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
For sake of clarity, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the following terms is being utilized. For a “thrust reference”: any element capable of receiving a thrust. For a “thrust driver” any element which generates thrust.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “A platform” which should be - - a motion platform - - in order to be consistent with the specification since technically as disclosed there are two platforms a base platform and a motion platform. It is further recommended to change all instances of “the platform” to - - the motion platform - -.
Please change any dependent claims that refer back to this platform.
Claim 9 is objected to because it should be consistent with claim 7 since it recites “the first moveable carriage” which should be - - the first guide carriage - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “substantially triangular” of claims 6 and 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 6, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 12 make use of the wording “substantially triangular” and “substantially at the vertexes”. While the specification makes an attempt to explicitly define the term “substantially” in paragraph 15; this definition is not specific enough. Thus, recitations such as “substantially triangular” become indefinite especially when read in light of the specification and/or drawings which appear to show a motion platform which is clearly not triangular in shape. In fact, as seen in fig.2, the motion platform is a polygonal shape since it has flattened or truncated corners to an otherwise triangular shape. This raises the question of how close to a triangular shape must a prior art reference be to be considered “substantially triangular”, the same question could be asked regarding the clause “substantially at the vertexes”. So since there are 6 sides shown in fig.2, would any six sided shape read on this?
Claim 9 recites “the first movable carriage includes a thrust driver”. It is unclear how the carriage would have both the thrust driver and thrust reference. According to the specification and figures it seems that the only reasonable application is to have a thrust driver on the carriage and a thrust reference on the motion guide (as is done in the first set of claims 1-6). The specification does not appear to provide any explanation as to this. Thus when this claim is considered in combination with claim 7, it doesn’t make sense and may cross into the realm of a 112 a rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bergmann et al. (USP 7909303).
Regarding claim 1, Bergmann et al. discloses a device including:
A platform (9);
a first elongated member (fig.1, 6; clearly seen that there are three elongated members per motion guide analogous to Applicants arrangement; for sake of simplicity in the write up the elongated members will just be referenced as 6 but it is understood that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd could simply be the 3 arms on right side and 3 arms on left side in order; or rather we will consider 6 to be the element associated with the corresponding carriage) pivotably coupled to a first position on the platform at a proximate end (seen in fig.1) and pivotably coupled to a first moveable carriage (5a) at a distal end (seen in fig.1), said first moveable carriage slidably coupled to a first motion guide (2b);
a second elongated member (fig.1, 6) pivotably coupled to a second position on the platform at a proximate end and pivotably coupled to a second moveable carriage (5b) at a distal end, said second moveable carriage slidably coupled to the first motion guide (2b);
a third elongated member (6) pivotably coupled to a third position on the platform at a proximate end and pivotably coupled to a third moveable carriage (5c) at a distal end, said third moveable carriage slidably coupled to the first motion guide;
a fourth elongated member (6) pivotably coupled to a fourth position on the platform at a proximate end and pivotably coupled to a fourth moveable carriage (4a) at a distal end, said fourth moveable carriage slidably coupled to a second motion guide (2a);
a fifth elongated member (6) pivotably coupled to a fifth position on the platform at a proximate end and pivotably coupled to a fifth moveable carriage (4b) at a distal end, said fifth moveable carriage slidably coupled to the second motion guide, and
a sixth elongated member (6) pivotably coupled to a sixth position on the platform at a proximate end and pivotably coupled to a sixth moveable carriage (4c) at a distal end, said sixth moveable carriage slidably coupled to the second motion guide.
Regarding claim 2, Bergmann et al. discloses the device of claim 1 wherein the first and the second motion guides are disposed substantially parallel to each other (seen in fig.1).
Regarding claim 7, Bergmann et al. discloses a positioning device including: a first guide carriage (5a), said first guide carriage including a thrust reference (bearings within the carriage could read on a thrust reference), said first guide carriage disposed to interact with a first linear motion guide (2b), said first linear motion guide restricting motion of the first guide carriage to a single axis (see fig.1); a first multi-axis pivot (7) disposed on said first guide carriage, said first multi-axes pivot coupled to a proximate end of a first support bar (6, bar associated with 5a); a second multi-axis pivot (7 at opposite end) coupled to a distal end of the first support bar, said second multi-axis pivot disposed on a motion platform (9);
a second guide carriage (4a), said second guide carriage disposed to interact with a second linear motion guide (2a), said second linear motion guide restricting motion of the second guide carriage to a single axis (see fig.1); a third multi-axis pivot (7) disposed on said second guide carriage, said third multi-axes pivot coupled to a proximate end of a second support bar (6 associated with carriage 4a), and a fourth multi-axis pivot (7 at opposite end) coupled to a distal end of the second support bar, said second multi-axis pivot disposed on the motion platform.
Regarding claim 8, Bergmann et al. discloses the device of claim 7 wherein the first and the second linear motion guides are disposed substantially parallel to each other (seen in fig.1).
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wiegand et al. (USP 6099217).
Regarding claim 7, Wiegand et al. discloses a positioning device including: a first guide carriage (6a), said first guide carriage including a thrust reference (bearings within the carriage could read on a thrust reference), said first guide carriage disposed to interact with a first linear motion guide (7b and 16), said first linear motion guide restricting motion of the first guide carriage to a single axis (see fig.1); a first multi-axis pivot (5a) disposed on said first guide carriage, said first multi-axes pivot coupled to a proximate end of a first support bar (4a); a second multi-axis pivot (3a) coupled to a distal end of the first support bar, said second multi-axis pivot disposed on a motion platform (1);
a second guide carriage (6b), said second guide carriage disposed to interact with a second linear motion guide (7a and 16), said second linear motion guide restricting motion of the second guide carriage to a single axis (see fig.1); a third multi-axis pivot (5b) disposed on said second guide carriage, said third multi-axes pivot coupled to a proximate end of a second support bar (4b), and a fourth multi-axis pivot (3b) coupled to a distal end of the second support bar, said second multi-axis pivot disposed on the motion platform.
Regarding claim 8, Wiegand et al. discloses the device of claim 7 wherein the first and the second linear motion guides are disposed substantially parallel to each other (seen in fig.1).
Regarding claim 9, Wiegand et al. discloses the device of claim 7 wherein the first moveable carriage includes a thrust driver (15).
Regarding claim 10, Wiegand et al. discloses the device of claim 9 wherein the thrust driver is electrically driven (15 is a coil assembly of a linear motor).
Regarding claim 11, Wiegand et al. discloses the device of claim 7 wherein the first linear motion guide includes a position sensor (17 reads on a position sensor) for sensing the position of the first guide carriage.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergmann et al. (USP 7909303) in view of Wiegand et al. (USP 6099217).
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 9, 10 Bergmann et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first moveable carriage includes a thrust driver, and wherein the thrust driver is electrically driven and the first motion guide includes a magnetic thrust reference.
Weigand et al. teaches within a similar positioning device a carriage which utilizes a electrically driven thrust driver (15 coil of a linear motor). and the first motion guide including a magnetic thrust reference (16 associated magnetic reference).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carriage in Bergmann et al. to include the use of a linear motor in the form of an electrically driven thrust driver and magnetic thrust reference, as taught by Weigand et al., in order to provide the predictable result of facilitating non-manual powered actuation of the carriage as also discussed and implied in Weigand.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Bergmann et al. fails to disclose the first motion guide includes a position sensor for sensing the position of the first moveable carriage.
Weigand et al. teaches the use the first motion guide includes a position sensor (17) for sensing the position of the first moveable carriage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carriage in Bergmann et al. to include the use of a position sensor, as taught by Weigand et al. for the same purpose of sensing the position of the carriage during motion.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergmann et al. (USP 7909303) in view of Codourey et al. (EP 1637277 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Bergmann et al. fails to disclose the platform is substantially triangular and the elongated members are coupled to the platform at substantially at the vertexes. Although in light of the 112 b issues, one could take the interpretation that the platform in Bergmann is triangular in the sense of being polygonal like Applicant shows.
Codourey teaches within a similar positioning device, the concept of utilizing a substantially triangular platform.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the platform in Bergmann et al. to be substantially triangular as taught or suggested in Codourey to provide the predictable result of providing an alternatively shaped platform depending on the desired use case of the positioning device. Naturally one having ordinary skill in the art would have little to no difficulty in modifying the device in Bergman to accommodate the use of this shaped platform.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiegand et al. (USP 6099217) in view of Codourey et al. (EP 1637277 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Weigand et al. fails to disclose the platform is substantially triangular and the elongated members are coupled to the platform at substantially at the vertexes. Although in light of the 112 b issues, one could take the interpretation that the platform in Weigand is triangular in the sense of being polygonal like Applicant shows.
Codourey teaches within a similar positioning device, the concept of utilizing a substantially triangular platform.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the platform in Weigand et al. to be substantially triangular as taught or suggested in Codourey to provide the predictable result of providing an alternatively shaped platform depending on the desired use case of the positioning device. Naturally one having ordinary skill in the art would have little to no difficulty in modifying the device in Weigand to accommodate the use of this shaped platform.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS C DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5461. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/THOMAS C DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617