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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Invention A in the reply filed on 24 March 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 12-38 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Regarding the Information Disclosure Statement filed 29 December 2022, the foreign patent document DE 19918589 does not include an English abstract, contrary to the description of the reference in the IDS. However, the examiner considers the discussion of the DE 19918589 reference in the Indian Patent Office first Examination Report (listed as Cite No 1 in the Non-Patent Literature Documents of the IDS) as a concise statement of relevancy. As such, the examiner has considered the reference. The examiner has annotated the IDS to indicate that no English abstract is attached and that the examiner considers the Indian Patent Office report’s concise explanation of relevancy.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “14” has been used to designate two different tables – e.g., the table “14” in Fig. 3 is structurally distinct from the table “14” in Fig. 13, as one non-exhaustive example.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. As best as can be determined, the projection and run-on edge as recited in claim 6 are not illustrated in the present drawings because these features are not indicated with any reference characters in the present drawings. Therefore, the projection and run-on edge as recited in claim 6 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. If the features are already shown, the features should be indicated with reference characters that are included in the specification to make clear that the features are illustrated. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 2 recites, “in or on which”. This recitation should be rephrased to replace “which” with – the material web – to more clearly communicate that “which” refers to the material web rather than the cutting device. The examiner suggests reciting – wherein magnetically couplable elements are embedded or arranged at defined spacings behind one another in the material web – or similar.
Claim 1 at line 4 recites, “comprising a blade table”. This recitation should read --, the cutting device comprising a blade table –.
Claim 1 at lines 5-6 recites, “which can”. This recitation should be amended to explicitly state that the cutting blade is movable, rather than using the word “which”.
Claim 1 at line 11 recites, “and a magnetic element”. This recitation should read – and the gripping device comprises a magnetic element – to more clearly communicate that the magnetic element is part of, rather than in addition to, the gripping device.
Claim 1 at line 18 recites, “and a magnetic element”. This recitation should be corrected in the same manner discussed in regards to claim 11 above.
Claim 7 includes multiple recitations of “it”. Each such recitation should be amended to recite – the magnetic element –.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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:
“a hold-down section” as recited in claim 1 (first, “section” is a generic placeholder for “means” because a section is not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for any particular type of structure; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “fixes the material web during the cutting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “hold-down” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the section);
“a further hold-down element” as recited in claim 1 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “hold-down” – i.e., in order for an element to be a hold-down element, the element must perform a hold-down function; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “hold-down” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the element); and
“a movement device” as recited in claim 9 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language of moving the hold-down element; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “movement” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device).
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 1-11 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 1 at lines 1-2 recites, “from a web material, in particular a rubberized web material”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the web material is required to be, or may optionally be, a rubberized web material. See MPEP 2173.05(d). That is, it is unclear whether “in particular” is a requirement or an optional feature. As such, claim 1 is indefinite. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets “in particular” as describing an optional feature.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the web longitudinal direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether the Applicant intends to implicitly limit the geometry of web material receivable by the claimed cutting device to having only a single longitudinal direction, such that there is implicitly an antecedent basis for this limitation. However, this interpretation would preclude the web from having certain geometries, such as being square shaped or having an L-shaped path, since in each these instances there is no single implicit web longitudinal direction. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets this limitation as reading “a web longitudinal direction”.
Claim 1 at line 4 recites, “and on which the material web to be cut can be positioned”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear which structure is referred to by “on which”. Does this recitation require that the material web can be positioned on the cutting device, on the blade table, or on the device frame? For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the claim as being satisfied by any of these interpretations.
Claim 1 at lines 22-23 recites, “the configuration of a clearance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the configuration” in this recitation. It is unclear what particular configuration of a clearance is being referred to by this recitation. Typically, a clearance is a distance by which one object clears one another. Thus, “the configuration” of a clearance could be any vacant space. Alternatively, “the configuration” of a clearance could be a space adjacent to some structure. Alternatively still, “the configuration” could be an entirety of a vacant space between two adjacent structures. Since it is unclear what particular “configuration” is referred to, this recitation is indefinite. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets any vacant space as within the scope of “the configuration of a clearance”.
Claim 3 is indefinite for a host of reasons. First, claim 3 at lines 1-2 recites, “the gripping device comprises a housing with a bottom and a hold-down plate which is arranged thereon”. This recitation is indefinite because the structures referred to by “which” and “thereon” are unclear. Is the housing arranged on the gripping device? Is the hold-down plate arranged on the bottom? Is the hold-down plate arranged on the housing? Is the hold-down plate arranged on the gripping device? Moreover, the recitation is indefinite because due to the run-on nature of the recitation. For example, is “and a hold-down plate” modified by “the gripping device comprises” or by “a housing with”. The examiner suggests amending the recitation in the form of – the gripping device comprises a housing, a bottom, and a hold-down plate, wherein the hold down plate is arranged on the bottom – or in a similar format consistent with the Applicant’s desired interpretation. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the gripping device as having a housing, a bottom, and a hold-down plate, wherein the hold-down plate is arranged on either of the housing and the bottom.
Claim 3 at line 3 recites, “and possibly a hold-down plate which is arranged thereon”. The word “possibly” indicates an optional feature. However, this recitation is indefinite because it is unclear which aspects of the recitation are optional, and also because it is unclear what structures are referred to by “which” and “thereon”. Does “possibly” modify the entirety of “a hold-down plate which is arranged thereon”, or does “possibly” modify only “a hold-down plate”? In the latter interpretation “which is arranged thereon” is interpreted as requiring that the required carrier is arranged on the gripping device.
Claim 3 at lines 3-4 recites, “the hold-down plate and at least one section of the bottom or the carrier forming the hold-down section”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether it is required or optional. Claim 3 at line 2 recites, “or”, suggesting that every recitation after “or” is optional. However, alternatively only the recitation between the commas at lines 2-3 is optional, and then the recitation after the comma at line 3 is then required.
The run-on nature of claim 3 renders the claim indefinite. For example, at lines 4-5, the claim recites, “, or only a section of the carrier forming the hold down section”. It is unclear what this recitation is modifying. Does this recitation require that the gripping device comprises “only a section of the carrier forming the hold-down section”? Or does this recitation modify some other recitation.
Claim 3 is further indefinite because it is unclear which “hold-down plate” is referred to at the end of line 3. Is this the hold-down plate that is introduced with the carrier in lines 2-3, or the hold-down plate introduced with the bottom of line 2, or either of these hold-down plates? Since there are multiple hold-down plates previously introduced, the recitation of “the hold-down plate” at the end of line 3 is indefinite.
Claim 3 at each of lines 4, 5, and 6 recites, “the hold-down section”. Each of these recitations is indefinite because multiple hold-down sections are introduced in claim 1. As such, it is unclear which hold-down section is referred to in claim 3 at each of lines 4, 5, and 6, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 3 at line 5 recites, “the lower side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 3 indefinite. For example, does claim 3 implicitly require that each structure has a single lower side, such that a bifurcated design is not encompassed by this recitation? This interpretation is reasonable because there would implicitly be an antecedent basis for “the lower side”. However, if there are multiple lower sides, it is unclear which particular lower side is referred to.
Claim 4 recites, “in particular the slot”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the recess must be the slot, or whether the recess being the slot is optional.
Claim 4 recites, “the hold-down plate”. This recitation is indefinite because claim 3 introduces multiple hold-down plates, such that it is unclear which particular hold-down plate is referred to in claim 4.
Claim 5 recites, “the magnetic element”. This recitation is indefinite because claim 1 introduces multiple magnetic elements, such that it is unclear which particular magnetic element is referred to in claim 5.
Claim 5 recites, “the magnetically couplable element”. This recitation is indefinite because claim 1 introduces a plurality of magnetically couplable elements (see claim 1 at line 2), such that it is unclear which particular magnetically couplable element is referred to in claim 5. For example, must claim 5 be interpreted as referring only to a magnetically couplable element in a portion of the web that has already been cut?
Claim 6 recites, “that side of the bottom or of the carrier which faces the blade table”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “that side” in the claim, rendering claim 6 indefinite. For example, if a bottom includes two sides facing the blade table, which side is referred to in claim 6 – either side, some particular side, or even both sides? Or, alternatively, does claim 6 not encompass there being more than one side of the bottom or carrier that faces the blade table?
Claim 7 recites, “the magnetic element”. This recitation is indefinite because claim 1 introduces multiple magnetic elements, such that it is unclear which particular magnetic element is referred to in claim 7.
Claim 7 at the final line recites, “the element”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear which of multiple previously introduced “elements” is referred to. Can “the element” refer to the further hold-down element, for example?
Claim 8 recites, “the magnetic element”. This recitation is indefinite because claim 1 introduces multiple magnetic elements, such that it is unclear which particular magnetic element is referred to in claim 8.
Claim 9-11 are indefinite because it is unclear whether these claims implicitly require the hold-down element. Claim 1 introduces the hold-down element only as an optional feature. Claims 9-11 do not explicitly state that the hold-down element is required. Thus, in one interpretation, claims 9-11 are optional in the event that claim 1 is satisfied by the paragraph at lines 9-15 rather than at the paragraph of lines 16-24. However, a problem with this interpretation is that it renders claim 9-11 not further limiting, at least when claim 1 is satisfied by the paragraph at lines 9-15. As such, it is unclear how to interpret claims 9-11 in the event that claim 1 is satisfied by the features of lines 9-15. As one option, claims -11 intend to refer to “the hold-down section” rather than the hold-down element, since each option in claim 1 includes a hold-down section. In this interpretation, there is no issue as to whether claims 9-11 require the section option in claim 1 to be satisfied. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claims 9-11 as being limiting only when claim 1 is satisfied by the final paragraph at lines 16-24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2014/0290453 A1 to Buettner et al.
Regarding claim 1, Buettner discloses a cutting device 11 (see Fig. 1) for cutting narrow strips from a material web (the particular type of material is merely an intended use of the claimed cutter device; nonetheless, Buettner’s cutting device 11 is capable of receiving a web material fed on the blade table 16 such as if the web material is fed from a side of the blade table 16 opposite the gripping device 27 relative to Fig. 1), in particular a rubberized material web (as best understood, this feature is optional), in or on which magnetically couplable elements are embedded or arranged at defined spacings behind one another in the web longitudinal direction (no web material is claimed, so Buettner need not disclose the particular characteristics of the unclaimed web material; regardless, the device of Buettner is operable on such material for the same reasons as explained above), comprising a blade table 16 which is arranged on a device frame (see Fig. 1, where the device frame includes the structure underlying the blade table 16), and on which the material web to be cut can be positioned (see Fig. 1 – the material web can be positioned on the blade table 16, which is part of the cutting device, for the same reasons explained above), a cutting apparatus 14 comprising a cutting blade (the cutting blade being disclosed by the punching stamp of paragraph 30; this structure is properly considered as a cutting blade since it is the cutting part of the cutting instrument 14, noting that the definition of ‘blade’ includes the cutting part of an implement per merriam-webster.com, and also in view of the cutting shape produced by the cutting stamp as can be seen in Figs. 2a-2c per paragraph 35) which can be moved out of a starting position into a cutting position relative to the blade table 16 (the cutting blade is movable into a lowered position relative to the position of Figs. 5 and 6, noting that in Figs. 5 and 6 the cutting blade is not engaging the workpiece 12, whereas when lowered the cutting blade does engage the workpiece since engagement of the cutting blade with the workpiece 12 is necessary to produce a cut), and a gripping device 27 which receives and transports a cut strip and can be moved relative to the blade table 16 (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 31 and 36),
either the gripping device comprising a hold-down section which can be placed for cutting purposes onto the material web which is positioned on the blade table and fixes the material web during the cutting on the blade table, and a magnetic element which interacts magnetically with the magnetically couplable element of the cut strip for fixing the strip on the gripping device for transport into a dispensing position, and the hold-down section comprising a recess, through which the cutting blade can be moved to the blade table into the cutting position, [this paragraph is optional due to ‘or’ at the beginning of the next paragraph]
or the gripping device 27 comprising a hold-down section (the carrier to which hold-down elements 34 are attached; note that a carrier is one option of the corresponding structure of the hold-down section as disclosed in the present application) which can be placed for cutting purposes onto the material web which is positioned on the blade table 16 and fixes the material web during the cutting on the blade table 16 (see paragraph 36), and a magnetic element 34 (element 34 can be a magnetic element per paragraph 32) which interacts magnetically with the magnetically couplable element of the cut strip for fixing the strip on the gripping device for transport into a dispensing position (see paragraph 36, demonstrating that Buettner’s gripping device 27 is operable in this manner to carry out this functional recitation), and at least one further hold-down element 18 (corresponding to a bar or flap as disclosed in the present application) being provided which can be placed onto the material web for cutting purposes (see Fig. 1) spaced apart from the hold-down section with the configuration of a clearance (see Fig. 2B showing a clearance between the further hold-down element 18 and the hold-down section of gripping device 27), it being possible for the cutting blade to be moved through the clearance to the blade table 16 into the cutting position (see paragraph 36 as evidence of the ability of Buettner’s structure to perform this function).
Regarding claim 2, Buettner discloses that the clearance is configured as an elongate slot (see Fig. 2B, where the clearance has the shape of an elongated slot).
Regarding claim 3, Buettner discloses that the gripping device comprises a carrier (the carrier to which hold-down elements 34 are attached), the carrier forming the hold-down section (see Fig. 1; noting again that a carrier is a structure corresponding to the hold-down section disclosed in the present specification).
Regarding claim 4, Buettner discloses that the clearance is configured between the hold-down element 18 and the carrier (see Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 6, Buettner disclose that a projection which forms a run-on edge for the material web is provided on that side of the carrier which faces the blade table 16 (see the annotated Fig. 1 below, where the run-on edge being “for the material web” is merely an intended use of the projection).
PNG
media_image1.png
632
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Buettner discloses that the magnetic element 34 is arranged on the carrier such that it [as best understood, the magnetic element 34] can be moved between a raised and a lowered position (see paragraphs 33 and 37), in which it [as best understood, the magnetic element 34] interacts magnetically with the element (see paragraph 36; where ‘the element’ is understood as being the workpiece 12; of course, the ability of the magnetic element 35 to magnetically interact with some workpiece depends on the workpiece itself being interactive with a magnet, noting that the workpiece is not claimed).
Regarding claim 9, Buettner discloses that the hold-down element 18 can be moved in a linear or pivotable manner relative to the material web (see movement produced by linear drive 19 in Fig. 1; see also paragraph 30) by means of a movement device (see paragraph 30, where linear drive 19 corresponds to the movement device; this device performs the specified function of moving the hold-down element, is not excluded by any explicitly definition in the present specification, and performs the identical function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same results as the inventive movement device, since a linear drive moves the hold-down element in the same manner as a slide, such that the linear drive 19 of Buettner is an equivalent to the corresponding structure disclosed in the present specification).
Regarding claim 10, Buettner discloses that the hold-down element 18 is a bar (see Fig. 1, where the broadest reasonable interpretation of a ‘bar’ includes a straight piece that is longer than it is wide and has any of various uses and a solid piece or block of material that is longer than it is wide per merriam-webster.com, and element 18 has a greater length measured in the Y-direction than width measured in the X-direction as is evident from Fig. 1 ) which can be moved in a linear manner (see paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 11, Buettner discloses that the bar can be placed with an edge onto the material web (see Fig. 1, where web material can be provided in place of workpiece 12).
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) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2014/0290453 A1 to Buettner et al. in view of US Pub. No. 2016/0311010 A1 to Liechti.
Regarding claim 5, Buettner discloses that the magnetic element 34 interacts with the magnetically couplable element.
Buettner fails to disclose that the magnet’s interaction is through the carrier as required by claim 5 and that the magnetic element is mounted pivotably on the carrier as required by claim 8.
Liechti, though, is pertinent to the problems of transporting magnetically couplable elements and of releasing magnetically couplable elements from a magnetic interaction. Liechti teaches a magnetic element 54 that interacts with a magnetically couplable element 21 through a carrier 51 (see Fig. 6), where the magnetic element 54 is mounted pivotably on the carrier 51 (see pivoting at pivot axis 60 in Figs. 6-9). Liechti teaches that providing a magnetic element to be pivotably mounted to a carrier and to extend through the carrier when the magnetic element is in an engaging position is advantageous because the magnetic element is pivotable away from the carrier to release the magnetically couplable element (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 123).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the magnetic elements of Buettner to extent through the carrier in a workpiece engaging position and to be pivotably mounted to the carrier in view of the teachings of Liechti. This modification is advantageous because the pivotable mounting provides a manner for release work engaged by the gripping device of Buettner. That is, the gripping device of Buettner requires some manner for releasing work, and this modification enables the magnetic elements to be pivoted to a retracted position relative to the carrier so that the magnetic elements release the work. (In the engaging position where the magnetic elements extend through the carrier, the magnetic elements are positioned to carry or otherwise move the work.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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 Eiseman can be reached on (571) 270-3818. 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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights