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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2025 and 08/17/2026 have been considered and are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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: “frame unit”, “robot detection unit”, and an “emergency avoidance unit” in claim 1, “frame unit” and “emergency avoidance unit” in claim 2, “emergency avoidance unit” and “avoidance operation control unit” in claim 3. Support for the “frame unit” can be found within the specification on Page 4 Lines 9-12. The “robot detection unit” cannot be found other than being connected to another “unit” in Fig. 3 as element 750, therefore the “robot detection unit” will be interpreted as software within the robot controller. The “avoidance operation control unit” cannot be found other than being connected to another “unit” in Fig. 3 as element 770, therefore the “robot detection unit” will be interpreted as software within the robot controller.
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 3 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the jig frame" in line 4 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kllibarda et al (US 2021/0122062; hereinafter Kllibarda) in view of Shin et al. (US 2025/0332720; hereinafter Shin).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kllibarda discloses a vehicle glass mounting device comprising: a frame unit to be coupled to an end of an arm of a robot for installing a glass for a vehicle (Kllibarda, Para. [0056], Fig. 2A and 2B, Kllibarda discloses a frame unit coupled to the end of a robotic arm for moving and installing glass panels for vehicles, see at least Para. [0036]);
a plurality of suction holders provided on the frame unit, the plurality of suction holders configured to vacuum-suction and hold the glass (Kllibarda, Para. [0072], Kllibarda discloses a plurality of suction holders provided to vacuum hold the glass panels with the vacuum suction device configured with a single suction cup or a plurality of suction cups, see at least Para. [0062]).
Kllibarda fails to explicitly disclose a robot detection unit configured to detect whether a malfunction has occurred in the robot and an emergency avoidance unit configured to move the glass, which is suctioned by the suction holders, outside a collision range with a body of the vehicle to prevent a collision when the malfunction occurs in the robot.
However Shin, in the same field of endeavor of robotic control, discloses a robot detection unit configured to detect whether a malfunction has occurred in the robot (Shin, Para. [0116], Shin discloses the robot is configured to detect an excess torque (i.e. malfunction) has been applied to the robot); and
an emergency avoidance unit configured to move the glass, which is suctioned by the suction holders, outside a collision range with a body of the vehicle to prevent a collision when the malfunction occurs in the robot (Shin, Para. [0116], [0138], Shin discloses the robot is configured to stop all movement when a collision has been detected (i.e. torque exceeded threshold amount)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kllibarda so as to include a collision or malfunction detection unit and perform operations to avoid the collision with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to prevent an accident caused by collision or entrapment, Shin Para. [0116].
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Kllibarda and Shin discloses the glass mounting device of claim 1.
Kllibarda further discloses the frame unit includes a mounting frame fixedly coupled to the end of the arm of the robot and a jig frame spaced apart from the mounting frame and configured to be capable of retracting toward the mounting frame (Kllibarda, Para. [0056-0058], Kllibarda discloses the robotic device includes an end effector coupled to a frame unit, which further is configured to include a further engagement surface for retracting the vacuum coupled frame and glass panel);
the plurality of suction holders are installed on the jig frame (Kllibarda, Para. [0072], Kllibarda discloses a plurality of suction holders provided to vacuum hold the glass panels with the vacuum suction device configured with a single suction cup or a plurality of suction cups, see at least Para. [0062]).
Kllibarda fails to explicitly disclose the emergency avoidance unit is configured to move the jig frame a predetermined distance toward the mounting frame when the malfunction occurs in the robot.
Shin discloses the emergency avoidance unit is configured to move the jig frame a predetermined distance toward the mounting frame when the malfunction occurs in the robot (Shin, Para. [0116], [0138], Shin discloses the robot is configured to stop all movement when a collision has been detected (i.e. torque exceeded threshold amount), with the predetermined distance moved being zero)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kllibarda so as to include perform operations to avoid the collision with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to prevent an accident caused by collision or entrapment, Shin Para. [0116].
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Kllibarda and Shin discloses the glass mounting device of claim 1.
Kllibarda fails to explicitly disclose an avoidance operation control unit configured to control an operation of the avoidance driving cylinder to move the jig frame a predetermined distance toward the mounting frame when the robot detection unit detects the malfunction.
Shin discloses an avoidance driving cylinder fixedly installed on the mounting frame and movably supporting the jig frame (Shin, Para. [0099-0101], Shin discloses a driving cylinder is used for position changes by applying an external load on the driving cylinder); and
an avoidance operation control unit configured to control an operation of the avoidance driving cylinder to move the jig frame a predetermined distance toward the mounting frame when the robot detection unit detects the malfunction (Shin, Para. [0116], [0138], Shin discloses the robot is configured to stop all movement when a collision has been detected (i.e. torque exceeded threshold amount), with the predetermined distance moved being zero)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kllibarda so as to include perform operations to avoid the collision through a driving cylinder with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to prevent an accident caused by collision or entrapment, Shin Para. [0116].
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Kllibarda and Shin discloses the glass mounting device of claim 1.
Kllibarda further discloses a glass mounting system comprising: the robot; the glass mounting device of claim 1 (Kllibarda, Para. [0056], Fig. 2A and 2B, Kllibarda discloses a frame unit coupled to the end of a robotic arm for moving and installing glass panels for vehicles, see at least Para. [0036]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho et al. (US 2022/0402338) – discloses an automotive glass setting apparatus for accurately installing glass panels on a plurality of vehicle types.
Amsden et al (US 2013/0136565) – discloses a system for picking and placing glass articles from a first location to a second location.
Kim et al. (US 2025/0187685) – discloses a system for assembly a door onto a vehicle by controlling the door through the vacuum suctioning the glass panel portion of the door during installation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH WALLACE whose telephone number is (469)295-9087. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/Z.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
