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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 19/144,896 filled on 06/25/2025.
Claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1-9, the line numbers on the left column should apparently be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations “the at least one reinforcing bar” to be corrected as “at least one of the plurality of reinforcing bars” or “at least one of the two reinforcing bars among the plurality of reinforcing bars”. Claim 3 is objected for the same reasons as discussed above. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-8 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.
Claim 5 cites the phrase “substantially”, which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification doesn’t provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of the ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 6-8 are rejected by virtue of dependency on the rejected base claim 5.
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: “reinforcing bar binding unit” in claim 1; “control device” in claim 2; “angle calculation unit” in claim 2, “distance calculation unit” in claim 2; “turning angular velocity target value calculation unit” in claim 6; “rotation speed calculation unit” in claims 6-8; “traveling unit” in claim 9; have has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the 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.
A review of the specification, in Para. [0044], cites “The control device 160 is, for example, a processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) corresponding to a calculation unit, and is a control unit that performs control related to execution of programs stored in the storage device 190, and calculation and processing of data. The processor is a calculation unit that executes a program for executing operations (reinforcing bar following and traveling, lateral movement (for example, horizontal movement), reinforcing bar binding work, and the like) of the reinforcing bar binding robot 100 using detection data and the like.” Therefore, the corresponding function of “control device” in claim 2; “angle calculation unit” in claim 2, “distance calculation unit” in claim 2; “turning angular velocity target value calculation unit” in claim 6; “rotation speed calculation unit” in claims 6-8”, are performed by a generic central processing unit and/or a generic processor. 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.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabe et al. (JP7202605 B2, attached English translated NPL document is used for claims mapping) (hereinafter Manabe) in view of Onoda (WO2022153777 A1, this reference is from IDS and the attached English translated NPL document is used for claim mapping).
Claim 1. Manabe teaches a reinforcing bar binding robot (See Para. [0001], discloses “a robot for tying reinforcing bars equipped with a reinforcing bar tying mechanism that ties together the intersections of multiple reinforcing bars laid in a grid pattern on a construction surface with binding wire”), comprising:
a reinforcing bar binding unit configured to bind an intersecting section of at least two reinforcing bars among a plurality of reinforcing bars (See Para. [0002], “multiple reinforcing bars are arranged in a grid pattern before the concrete is poured into the formwork. Then, in order to prevent the reinforcing bars, which are arranged in a grid pattern, from moving, a binding process is required to tie the intersections of the reinforcing bars together with binding wire”, and/or see Para. [0007], “a rebar tying mechanism that ties the intersections of multiple reinforcing bars laid in a grid pattern on a construction surface with binding wire”, and see Para. [0030], “a binding control unit 430 that controls the binding operation of the binding machine drive unit 520”);
a first sensor and a second sensor configured to detect at least one reinforcing bar among the plurality of reinforcing bars and arranged away from each other along a first direction (See Para. [0036], “sensor detects a right-angle reinforcing bar TR. Based on the detection signal from the lower end sensor (not shown), the rebar tying machine BD, which is attached to the tying machine holding mechanism 300, descends to the lowest position”, and see Para. [0043], [0046], “based on the detection signal from the upper end sensor (not shown), the binding machine holding mechanism 300, which holds the rebar binding machine BD”); and
Nevertheless, Manabe fails to teach, a traveling unit configured to travel on the plurality of reinforcing bars;
a control device configured to set a target point on the at least one reinforcing bar and control traveling of the traveling unit based on the target point.
However, Onoda teaches, a traveling unit configured to travel on the plurality of reinforcing bars (See Para. [0163]-[0164], discloses “the transport unit 106 of the rebar tying robot 100 is described in which a side stepper 196 is provided as a lateral movement mechanism that allows the rebar tying robot 100 to move in the left-right direction);
a control device configured to set a target point on the at least one reinforcing bar (See Para. [0077]-[0079], [0097], discloses “the control unit 126 performs a side-step process until it reaches the primary reinforcing bar R1' that is the target of the tying operation among the multiple primary reinforcing bars R1”, and in step S6, “control unit 126 determines whether the position of the primary reinforcement bar R1' in the left-right direction is within the first predetermined position range from the reference position”, which constitutes the claimed invention, i.e., set a target point. Furthermore, see Para. [0079], “The reference position referred to here is the position where the intersection of the primary reinforcing bar R1' and the secondary reinforcing bar R2 should exist when the operating unit 104 lowers the reinforcing bar tying machine 2 to perform the tying work”) and control traveling of the traveling unit based on the target point (See Para. [0081], [0086], “the control unit 126 moves the robot 100 forward or backward along the primary rebar R1, thereby bringing the lateral position and angle of the primary rebar R1' closer to the reference position and reference angle”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Manabe with a control unit to set target point and control movement of the robot as taught by Onoda in order to coincide position and angle of the robot with reference position and reference angle.
Claim 5. The teaching of Manabe as modified by the teaching of Onoda teaches the reinforcing bar binding robot according to claim 1, wherein the traveling unit includes at least two rollers away from each other in a direction substantially perpendicular to an advancing direction of the reinforcing bar binding robot and driven in the advancing direction of the reinforcing bar binding robot (See Manabe, Para. [0036], “the front wheels 610 and rear wheels 620 that make up the wheel unit 600 are placed on the already laid running rebar LR. When the start button is pressed, the bundling machine holding mechanism 300 rises until it reaches the top, based on a detection signal from an upper end sensor. Next, the transport motor 511 rotates in the forward direction, transmitting power to the front wheels 610 and rear wheels 620 via the transmission belt 512, and the entire rebar tying robot 100 begins to move forward at a constant speed”, and/or para, [0040], “causing the front wheels 610 and rear wheels 620 to roll, and the entire rebar tying robot 100 moves slightly to the left in the diagram along the traveling rebar LR”. Additionally, see Onoda, Para. [0026], “The operation of the feed motor 22 is controlled by the control device 80, and the feed motor 22 rotates the main drive roller 24. When the feed motor 22 rotates the drive roller 24, the driven roller 26 rotates in the opposite direction”, and see para. [0162], “the transport unit 106 of the rebar tying robot 100 was described in which a right crawler 192 and a left crawler 194 are provided as a vertical movement mechanism that can move the rebar tying robot 100 in the front-rear direction”).
Claim 9 is a method claim corresponding to the system claim 1 and having substantially the same technical features as claim 1, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 9 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claim 1.
Claim Objections (having allowable subject matter)
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and written to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and claims objections for informalities, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 2, the closest prior arts, Manabe et al. (JP7202605 B2) and Onoda (WO2022153777 A1) fail to suggest, disclose or teach individually or in combination to render obvious limitations of “wherein the control device includes: an angle calculation unit that calculates an angle between a reference direction and an advancing direction of the reinforcing bar binding robot; and a distance calculation unit that calculates a distance from a reference position to the target point, the distance being calculated such that the distance decreases as the angle increases” and in combination with other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 3-4 depends on claim 2. Therefore, claims 3-4 would be allowable by virtue of its dependency if claim 2 is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and written to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and claims objections for informalities, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding Claim 6, the closest prior arts, Manabe et al. (JP7202605 B2) and Onoda (WO2022153777 A1) fail to suggest, disclose or teach individually or in combination to render obvious limitations of “wherein the control device includes: a turning angular velocity target value calculation unit that calculates a turning angular velocity target value, which is a target value of an angular velocity for turning the advancing direction of the reinforcing bar binding robot toward the target point; and a rotation speed calculation unit that calculates a rotation speed of each of the at least two rollers based on the turning angular velocity target value” and in combination with other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 7-8 depends on claim 6. Therefore, claims 7-8 would be allowable by virtue of its dependency if claim 6 is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and written to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and claims objections for informalities, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights