frame);
a first actuator operatively coupled to the plurality of holders to drive rotation of the holders with respect to the frame (see actuator disclosed in [0007-0009], [0014], [0052-0053], [0070]);
a coupler configured to couple the end effector to a manipulator, the manipulator configured to rotate, move, and position the end effector with respect to the grinding surface such that the workpieces contact the grinding surface to grind the workpieces in a first position of the end effector, and do not contact the grinding surface in a second position of the end effector (see [0051]: attachment end 118 is configured to attached the fixture to a robot; see also [0014-0015], [0071-0072]; [0014]: the robot may be configured to rotate the actuator and move and position the end effector with respect to the grinding surface such that the workpieces may contact the grinding surface to grind the workpieces in a first position of the end effector, and may not contact the grinding surface in a second position of the end effector),
wherein a rotation of the first actuator causes each of the plurality of workpieces to simultaneously rotate about each workpiece axis (rotation of the shaft by the robot may cause each of the plurality of workpieces to simultaneously rotate about each workpiece axis via the respective holder gear, the first coupling gear and the second coupling gear).
However, Memmelaar does not explicitly teach a second actuator operatively coupled to the plurality of holders to linearly translate the holders; a linear translation of the second actuator causes each of the plurality of workpieces to simultaneously move along each workpiece axis.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Abbate (US 5571042) teaches a second actuator operatively coupled to the plurality of holders to linearly translate the holders; a linear translation of the second actuator causes each of the plurality of workpieces to simultaneously move along each workpiece axis (see hydraulic cylinder(s) 66 which move the needles in the needle claim 46 toward and away the grinding element, see Figure 6; see also Col. 6, line 59-Col. 7, line 41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the teachings of Abbate, i.e. the ability to linearly translate a needle workpiece holder, into the invention of Memmelaar. One would be motivated to do so in order to provide a multi-axis compound movement device which provides an additional movement such that the plunge speed of the needles towards the grinding device is controlled, thus enabling controlled and selectable movement which provides predeterminable grinding and abrading to achieve a specified needle edge geometry (Abbate: see Col. 6, line 59-Col. 7, line 41).
Regarding claim 2, Memmelaar in view of Abbate teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches wherein each of the holders are coupled to a respective holder gear, and wherein the actuator includes a shaft having a shaft gear, wherein the shaft gear is operatively coupled to the holder gears to drive rotation of the holders with respect to the frame (Memmelaar [0009]: each of the holders are coupled to a respective holder gear, and the actuator includes a shaft and a shaft gear to drive rotation of the holders; see also [0010]).
Regarding claim 3, Memmelaar in view of Abbate teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches wherein the linear actuator includes an electric rod actuator for translating the plurality of holders (see Figures 1, 2, and 6 of Abbate, as well as Col. 6, line 59-Col. 7, line 41).
Regarding claim 5, Memmelaar in view of Abbate teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches an endcap fixed to a rod of the linear actuator, the endcap being configured to connect the linear actuator to the frame (see Abbate Figure 6 regarding the case cap of the cylinder structure 66, as well as the case being connected to the frame element of the needle clamp).
Regarding claim 6, Memmelaar in view of Abbate teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches wherein the linear actuator is enclosed by a cover plate and a case (Abbate: see Figures 1, 2, and 6 regarding the plate and case of the cylinders 66).
Regarding claim 7, Memmelaar in view of Abbate teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of workpiece includes a needle (Memmelaar: see [0073]).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Memmelaar in view of Abbate teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches wherein the plurality of holders includes a plurality of collets, each of the plurality of collets configured to releasably secure a workpiece ([0008]: the holders may be collets configured to releasably secure the workpieces).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Memmelaar in view of Abbate teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches wherein the manipulator is a robot (Memmelaar: [0012-0013]: the manipulator is a robot).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Memmelaar in view of Abbate teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches wherein the robot includes a robot arm having a distal end including a rotational actuator, and wherein the fixture is configured to be coupled to the distal end of the robot arm such that the actuator of the fixture is operatively coupled to the rotational actuator of the robot (Memmelaar: see [0012-0013]: the manipulator may be a robot. The robot may include an arm having a distal end including a rotational actuator. The fixture may be configured to be coupled to the distal end of the arm such that the actuator of the fixture is operatively coupled to the rotational actuator of the robot.).
Regarding claim 12, Memmelaar in view of Abbate teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches wherein each of the holders are coupled to a respective holder gear, and wherein the first actuator includes a shaft having a shaft gear, wherein the shaft gear is operatively coupled to the holder gears to drive rotation of the holders with respect to the frame (Memmelaar [0009]: each of the holders are coupled to a respective holder gear, and the actuator includes a shaft and a shaft gear to drive rotation of the holders; see also [0010]).
Regarding claim 13, Memmelaar in view of Abbate teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches wherein the second actuator includes an electric rod actuator for translating the plurality of holders (see Figures 1, 2, and 6 of Abbate, as well as Col. 6, line 59-Col. 7, line 41).
Regarding claim 15, Memmelaar in view of Abbate teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches an endcap fixed to a rod of the second actuator, the endcap being configured to connect the linear actuator to the frame (see Abbate Figure 6 regarding the case cap of the cylinder structure 66, as well as the case being connected to the frame element of the needle clamp).
Regarding claim 16, Memmelaar in view of Abbate teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches wherein the second actuator is enclosed by a cover plate and a case (Abbate: see Figures 1, 2, and 6 regarding the plate and case of the cylinders 66).
Regarding claim 17, Memmelaar in view of Abbate teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Memmelaar further teaches wherein the workpiece includes a needle (Memmelaar: see [0073]).
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memmelaar (US 20210245325) in view of Abbate (US 5571042), and in further view of Chung (KR 20130112251A).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Memmelaar in view of Abbate teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Memmelaar does not explicitly teach wherein the linear actuator includes a ball spline (claim 4) and wherein the second actuator includes a ball spline (claim 14).
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of devices configured to provide movement, Chung teaches of an actuator which includes a ball spline (see [0001], [0021-0022] regarding spline 19, see also [0027-0029], [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the specific type of actuator comprising a ball spline, as taught by Chung, into the invention of Memmelaar in view of Abbate. Abbate, which teaches the claimed actuator, suggests a wide variety of embodiments, including a hydraulic cylinder, pneumatics, servomotors, and the like (Col. 7, lines 29-32). Incorporating the ball spline would enable a smooth movement guided by the presence of the spline. This modification would be recognized as using a known structure, i.e. a ball spline actuator in the context of movement mechanisms, to improve a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DERY (US 3539314), see Figures 1 and 2.
Tang (CN 109048569A), see Figures 2 and 3.
Ferguson (US 2010/0257711), see Figures 1 and 8.
MacBroom (US 4173100), see Figures 1 and 5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights