Patent Application 18194027 - APPARATUSES AND PROCESSES FOR WORKING ON A PART - Rejection
Patent Application 18194027 - APPARATUSES AND PROCESSES FOR WORKING ON A PART
Title: APPARATUSES AND PROCESSES FOR WORKING ON A PART
Application Information
- Invention Title: APPARATUSES AND PROCESSES FOR WORKING ON A PART
- Application Number: 18194027
- Submission Date: 2025-05-16T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2023-03-31T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2023-03-31T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 414
- National Sub-Class: 728000
- Examiner Employee Number: 89034
- Art Unit: 3652
- Tech Center: 3600
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 1
- 103 Rejections: 0
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text
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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-17, drawn to an apparatus for performing an operation on a part having an end effector moving circumferentially on a first arch, the first arch driven along a track by a means for moving the first arch, classified in B25J5/04.
II. Claims 18-20, drawn to a process for performing an operation on a part having an end effector moving circumferentially on a first arch, the first arch movable along a track, classified in B23P19/04.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process can be performed by an apparatus that does not have a driving means for moving the first arch mounted to move with the arch.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Examination of each group requires search in classes unique to that particular group and therefore poses a serious search burden.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with PATRICK SMITH on 2025/05/09 a provisional election was made WITHOUT traverse to prosecute the invention of GROUP I, Claims 1-17. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 18-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Anticipated by Li (CN 107499530 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses:
An apparatus (Fig. 4) for performing an operation on a part, the apparatus comprising:
a track (15 & 16) extending in direction parallel with a longitudinal axis of the part (Fig. 1);
a first arch (14) mounted to the track (Fig. 4), the first arch configured to move along the track to a longitudinal position [0007 & 0020 & 0024 & 0025];
at least one end effector (13) associated with the first arch (Fig. 4), the at least one end effector configured to move circumferentially around the longitudinal axis of the part [0007 & 0020 & 0024];
a means for moving the first arch, the means for moving mounted to as to move with the first arch [0007 & 0020 & 0024 & 0025].
Regarding Claim 2, Li discloses:
the first arch is formed from two parallel arches (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Li discloses:
the end effector is mounted on a platform that extends between the two parallel arches of the first arch [0007 & 0020 & 0024].
Regarding Claim 4, Li discloses:
the track comprises two rails located on opposite sides of the part (Fig. 1 & Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Li discloses:
the first arch extends between the two rails of the track (Fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-17 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The art of record fails to render obvious the claimed combination of: “An apparatus for performing an operation on a part, the apparatus comprising: a track extending in direction parallel with a longitudinal axis of the part; a first arch mounted to the track, the first arch configured to move along the track to a longitudinal position; at least one end effector associated with the first arch, the at least one end effector configured to move circumferentially around the longitudinal axis of the part; a means for moving the first arch, the means for moving mounted to as to move with the first arch; and a second arch mounted to the track in a fixed longitudinal position, wherein the end effector is configured to move from the first arch to the second arch when the first arch is positioned at the fixed longitudinal position.”, as recited in Claim 6 specifically:
the structural and operative relationship between the part, track, arch, end effector, means for moving the first arch, and second arch.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patent publications US 20220153432 A1, US 20180126514 A1, US 20190002130 A1, US 20240327035 A1, and US 6098260 A have been cited by the examiner as pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure because they teach: arc mounted end effectors for performing work on a part.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN P TIGHE whose telephone number is 571-272-4872. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30 EST
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAUL RODRIGUEZ can be reached on 571-272-7097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN P TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652