DETAILED ACTION
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 recited essence claim limitation regarding, “a press-target object”, “a form”, “a set position” and “a command” 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 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.
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: robot commander, press commander and analysis commander in claim 15.
In this instant case, applicant recited robot commander, press commander and analysis commander comprised by medium storing a program as software module utilizing the phrase “configured to” and generic place holder for “program…function as…commander” without precedent structure modifier and thus are deemed as means plus 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.
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.
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.
It is noted that dependent claims based upon the rejected claim s are also rejected based upon dependency. In this instant case, claims 2 – 13.
Regarding claims 1, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “the workpiece in a form…a pressing – target object is sandwiched” does not distinctly and particularly set forth for what or which is exactly is sandwich as whether the workpiece or the pressing – target object is sandwiched that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regard the metes and bounds of applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claims 14, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “the workpiece in a form…a pressing – target object is sandwiched” does not distinctly and particularly set forth for what or which is exactly is sandwich as whether the workpiece or the pressing – target object is sandwiched that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regard the metes and bounds of applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “the workpiece in a form…a pressing – target object is sandwiched” does not distinctly and particularly set forth for what or which is exactly is sandwich as whether the workpiece or the pressing – target object is sandwiched that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regard the metes and bounds of applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recited claim limitation regarding “robot commander, press commander and analysis commander” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; however, upon further review, skilled in the art merely located the recited claim module within applicant’s written description in Para 0123 and 0124 described without the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “the workpiece in a form…a pressing – target object is sandwiched” does not distinctly and particularly set forth for what or which is exactly is sandwich as whether the workpiece or the pressing – target object is sandwiched that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regard the metes and bounds of applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “commander configured to output to a robot system a command to assemble” does not distinctly and particularly set forth for what or which is exactly is the output toward as whether directs to a robot system or output to a command where it is also uncertain as whether the robot system itself as output that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regard the metes and bounds of applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “commander configured to output to an analysis apparatus a command ” does not distinctly and particularly set forth for what or which is exactly is the output toward as whether directs to a apparatus system or output to a command where it is also uncertain as whether the analysis system itself as output that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regard the metes and bounds of applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “a command to…a command to…a command to” does not provide sufficient antecedent basis that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 16, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “the workpiece in a form…a pressing – target object is sandwiched” does not distinctly and particularly set forth for what or which is exactly is sandwich as whether the workpiece or the pressing – target object is sandwiched that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regard the metes and bounds of applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani et al (US Pat No. 5,586,387) in view of Nagasaka et al (US Pat Pub No.2013/0306207).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 16, Nakatani et al shows a robot pressing automation system (See at least Col 1, lines 25 – 40; Col 4, lines 3 – 25 for an automated part assembly machine with robots mounted on work table 20) comprising:
a robot with an end effector configured to hold a workpiece (See at least Col 1, lines 12 – 20 for end effector 32; also Col 3, lines 7 – 20 for robot 30 with end effector 32);
an operation device connected to the end effector (See at least Col 4, lines 12 – 20 for robot arm 31 extending end effector 32) and configured to operate the end effector (See at least Col 1, lines 55 for robot reaching range of the parts supply to pick up parts using end effector);
a control device configured to control an operation of the operation device (See at least Col 8, liens 5 - 30 for robot control center 70 controls detachment of operator hand 40 with end effector 32 self - locking chuck 33 detachably gripping an operator hand on Col 4, lines 12 - 20),
the control device controls a step of assembling the workpiece in a form (See at least Col 1, lines 60 – 65 for assembly parts; also on Col 1, lines 65 – Col 2, lines 8 for jig includes set of different holders retaining a part at different altitude with place, place parts in cooperation with each to alter attitude of the parts during the handling)
in which a pressing-target object is sandwiched by arranging the pressing-target object on a first plate jig arranged at a set position (See at least Col 2, lines 8 – 33, Col 5, lines 49 - 60 for jig mounted on a base plate 56 fixed on the workbench 20, and the parts is transferred to the facilities in the jig; col 6, lines 46 – 51 for the parts to be sandwiched by press 81 and jig 50),
placing a press on the first plate jig through operating the end effector (See at least Col 2, lines 8 – 33, Col 5, lines 49 – 60 for jig transferred by the robot; Col 6, lines 45 – 60 for press 81 placed on jig 50);
a step of conveying the workpiece to a press position (See at least Col 2, lines 8 – 33, Col 5, lines 49 – 60 for jig transferred by the robot)
at which the pressing-target object is pressed by holding the pressing-target object (See at least Col 6, lines 45 – 65 for parts 1 to be pressed by press 81), the first plate jig (See at least Col 6, lines 45 – 65 for parts 1 to be pressed by press 81 into another part hold on the jig 50), and the press altogether as the workpiece with the end effector(See at least Col 4, lines 23 – 26 for part picked up assembled with another part forming workpiece);
however, Nakatani et al does not further specify the press of Nakatani as a second plate jig.
Nagasaka et al shows the press as a second plate jig for pressing the target object sandwiched by the first plate jig and second plate jig (See at least Para 0007 for jig comprise a first fix member having a pair of columnar members that are disposed parallel to the direction of the jig where the pair of columnar members are first jig plate and second jig plate also shown on figure 1 where the laminated/polymer material as pressing target object plated within the housing space S of the jig 1 on at least Para 0107,0110, corresponding to figure 1 and 2, S/12).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide second plate jig as the press at the time of filing as taught by Nagasaka, for the robot pressing automated system of Nakatani et al, since it would have been obvious for one of ordinary to provide additional jig configuration, for the jig detachable includes different set of holders of Nakatani as taught and desired by Nakatani, in order to provide known technique/ jig device of Nagasaka, for the automated press processing system of Nakatani to yield predictable result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian JEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3274. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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.
/Ian Jen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights