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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/13/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
All limitations previously interpreted under 112(f) have been amended to directly recite their respective corresponding structures.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “s” in line 1 of page 4 because the strikethrough does not appear to have continued therethrough in “members”.
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 3-6 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 3 recites “a material rack located at one side of the welding device” in line 5. Similar to what was discussed for claim 1 in the previous Office Action, it is unclear as written if the welding device is a positively recited part of the claimed invention. It is again presumed that the welding device is not a positively recited part of claim 3, and the limitation in question will be considered as reciting intended use.
Claims 4-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 3.
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.
Claims 1 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN217412869, cited in IDS, with reference to translation) in view of Rao (CN215281414, cited in IDS, with reference to translation).
Claim 1: Jiang discloses a pressing plate replacing apparatus (paragraph 1) configured to replace a pressing plate (3) installed on a welding device (11), comprising: a clamping jaw (102, having jaws 1022; alternatively 2, having jaws 202) configured to grip a pressing plate installed on a welding device (paragraphs 58 and 54, respectively, where the pressing plates are configured for attachment to the welding device, noting the welding device is not positively recited), wherein the clamping jaw is capable of reciprocating in a first direction (either along 1011 or 7, respectively); and a material rack (comprising 8 and 9) arranged to be located at one side of the welding device in the first direction (e.g. to the left in Fig. 1, or also generally to the front and/or back of a given welding device 11 as shown), wherein the material rack comprises a feed rack (8) configured to store unused pressing plates and a return rack (9) configured to recycle used pressing plates (paragraph 59); wherein the feed rack is formed into a first closed structure (a walled-in open-top enclosure, noting “closed” as used by Applicant may include openings) arranged for receiving a stack of unused pressing plates stacked along said second direction (the enclosures appear to be capable of this function); the first closed structure having a top opening (Fig. 3) arranged for retrieving an unused pressing plate from the stack of unused pressing plates: and wherein the return rack is formed into a second closed structure (similar to the feed rack) arranged for receiving a stack of used pressing plates stacked along said second direction: the second closed structure having a top opening (Fig. 3) arranged for adding a used pressing plate to the stack of used pressing plates.
Jiang does not disclose a servo motor having an axis along a second direction, wherein the servo motor is connected to the material rack and configured to drive the material rack to rotate; wherein the material rack, driven by the servo motor, is capable of being switched between a first position and a second position, when the material rack is in the first position, the feed rack faces the clamping jaw, and when the material rack is in the second position, the return rack faces the clamping jaw. However, Rao teaches a material rack operating in conjunction with a clamping jaw and comprising a feed rack (2/201/202) configured to store unprocessed parts and a return rack configured to received processed parts (paragraph 76), wherein the material rack, driven to rotate, is capable of being switched between a first position and a second position, when the material rack is in the first position, the feed rack (one of 201 and 202) faces the clamping jaw, and when the material rack is in the second position, the return rack (the other of 201 and 202) faces the clamping jaw (Id.). 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 the material rack to rotate as taught by Rao since it can reduce the space it occupies and improve the automation level and production efficiency (Id.). Furthermore, while a servo motor (e.g. a servo motor) per se is not explicitly described, some rotational means would be necessary, and it is noted that Rao uses servo motors elsewhere in the apparatus for various motion purposes (e.g. paragraphs 118, 123, 126). It would have been obvious to have also implemented a servo motor to control the rotation of the material rack since servo motors have good control precision and high-speed performance (paragraph 123).
Claim 10: Referring to Jiao, the pressing plate replacing apparatus further comprises a guide rail (1011 or 7), the guide rail extends in the first direction (consistent with what is discussed for claim 1), and the clamping jaw (102 or 2, respectively) is arranged on the guide rail in a manner of being capable of moving along the guide rail under the drive of a first motor (paragraphs 55-57, 66; noting that electric cylinders are understood as utilizing motors).
Claim 11: The clamping jaw comprises two clamp plates (1022 or 202), the two clamp plates are capable of approaching or moving away from each other oppositely under the drive of a first clamping motor (1021 - paragraph 58; 201 - paragraph 54; noting that electric cylinders as in paragraph 66 are understood as utilizing motors), an operation of clamping the pressing plate is performed by the approaching action, and an operation of releasing the pressing plate is performed by the moving away action (Id.). The clamping jaws 202, for example, can also be considered to be arranged oppositely in the second direction (left-right in Fig. 2) perpendicular to the first direction (along 7) for moving away from each other oppositely in the second direction. Alternatively, the clamp plates are not arranged oppositely in the second direction (e.g. vertically as intended) perpendicular to the first direction for moving away from each other oppositely in the second direction. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have oriented the clamp plates along a third direction since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for this particular orientation, and it appears to Jiang could work equally well in either orientation.
Claim 12: Each of the clamp plates (e.g. 1022) comprises a clamp surface (visible in Fig. 6), and the two clamp surfaces are respectively configured to contact with two surfaces of the pressing plate that are opposite to each other in the second direction (paragraph 58); and a first position-limiting protrusion is formed on at least one clamp surface of the two clamp surfaces (e.g. a ridge as visible in Fig. 6), and the first position-limiting protrusion is configured to cooperate with the pressing plate during clamping of the pressing plate (it would “cooperate” with a pressing plate to some degree by virtue of the clamping face contacting a pressing plate). Applicant also admits (see uncontested Official Notice from previous Office Action and MPEP 2144.03 C.) that clamping jaw faces are often provided with some form of gripping feature such as teeth, roughness, etc. to enhance the grip, and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided either clamp plate 1022 or 202 with a first position-limiting portion for this purpose.
Claim 13: The clamping jaw of Jiang is not necessarily capable of reciprocating between a retreat position and an operation position in a third direction under the drive of a second motor; and the third direction is perpendicular to both the first direction and the second direction. In other words, the clamping jaw(s) of Jiang effectively lacks a third degree of a freedom along a third axis as claimed. However, Rao further teaches that the clamping jaw can effectively move about three degrees of freedom (paragraph 114). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the clamping jaw(s) of Jiang with an additional degree of freedom in order to have improved the versatility and motion capabilities of the system.
Claim 14: The pressing plate replacing apparatus according to claim 1, configured to replace the pressing plate, is taught by Jiang and Rao as discussed above. Jiang further discloses a welding device, comprising: a rack (frame 12); a welding apparatus (11) arranged on the rack, wherein the welding apparatus comprises a laser head (paragraph 46) and a pressing plate (3); at least one clamp (4 and 5 - Figs. 7-8) arranged on the rack, wherein the clamp is configured to clamp and fix the pressing plate (paragraphs 44-45).
Claim 15: The apparatus is generally configured to control the clamping jaw of the pressing plate replacing apparatus to replace the pressing plate when a number of uses of the pressing plate reaches a preset number of times, or to replace the pressing plate when the welding device fails in welding consecutively for a preset number of times (Jiang - paragraph 68). Jiang and Rao do not explicitly teach a controller, though the replacement operation of the Jiang apparatus is described as being “automatic” (e.g. paragraphs 3, 70). The examiner submits that a “controller” would broadly read on whatever mechanism is inherently used to control said automatic function.
Claim 16: Referring to Jiang, the clamp (4/5) comprises two clamping members (502) arranged oppositely in a third direction (e.g. left-right in Fig. 8), the two clamping members are capable of approaching or moving away from each other oppositely in the third direction under the drive of a second clamping motor (501 - paragraph 48), an operation of clamping the pressing plate is performed by the approaching action, and an operation of releasing the pressing plate is performed by the moving away action (implied from the above, the approaching action shown in Fig. 8); and the third direction is perpendicular to the first direction (if the first direction is along 7, for example).
Claim 17: Each of the clamping members (502) comprises a clamping surface (generally the inward surface facing plate 3), and the two clamping surfaces are respectively configured to contact with two surfaces of the pressing plate that are opposite to each other in the third direction (Fig. 8). A second position-limiting protrusion is not necessarily formed on each of the two clamping surfaces, the second position-limiting protrusion configured to cooperate with the pressing plate during clamping of the pressing plate. However, Applicant admits (see uncontested Official Notice from previous Office Action and MPEP 2144.03 C.) that clamping jaw faces are often provided with some form of gripping feature such as teeth, roughness, etc. to enhance the grip, and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the clamping members 502 with a first position-limiting protrusion for this purpose.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang and Rao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 217534092, cited in IDS, with reference to translation).
Claim 7: Jiang and Rao teach an apparatus substantially as claimed except for wherein the feed rack and the return rack are each provided with an avoidance opening extending in the second direction; and the pressing plate replacing apparatus further comprises a lifting mechanism, the lifting mechanism is located below the material rack, the avoidance opening is configured to allow a lifting head of the lifting mechanism to pass through, and the lifting head is configured to support the pressing plate so as to lift any stacked pressing plate of the feed rack or to receive any pressing plate recycled to the return rack. However, Zhang et al. teaches a material rack for sheet-like materials provided with an avoidance opening (lifting channel in base 41 - paragraph 27) extending in the third direction (e.g. vertically as a hole through the base); and a lifting mechanism (5), the lifting mechanism is located below the material rack (Fig. 1), the avoidance opening is configured to allow a lifting head (55) of the lifting mechanism to pass through (paragraphs 27, 33-34), and the lifting head is configured to support the workpiece so as to lift the workpiece of the rack (paragraph 35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the racks with an avoidance opening and a lifting mechanism as taught by Zhang et al. in order to have increased the holding capacity of the racks, for example, and/or to have achieved rapid material loading and improved production efficiency (paragraph 36).
Claim 8: Referring to Zhang, the lifting head has a supporting surface (a plate 41), the supporting surface is configured to contact with a pressing plate (it would contact the underside thereof - paragraph 35) so as to support the pressing plate.
Claim 9: Referring to Zhang, a sensor (“detection component”) is arranged above the material rack (near the top of 42 - paragraph 28), and the sensor is configured to detect the quantities of the material in the feed rack and the return rack (Id.); and when the sensor detects that there is no material in the feed rack or when the sensor detects that the return rack is full of the pressing plates, a prompt signal is sent (paragraph 35).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 3 was previously indicated as allowable and has been amended to be in independent form and to substantially incorporate the subject matter of claims 1 and 2. Claims 4-6 depend from claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments essentially rely on amendments to overcome the prior art of record, and generally asserts that the prior art lacks the claimed features without further detailing how or why. Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the newly added limitations of claim 1 have little in common with and are far broader than those of allowed claim 3. The amended claims (except for claims 3-6, discussed above) have been addressed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights