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:
“height detection sensor moving part” in claim 1. The specification provides corresponding structure as “The height detection sensor moving part 40 is a so-called linear motion mechanism that includes a base table (not illustrated) that can move on and along the rail part 19a of the angle detection sensor moving part 19, as illustrated in Figures 4 and 10” ([0046]).
“control unit” in claim 1. The specification does not provide corresponding structure.
“movement control unit” in claim 1. The specification does not provide corresponding structure.
“height determination processing unit” in claim 1. The specification does not provide corresponding structure.
“workpiece holding means” in claim 1. The specification provides corresponding structure as a “workpiece supply robot” ([0018]).
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.
Claims 1-5 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 limitation “control unit”, “control device”, “movement control unit”, and “height determination processing unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. These limitations are not given corresponding structure in the written specification and are only shown in functional terms in the drawings. 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.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (JPH08132368), hereinafter Takahashi, in view of Sato et al. (JP2018001255), hereinafter Sato.
Re Claim 1, Takahashi discloses a press brake (press brake 20), comprising:
an upper tool (upper die 21) and a lower tool (lower die 22) that are movable relative to each other (“the press brake 20 is of a type in which the lower die 22 moves up and down relative to the fixed upper die 21,” [0012]);
a height detection sensor (N1 and N2, “Such a detector can be configured, for example, as shown in Figure 2, as a photoelectric detector consisting of light-emitting sides S1, N1 and light receiving sides S2, N2 provided on the central and side portions of the front surface of the press brake 20” [0013]), the workpiece being inserted between the upper tool and the lower tool (Fig. 1) configured to be able to detect a position of a workpiece in a height direction (“detector is provided near the insertion opening of the sheet material processing machine to detect whether or not the sheet material has deviated upward and/or downward from the range through which it should pass” [0005]);
a control unit (control box 15), wherein the control unit includes:
a height determination processing unit (computer unit 30) configured to determine whether or not the position of the workpiece in the height direction detected by the height detection sensor falls within an allowable range (“During this forward stroke, the plate material 13 passes through the lower limit range R2 formed by sensors N1/N2 and the upper limit range formed by sensors S1/S2. The computer unit 30 then determines whether the sheet metal is within a predetermined range” [0018]).
Takahashi does not disclose that the press brake comprises a height detection sensor moving part configured to move the height detection sensor in a longitudinal direction of the upper tool and the lower tool; and the control unit comprises a movement control unit configured to move the height detection sensor to a vicinity of a position of workpiece holding means configured to hold the workpiece.
Sato discloses that the press brake comprises a height detection sensor moving part (rail 23) configured to move the height detection sensor in a longitudinal direction of the upper tool and the lower tool (“The pair of laser type angle sensors 30 are movable in the X axis direction along a rail 23 provided in the lower table 20 and extending in the X axis direction.” [0022]); and the control unit comprises a movement control unit configured to move the height detection sensor to a vicinity of a position of workpiece holding means configured to hold the workpiece (“In FIG. 12, in step S1, the press brake control device 50 moves the laser type angle sensor 30 in the X axis direction in correspondence with the position of the die mold Td” [0067]).
Takahashi discloses a device with multiple sets of sensors (one set comprising N1 and N2 and the other set comprising S1 and S2) that detects the position of the workpiece in the height direction at different locations along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1) in order to detect rotational deviation (“Furthermore, if photoelectric sensors that allow light to pass through vertically are installed on the left and right sides of the front of the press brake, it is possible to detect a deviation in the rotation of the sheet material around its vertical axis if only one of the sensors detects the leading edge of the sheet material first.” [0019]). Sato also teaches against using one sensor from one location as such a sensor would have to have a wide field of view leading to inaccurate measurements (“In order to share the field of view imaged by the imaging unit irrespective of the size of the die, the field of view has to be widened. However, if the field of view is widened, there is a problem that the angle can not be detected when bending a workpiece by using a small die and the angle can not be detected with high accuracy” [0006]). However, Sato teaches performing this function with a sensor and rail so the sensor can move along the rail to collect data from more than one location along the longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the multiple sensors of Takahashi for one sensor movable by rail and controlled by the control unit as taught by Sato. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this substitution as predictable.
Re Claim 2, Takahashi, in view of Sato, discloses the press brake according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses a lower table to which the lower tool is attached (see Fig. 2 of Takahashi, illustrated below), wherein the height detection sensor is movably attached to a facing surface of the lower table facing the workpiece holding means (In the incorporation of Sato into Takahashi as performed in the rejection to claim 1, the rail of Sato was attached to facing surface of Takahashi. As the sensor is attached to the rail, the sensor is movably attached to the facing surface).
PNG
media_image1.png
678
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Takahashi, illustrated
Re Claim 3, Takahashi, in view of Sato, discloses the press brake according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the control unit is configured to control the height detection sensor moving part (Sato, “In FIG. 12, in step S1, the press brake control device 50 moves the laser type angle sensor 30 in the X axis direction in correspondence with the position of the die mold Td” [0067]) so that the workpiece holding means falls out of a detection range of the height detection sensor.
Re Claim 4, Takahashi, in view of Sato, discloses the press brake according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose an angle detection sensor configured to be able to detect a bending angle of the workpiece during bending of the workpiece,
wherein the angle detection sensor is configured to be movable in the longitudinal direction of the upper tool and the lower tool, and
wherein each of the height detection sensor and the angle detection sensor is configured to be independently movable in the longitudinal direction of the upper tool and the lower tool.
Sato further teaches an angle detection sensor (laser type angle sensor 30) configured to be able to detect a bending angle of the workpiece during bending of the workpiece (“angle detection device including an angle sensor to detect whether the work is bent to a target angle.” [0003]), wherein the angle detection sensor is configured to be movable in the longitudinal direction of the upper tool and the lower tool (“The pair of laser type angle sensors 30 are movable in the X axis direction along a rail 23” [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi in view of Sato by adding the angle sensor as further taught by Sato to the rail previously incorporated from Sato in order to detect the angle of the workpiece. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success. Examiner notes that after modification each of the height detection sensor and the angle detection sensor will be configured to be independently movable in the longitudinal direction of the upper tool and the lower tool.
Re Claim 5, Takahashi discloses a bending system, comprising:
a press brake (press brake 20) configured to carry out bending of a plate-shaped workpiece having a predetermined length (Fig. 2, “the press brake 20 is of a type in which the lower die 22 moves up and down relative to the fixed upper die 21, and bending is performed by inserting the end of the sheet material 13 between the upper and lower dies and then raising the lower die 22 hydraulically” [0002]);
a workpiece supply robot (robot 1) configured to supply the workpiece to the press brake (“an industrial robot (hereinafter referred to as "robot") handles and supplies sheet metal such as thin metal sheets to sheet metal processing machines such as press brakes” [0001]);
a height detection sensor (N1 and N2, “Such a detector can be configured, for example, as shown in Figure 2, as a photoelectric detector consisting of light-emitting sides S1, N1 and light receiving sides S2, N2 provided on the central and side portions of the front surface of the press brake 20” [0013]);
and
a control device (control box 15 comprising computer unit 30) configured to control the press brake (“The computer unit 30 then determines whether the sheet metal is within a predetermined range (step 140). If it is within the range, it sends a signal to the press brake 20 to start processing, and processing is performed (step 150, Figure 3c)” [0018]), the workpiece supply robot, and the height detection sensor (“robot 1 has a control box 15 with a built-in computer. As shown in Figure 1, the control box receives signals from the photoelectric detectors (hereinafter referred to as sensors) S1/N1 and S2/N2 and controls the motors 3, 5, 7, and 9 according to the program.” [0014]).
wherein the press brake includes an upper tool (die 21) and a lower tool (die 22) that are movable relative to each other (“the press brake 20 is of a type in which the lower die 22 moves up and down relative to the fixed upper die 21,” [0012]),
wherein the workpiece supply robot is configured to insert the workpiece between the upper tool and the lower tool (“When the robot inserts the sheet metal into the mold of the processing machine, the robot is taught motion data such as the height of the hand and the amount of forward stroke so that the sheet metal fits between the upper and lower molds.” [0003]),
wherein the height detection sensor is configured to be able to detect a position of the workpiece in a height direction, the workpiece being inserted between the upper tool and the lower tool (“detector is provided near the insertion opening of the sheet material processing machine to detect whether or not the sheet material has deviated upward and/or downward from the range through which it should pass” [0005]), and
wherein the control device includes:
a height determination processing unit (computer unit 30) configured to determine whether or not the position of the workpiece in the height direction detected by the height detection sensor falls within an allowable range (“During this forward stroke, the plate material 13 passes through the lower limit range R2 formed by sensors N1/N2 and the upper limit range formed by sensors S1/S2. The computer unit 30 then determines whether the sheet metal is within a predetermined range” [0018]).
Takahashi does not disclose a height detection sensor moving part; wherein the height detection sensor moving part is configured to move the height detection sensor in a longitudinal direction of the upper tool and the lower tool, wherein the control device includes a movement control unit configured to move the height detection sensor to a vicinity of a position of workpiece holding means configured to hold the workpiece and is configured to control the .
Sato discloses that the press brake comprises a height detection sensor moving part (rail 23); wherein the height detection sensor moving part is configured to move the height detection sensor in a longitudinal direction of the upper tool and the lower tool (“The pair of laser type angle sensors 30 are movable in the X axis direction along a rail 23 provided in the lower table 20 and extending in the X axis direction.” [0022]); and the control device comprises a movement control unit configured to move the height detection sensor to a vicinity of a position of workpiece holding means configured to hold the workpiece (“In FIG. 12, in step S1, the press brake control device 50 moves the laser type angle sensor 30 in the X axis direction in correspondence with the position of the die mold Td” [0067]) and a control device is configured to control the height detection sensor moving part (“The laser type angle sensor 30 is configured to move along the rail 23, for example, by a motor” [0035]).
Takahashi discloses a device with multiple sets of sensors (one set comprising N1 and N2 and the other set comprising S1 and S2) that detects the position of the workpiece in the height direction at different locations along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1) in order to detect rotational deviation (“Furthermore, if photoelectric sensors that allow light to pass through vertically are installed on the left and right sides of the front of the press brake, it is possible to detect a deviation in the rotation of the sheet material around its vertical axis if only one of the sensors detects the leading edge of the sheet material first.” [0019]). Sato also teaches against using one sensor from one location as such a sensor would have to have a wide field of view leading to inaccurate measurements (“In order to share the field of view imaged by the imaging unit irrespective of the size of the die, the field of view has to be widened. However, if the field of view is widened, there is a problem that the angle can not be detected when bending a workpiece by using a small die and the angle can not be detected with high accuracy” [0006]). However, Sato teaches performing this function with a sensor and rail so the sensor can move along the rail to collect data from more than one location along the longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the multiple sensors of Takahashi for one sensor movable by rail and controlled by the control unit as taught by Sato. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this substitution as predictable.
Re Claim 6, Takahasi discloses a sensor movement control method, comprising:
the height detection sensor being configured to be able to detect a position of a workpiece in a height direction (“detector is provided near the insertion opening of the sheet material processing machine to detect whether or not the sheet material has deviated upward and/or downward from the range through which it should pass” [0005]), the workpiece holding means (robot 1) being configured to hold the workpiece inserted between an upper tool and a lower tool that are movable relative to each other (“an industrial robot (hereinafter referred to as "robot") handles and supplies sheet metal such as thin metal sheets to sheet metal processing machines such as press brakes” [0001]);
detecting the position of the workpiece in the height direction (“In Figure 1, the symbols R1 and R2 represent the determination range of the detection amount used to determine whether the entry path for the plate material 13 is suitable, with R1 setting the upper limit and R2 setting the lower limit. The areas indicated by the dashed lines are those with unfavorable conditions. Such a detector can be configured, for example, as shown in Figure 2, as a photoelectric detector consisting of light-emitting sides S1, N1 and light receiving sides S2, N2 provided on the central and side portions of the front surface of the press brake 20.” [0012]); and
determining whether or not the position of the workpiece in the height direction detected by the height detection sensor falls within an allowable range (“During this forward stroke, the plate material 13 passes through the lower limit range R2 formed by sensors N1/N2 and the upper limit range formed by sensors S1/S2. The computer unit 30 then determines whether the sheet metal is within a predetermined range” [0018]).
Takahashi does not disclose moving a height detection sensor to a vicinity of a position of workpiece holding means
Sato discloses moving a height detection sensor to a vicinity of a position of workpiece holding means (“In FIG. 12, in step S1, the press brake control device 50 moves the laser type angle sensor 30 in the X axis direction in correspondence with the position of the die mold Td” [0067]).
Takahashi discloses a device with multiple sets of sensors (one set comprising N1 and N2 and the other set comprising S1 and S2) that detects the position of the workpiece in the height direction at different locations along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1) in order to detect rotational deviation (“Furthermore, if photoelectric sensors that allow light to pass through vertically are installed on the left and right sides of the front of the press brake, it is possible to detect a deviation in the rotation of the sheet material around its vertical axis if only one of the sensors detects the leading edge of the sheet material first.” [0019]). Sato also teaches against using one sensor from one location as such a sensor would have to have a wide field of view leading to inaccurate measurements (“In order to share the field of view imaged by the imaging unit irrespective of the size of the die, the field of view has to be widened. However, if the field of view is widened, there is a problem that the angle can not be detected when bending a workpiece by using a small die and the angle can not be detected with high accuracy” [0006]). However, Sato teaches performing this function with a sensor and rail so the sensor can move along the rail to collect data from more than one location along the longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the multiple sensors of Takahashi for one sensor movable by rail and controlled by the control unit as taught by Sato. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this substitution as predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 5712701477. 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.
/W.D.D./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
