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 .
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, as best understood, 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.
NOTE: The Applicant’s arguments against the 112(f) interpretation are addressed in the “Response to Arguments” section, below.
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, as best understood, 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, as best understood, 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, as best understood, 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, as best understood, 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, as best understood, 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, as best understood, 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, as best understood, 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, as best understood, 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, as best understood, Sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use generic placeholders that are coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholders are not preceded by any structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a visual unit, the cable rotation module rotates the end of the cable under visual guidance of the visual unit” (claim 13, lines 2-4); “an imaging module… for capturing an image of the end of the cable” (claim 14, lines 2-3); “a determination unit determining whether the core wires of the cable have been adjusted to the predetermined orientation according to the image” (claim 14, lines 3-4); and “a pair of imaging modules… for taking images of a pair of ends of the cable respectively” (claim 16, lines 1-3).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, as best understood, Sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The claim limitations have been presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, as best understood, Sixth paragraph, because they meet the following 3-prong analysis:
(A) The claim limitations use the phrase “means for” or “step for” or a generic replacement therefore: the words “module” and “unit” are generic replacements for “means for”. The claims would carry the same weight and meaning if they instead disclosed: “a visual means for providing visual guidance”; “an imaging means… for capturing an image of the end of the cable”; “a determination means for determining whether the core wires of the cable have been adjusted to the predetermined orientation according to the image”; and “a pair of imaging means… for taking images of a pair of ends of the cable respectively”.
(B) The “means for” or “step for” is modified by functional language: “[providing] visual guidance”, “capturing an image”, and “taking images” are each examples of purely functional language.
(C) The phrase “means for” or “step for” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function. In this instance, there is no structure in the claims cited for any of the above “means”. What is a visual unit? This is not an industry standard term, and does not convey any specific structures. The same question can be asked of each of the above noted “means” (units or modules), and in each instance, there is no industry standard, nor is there any structure in the claim which dictates what is intended. As such, the reader must look to the specification in order to ascertain what structure(s) is/are intended. Because the structure of these elements is entirely absent from the claims, the reader must look to the specification for structure, and therefore the presumption of invocation of 112(f) interpretation is proper.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, as best understood, Sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, as best understood, Sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, as best understood, Sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 13-20 have been amended by the Applicant to now disclose:
“a cable rotation module configured for adjusting a pair of core wires of a cable exposed from [[an]] a free end of the cable to a predetermined orientation by rotating the free end of the cable” (claim 1);
“the rotating wheel is configured to rotate the free end of the cable” (claim 2);
“the cable rotation module also includes a gripper configured for clamping the free end of the cable, the gripper is installed on the rotating wheel, the free end of the cable which can be clamped by the gripper is capable of being rotated by rotating the rotating wheel” (claim 3);
“the gripper is configured for clamping the free end of the cable, whereupon a central axis of the free end of the cable coincides with the horizontal rotation axis” (claim 4);
“the driving mechanism drives the gripper to open or close to loosen or clamp the free end of the cable” (claim 7);
“the gripper is configured to be driven to a closed position by the connecting rod mechanism to clamp the free end of the cable, and the connecting rod mechanism is configured to be moved to the second state, whereupon the gripper is configured to be driven to an open position by the connecting rod mechanism to loosen the free end of the cable” (claim 9);
“the cable rotation module rotates the free end of the cable under visual guidance of the visual unit until the core wires of the cable are adjusted to the predetermined orientation” (claim 13);
“an imaging module mounted on a bracket for capturing an image of the free end of the cable” (claim 14);
“the imaging module includes a camera capturing the image of the free end of the cable, a focusing lens adjusting a focal length of the camera, and a light source emitting illumination light to the free end of the cable” (claim 15);
“the imaging module is one of a pair of imaging modules arranged side by side for taking images of a pair of free ends of the cable respectively” (claim 16);
“the cable rotation module is one of a pair of cable rotation modules arranged side by side for rotating a pair of free ends of the cable respectively, the core wires at the free ends of the cable are adjustable to the predetermined orientation simultaneously” (claim 17);
“the cable rotation modules are configured to rotate the two free ends of the cable in opposite directions” (claim 18);
“a conveying device configured for clamping and moving the free end of the cable, and the conveying device is also configured to clamp the free end of the cable with the core wires at the predetermined orientation and move the free end of the cable with the core wires at the predetermined orientation to a next processing station” (claim 19); and
“the conveying device is configured to clamp the free end of the cable with unadjusted core wires and move the free end of the cable with the unadjusted core wires to a gripper of the cable rotation module” (claim 20).
There is no support whatsoever for any instance of “a free end of the cable”, “the free end of the cable”, “a pair of free ends of the cable” or the like. Moreover, and even more importantly there is no support for any of the claimed apparatus/system structures being “configured for” or “configured to” work with, modify or manipulate any “free end(s) of the cable”. Each of these new amendments represent improper addition of unsupported new matter and are directed to embodiments which are more specific than those which were originally disclosed. The drawing figures also do not show the newly claimed features, especially in light of the newly presented arguments against the prior art which hinge upon an improper assertion that the “free end” of the cable is intended to be the absolute distal end, having no further distal cable material overhanging any of the manipulation structures of the apparatus.
Instead of amending the claims in a manner clearly directed toward attempting to simply overcome the applied prior art rejections with unsupported new matter, the Applicant is strongly encouraged to actually determine what the inventive concept(s) may be for the claimed system and to disclose the structures of that system in the claims.
Claims 2-20 are also rejected under 112(a) by virtue of their dependence upon the unsupported new matter of the claims as noted above.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 discloses “a cable rotation module configured for adjusting a pair of core wires of a cable exposed from a free end of the cable to a predetermined orientation by rotating the free end of the cable” (lines 2-4; emphasis added). This newly amended limitation makes no logical sense, especially in light of the Applicant’s newly presented arguments. The arguments make it clear that the “free end” (which finds no support in the original disclosure) is held to be an untethered unfixed (i.e. free-floating) end, and as such, it would be impossible to rotate it. The most recent arguments also make it clear that the gripping, holding, and/or manipulating of the “free end(s)” is/are intended to be performed at the very furthest distal end of the cable. This is contradictory, because by virtue of gripping the cable end, the end is no longer free, thus contradicting the argument and the newly added limitation. As such, the meaning of the claim is ambiguous and indefinite.
Claims 2-20 are also rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 2 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “the rotating wheel is configured to rotate the free end of the cable” (line 2). This claim is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 3 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “the cable rotation module also includes a gripper configured for clamping the free end of the cable, the gripper is installed on the rotating wheel, the free end of the cable which can be clamped by the gripper is capable of being rotated by rotating the rotating wheel” (lines 3-5; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 4 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “the gripper is configured for clamping the free end of the cable” (line 2; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 7 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “the driving mechanism drives the gripper to open or close to loosen or clamp the free end of the cable” (lines 2-3; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 9 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “the gripper is configured to be driven to a closed position by the connecting rod mechanism to clamp the free end of the cable, and the connecting rod mechanism is configured to be moved to the second state, whereupon the gripper is configured to be driven to an open position by the connecting rod mechanism to loosen the free end of the cable” (lines 3-6; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 13 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “the cable rotation module rotates the free end of the cable” (lines 2-3; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 17 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “a pair of cable rotation modules arranged side by side for rotating a pair of free ends of the cable respectively” (lines 2-3; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 18 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “the cable rotation modules are configured to rotate the two free ends of the cable in opposite directions” (lines 2-3; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 19 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “a conveying device configured for clamping and moving the free end of the cable, and the conveying device is also configured to clamp the free end of the cable with the core wires at the predetermined orientation” (lines 2-4; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 20 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “the conveying device is configured to clamp the free end of the cable” (line 2; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1.
NOTE: All of the examined claims (i.e. claims 1-20) have been interpreted and examined as best understood according to the 112(b) rejections, above.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanno et al. (US 2016/0351329 A1) according to a first interpretation, which will hereinafter be referred to as Kanno-1.
Regarding claim 1, according to the first interpretation, Kanno-1 discloses a cable core wire orientation adjustment system (Title; Abstract; fig. 1: All), comprising: a cable rotation module (10) configured for adjusting a pair of core wires (17) of a cable exposed from a free end of the cable to a predetermined orientation by rotating the free end of the cable, the cable rotation module includes a fixed frame (10a and/or 31), a rotating wheel (13) rotatably mounted on the fixed frame, and a driving mechanism (13e, 13h, 14, 16) having a connecting rod mechanism (13a, 14a) installed on the rotating wheel, the connecting rod mechanism has a first connecting rod (14a) having an end directly fixed to the rotating wheel (figs. 2A, 2B and 4; pars. 0025 and 0027-0029).
Regarding claim 2, Kanno-1 discloses the cable core wire orientation adjustment system according to claim 1, wherein the rotating wheel is configured to rotate the free end of the cable, and at the predetermined orientation, a connecting line between a pair of centers of the core wires is in a horizontal direction, and one of the core wires is on a predetermined side (fig. 3: above, as viewed) relative to the other of the core wires (figs. 1, 2A and 3; pars. 0091, 0118-0119).
Regarding claim 3, Kanno-1 discloses the cable core wire orientation adjustment system according to claim 1, wherein the cable rotation module also includes a gripper (13b) configured for clamping the free end of the cable, the gripper is installed on the rotating wheel, the free end of the cable which can be clamped by the gripper is capable of being rotated by rotating the rotating wheel, the rotating wheel is rotatable around a *horizontal rotation axis (figs. 2A-3 and 6-8; pars. 0032-0036 and 0115).
*NOTE: as there is no previous disclosure of relative directions or axes, the determination of what is considered “horizontal” is relative and subjectively defined by the reader. As such, for this interpretation it is entirely reasonable to determine that the Z-axis of Kanno is the “horizontal rotation axis”.
Regarding claim 5, Kanno-1 discloses the cable core wire orientation adjustment system according to claim 3, wherein the cable rotation module includes a driving device (14) installed on the fixed frame and configured for driving the rotating wheel to rotate (fig. 4; par. 0038).
Regarding claim 7, Kanno-1 discloses the cable core wire orientation adjustment system according to claim 3, wherein the driving mechanism drives the gripper to open or close to loosen or clamp the free end of the cable (by way of 11) (figs. 6-7; pars. 0032-0036).
Regarding claim 19, Kanno-1 discloses the cable core wire orientation adjustment system according to claim 1, further comprising a conveying device (41, 42) configured for clamping and moving the free end of the cable, and the conveying device is also configured to clamp the free end of the cable with the core wires at the predetermined orientation and move the free end of the cable with the core wires at the predetermined orientation to a next processing station (fig. 6; pars. 0052-0056 and 0059).
Regarding claim 20, Kanno-1 discloses the cable core wire orientation adjustment system according to claim 19, wherein, the conveying device is configured to clamp the free end of the cable with unadjusted core wires and move the free end of the cable with the unadjusted core wires to a gripper of the cable rotation module (figs. 2, 4 and 6; pars. 0052-0056 and 0059).
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanno according to a second interpretation, which will hereinafter be referred to as Kanno-2.
Regarding claim 1, according to the second interpretation, Kanno-2 discloses a cable core wire orientation adjustment system (Title; Abstract; fig. 1: All), comprising: a cable rotation module (10) configured for adjusting a pair of core wires (17) of a cable exposed from a free end of the cable to a predetermined orientation by rotating the free end of the cable, the cable rotation module includes a fixed frame (10a and/or 31), a rotating wheel (19) rotatably mounted on the fixed frame, and a driving mechanism (21) having a connecting rod mechanism (24a, 27a-c) installed on the rotating wheel, the connecting rod mechanism has a first connecting rod (27a) having an end directly fixed to the rotating wheel (figs. 1, 2A, and 3; pars. 0039 and 0042-0045).
Regarding claim 17, Kanno-2 discloses the cable core wire orientation adjustment system according to claim 1, wherein the cable rotation module is one of a pair of cable rotation modules (10 and 60) arranged side by side for rotating a pair of free ends of the cable respectively (fig. 1), the core wires at the free ends of the cables are adjustable to the predetermined orientation simultaneously (fig. 1; par. 0025).
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 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.
Claims 3-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno-2, in view of Enomoto (CN 109074922 A).
Regarding claim 3, Kanno-2 discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kanno-2 further discloses that the cable rotation module also includes a gripper (18), the gripper is installed on the rotating wheel, the free end of the cable which can be clamped by the gripper is capable of being rotated by rotating the rotating wheel, the rotating wheel is rotatable around a *horizontal rotation axis (Y-axis) (figs. 2A-3 and 6-8; pars. 0032-0036 and 0115). Kanno-2, however, does not explicitly disclose that the gripper is configured for clamping the free end of the cable.
*NOTE: as there is no previous disclosure of relative directions or axes, the determination of what is considered “horizontal” is relative and subjectively defined by the reader. As such, for this interpretation it is entirely reasonable to determine that the Z-axis of Kanno is the “horizontal rotation axis”.
Enomoto teaches that it is well known to provide a similar cable core wire orientation adjustment system (Title; Abstract), comprising: a cable rotation module (fig. 1, 1; or fig. 4, one of 2a or 2b; or fig. 1, one of 51 or 52) configured for adjusting a pair of core wires (first and second wires) of a cable exposed from an free end of the cable to a predetermined orientation by rotating the free end of the cable (fig. 1), the cable rotation module includes a fixed frame (4); a rotating wheel (14) rotatably mounted on the fixed frame, (Abstract; figs. 1 and 4; pg. 5, pars. 2, 4 and 5), and a driving mechanism (any or all of 17, 20, 20a, 21, 21a, 21b, 23, 24a-24c, 24) (figs. 4-5; pg. 5, par. 6; pg. 6, pars. 1-2) having a connecting rod mechanism (7a, 8, 13, 14, 18) installed on the rotating wheel (figs. 1-2 and 4), the connecting rod mechanism has a first connecting rod (8) having an end fixed to the rotating wheel (figs. 1-2 and 4; pg. 5, par. 5), wherein the cable rotation module also includes a gripper (2a/2b) configured for clamping the free end of the cable, the gripper is installed on the rotating wheel (Abstract; figs. 1 and 4; pg. 5, pars. 2, 4 and 5).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Kanno-2 to incorporate the gripper configured for clamping the free end of the cable of Enomoto. POSITA would have realized that employing a nozzle with the ability to clamp the wires can be easily and readily incorporated to achieve the desired wire feeding control and precision, thus predictably decreasing manufacturing costs due to rework. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special clamping gripper was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old system of Kanno-2 with the well-known system of Enomoto. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 4, Kanno-2 in view of Enomoto teaches the system of claim 3 as detailed above, and Enomoto further teaches that it is well known that the gripper is configured for clamping the free end of the cable, whereupon a central axis of the free end of the cable coincides with the horizontal rotation axis (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Kanno-2 in view of Enomoto teaches the system of claim 3 as detailed above, and Kanno-2 further discloses that the cable rotation module includes a driving device (24, 24a, 27a-27c) installed on the fixed frame and configured for driving the rotating wheel to rotate (fig. 3; pars. 0045-0046).
Regarding claim 6, Kanno-2 in view of Enomoto teaches the system of claim 5 as detailed above, and Kanno-2 further discloses that the driving device includes: a motor (14) mounted on the fixed frame; a drive wheel (27b) connected to an output shaft (24a) of the servo motor; and a drive belt (27c) connected between the drive wheel and the rotating wheel (fig. 3; pars. 0045-0046). Enomoto further teaches that it is well known to use a motor which is a servo motor (pg. 16, lines 18-19).
Both Kanno-2 and Enomoto disclose the use of servo motors. POSITA would have realized that servo motors are old and well-known in the art and predictably allow for very precise degrees of rotation, thus enhancing the ability to accurately twist the wires to the exact extent required, which would naturally decrease manufacturing cost due to time consuming rework and lost materials.
Regarding claim 18, Kanno-2 discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17. Kanno-2, however, does not explicitly disclose that the cable rotation modules are configured to rotate the two of the cable in opposite directions.
Enomoto teaches that it is well known to provide two cable rotation modules (51 and 52), wherein the cable rotation modules are configured to rotate the two of the cable in opposite directions (figs. 1-4; pg. 5, pars. 4-5).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Kanno-2 to incorporate the *** of Enomoto. POSITA would have realized that the modules of Kanno-2 can be easily and readily made to rotate in whichever direction is preferred to achieve the desired degree of twist and/or twisting speed. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special rotational device was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old system of Kanno-2 with the well-known system of Enomoto. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno-1, in view of Enomoto.
Regarding claim 7, Kanno-1 discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Kanno-1, however, does not explicitly disclose that the driving mechanism drives the gripper to open or close to loosen or clamp the free end of the cable
Enomoto teaches that it is well known that the driving mechanism (any or all of 17, 20, 20a, 21, 21a, 21b, 23, 24a-24c, 24) drives the gripper to open or close to loosen or clamp the free end of the cable (figs. 4-5; pg. 5, par. 6; pg. 6, pars. 1-2) .
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Kanno-1 to incorporate the driving mechanism being capable of opening or closing the gripper of Enomoto. POSITA would have realized that the grippers of Kanno-1 must be driven, and that using the driving mechanism can be easily and readily employed to achieve the desired control of the gripper and to decrease the number of actuation elements, thus decreasing cost and complexity of the system. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special driving mechanism was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old system of Kanno-1 with the well-known system of Enomoto. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 8, Kanno-1 in view of Enomoto teaches the system of claim 7 as detailed above, and Enomoto further teaches that it is well known that the gripper is fixed to the connecting rod mechanism, and the connecting rod mechanism is movable between a first state and a second state (figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 9, Kanno-1 in view of Enomoto teaches the system of claim 8 as detailed above, and Enomoto further teaches that it is well known that the connecting rod mechanism is configured to be moved to the first state, whereupon the gripper is configured to be driven to a closed position by the connecting rod mechanism to clamp the free end of the cable, and the connecting rod mechanism is configured to be moved to the second state, whereupon the gripper is configured to be driven to an open position by the connecting rod mechanism to loosen the free end of the cable (figs. 4-5; pg. 5, par. 6; pg. 6, pars. 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, Kanno-1 in view of Enomoto teaches the system of claim 9 as detailed above, and Enomoto further teaches that it is well known to that the driving mechanism includes a cylinder (24a) installed on the fixed frame, a telescopic rod (24b) of the cylinder is rotationally connected to the connecting rod mechanism to drive the connecting rod mechanism to move between the first state and the second state (figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 11, Kanno-1 in view of Enomoto teaches the system of claim 10 as detailed above, and Enomoto further teaches that it is well known that the connecting rod mechanism includes: a second connecting rod (one of 21b) having an end rotatably connected to another end of the first connecting rod; a third connecting rod (one of 21a) having an end rotatably connected to the another end of the first connecting rod; a fourth connecting rod (another of 21b) having an end rotationally connected to another end of the second connecting rod; a fifth connecting rod (another of 21a) having an end rotatably connected to another end of the third connecting rod; and a sixth connecting rod (17) having a pair of ends respectively rotationally connected to another end of the fourth connecting rod and to another end of the fifth connecting rod (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, Kanno-1 in view of Enomoto teaches the system of claim 11 as detailed above, and Enomoto further teaches that it is well known that the gripper has a first clamping arm (one of 22) and a second clamping arm (another of 22) respectively fixed to the second connecting rod and the third connecting rod, the telescopic rod of the cylinder is rotationally connected to the sixth connecting rod (figs. 4-5).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno-2, in view of Si (CN 111326939 A).
Regarding claim 13, Kanno-2 discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kanno-2, however, does not explicitly disclose a visual unit, the cable rotation module rotates the free end of the cable under visual guidance of the visual unit until the core wires of the cable are adjusted to the predetermined orientation.
Si teaches that it is well known to provide the apparatus as noted above with respect to claim 6, including a visual unit (30), the cable rotation module rotates the free end of the cable under visual guidance of the visual unit until the core wires of the cable are adjusted to the predetermined orientation (figs. 1-2; pg. 4, final paragraph as highlighted in prior office action).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Kanno-2 to incorporate the visual unit for inspection and adjustment of Si. POSITA would have realized that cameras and other imaging devices can be easily and readily incorporated into wire processing devices to achieve the desired reduction in material and time waste, due to misalignments, misidentification and the like. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special visual unit was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old cable core wire orientation adjustment system of Kanno-2 with the well-known imaging device of Si. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 14, Kanno-2 in view of Si teaches the cable core wire orientation adjustment system of claim 13 as detailed above, and Si further teaches that it is well known that the visual unit includes a support, an imaging module mounted on a bracket for capturing an image of the free end of the cable, and a determination unit (“controller”) determining whether the core wires of the cable have been adjusted to the predetermined orientation according to the image (figs. 1-2; pg. 4, final paragraph as highlighted in prior office action; pg. 5 first paragraph as highlighted in prior office action).
Regarding claim 15, Kanno-2 in view of Si teaches the cable core wire orientation adjustment system of claim 14 as detailed above, and Si further teaches that it is well known that the imaging module includes a camera capturing the image of the free end of the cable, a focusing lens (camera lens) adjusting a focal length of the camera, and a light source (31) emitting illumination light to the free end of the cable (figs. 1-2; pg. 4, final paragraph as highlighted in prior office action; pg. 5 first paragraph as highlighted; pg. 6 first paragraph as highlighted in prior office action).
Claims 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno-2, in view of Herrmann et al. (EP 3 739 697 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kanno-2 discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kanno-2, however, does not explicitly disclose a visual unit, the cable rotation module rotates the free end of the cable under visual guidance of the visual unit until the core wires of the cable are adjusted to the predetermined orientation.
Herrmann teaches that it is well known to provide a similar a cable core wire orientation adjustment system (Title; Abstract), comprising: a cable rotation module (2) adjusting a pair of core wires of a cable exposed from an free end of the cable to a predetermined orientation by rotating the free end of the cable (figs. 1-2); further comprising a visual unit (26), the cable rotation module rotates the free end of the cable under visual guidance of the visual unit until the core wires of the cable are adjusted to the predetermined orientation (pg. 5, as highlighted in prior office action; pg. 10, as highlighted in prior office action).
Please refer to the 103 rejection of claim 13, above, as the rationale is applicable to the instant rejection for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, Kanno-2 in view of Herrmann teaches the cable core wire orientation adjustment system of claim 13 as detailed above, and Herrmann further teaches that it is well known that the visual unit includes a support (19), an imaging module (camera, 26) mounted on a bracket (21) for capturing an image of the free end of the cable, and a determination unit determining (control unit, 24) whether the core wires of the cable have been adjusted to the predetermined orientation according to the image (pg. 5, as highlighted in prior office action; pg. 10, as highlighted in prior office action).
Regarding claim 16, Kanno-2 in view of Herrmann teaches the cable core wire orientation adjustment system of claim 14 as detailed above, and Herrmann further teaches that it is well known that the imaging module is one of a pair of imaging modules arranged side by side for taking images of a pair of free ends of the cable respectively (pg. 10, as highlighted in prior office action).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s has again asserted that the claims do not invoke 112(f) interpretation, but has not provided a single new argument or point of evidence to support this conclusory statement. The Applicant has merely alleged that the Examiner has not shown sufficient evidence, but has not provided any support for this allegation. This is not the case, and the Applicant is encouraged to review the Claim Interpretation section above, wherein it is entirely clear that all three prongs for evaluation have been considered and satisfied. The burden is upon the Applicant to either amend the claims or to provide express evidence of where in the cited claims the structure for performing the claimed functions has been disclosed. The Applicant has not satisfied either requirement to overcome the interpretation as indicated above. Where are the structures recited in the claim? The immediately evident answer is that they are nowhere to be found.
What structure is explicit in “a visual unit”? If one attempts to buy a “visual unit”, what structure will be purchased? The answer is none, because a “visual unit” is not an understood structure. What structures is “an imaging module”? Again, this is not a structure, it is a means-for performing a function, with no attendant structure in the claim. What is “a determination unit” structurally? This is an exceedingly vague description of what the means is intended to do, and not in any way does it describe what the means actually is structurally. If there is structure for any of these elements, then why does the Applicant refuse to claim as much? The burden of proof was and remains on the Applicant to cite actual evidence that there is structure in the claims or to amend the claims to include structure. The Applicant has provide any evidence to support their position and has not amended the claims to include structure, and therefore the interpretation of the claims as invoking 112(f) is properly applied and maintained.
With respect to the prior art rejections, respectfully, none of the Applicant’s arguments are compelling.
Applicant has asserted that:
Kanno-1 does not disclose that the cited cable rotation module 10 adjusts the cited pair of core wires 17 of the cited cable exposed from a free end of the cited cable to a predetermined orientation by rotating the free end of the cited cable. Kanno-1 states that: (1) the cited core wires 17 are "wound around the separate spools 61 for storage"; and (2) "the wires 17 between the spools 61 and the nozzles 18 are not twisted because the plurality of spools 61 are also rotated when the plurality of the nozzles 18 are rotated at the time of twisting the wires 17." (paragraphs [0041] and [0111] of Kanno-1). Consequently, the cited pair of core wires 17 at one free end of the cited cable that is adjacent each spool 61 are not adjusted by rotating the free end of the cited cable.
This argument is not found to be compelling for a variety of reasons. The first and most important reason is that the argument is based upon the newly added claim language which does not find any support in the original disclosure and thus is directed to an embodiment that is more specific than those which were originally disclosed and are therefore reliant upon improperly added new matter and therefore entirely moot. The second reason is that it is quite evident to any POSITA that the apparatuses of Kanno and all of the applied prior art references are clearly capable of being used to grip, rotate, clamp, release and image a free end or a fixed end or any end of a cable, thus anticipating the unsupported new matter limitation. The third reason that this argument is not compelling is because the claims are not directed to a method of manufacture at all. As such, it is not relevant exactly how the method of Kanno is performed. What is relevant is that the structures of Kanno anticipate the structures of the claimed system. It is quite clear that the structures of Kanno can be used on any part of a cable, including a purported “free end” (which is not actually free at all, according to the Applicant’s own contradictory arguments and claims) given that it is being held and clamped and manipulated. Moreover, it is evident that the structures of Kanno are capable of being used in the manner intended by the Applicant, even though the argued intended capabilities are not found to actually define the structures of the system in any discernable manner.
Additionally, Kanno-1 describes a "Wire Winding Process" of forming a coil 70 by twisting the wires 17 in paragraphs [0112]-[0122] of Kanno-1. Nowhere in the "Wire Winding Process" does Kanno-1 describe that the cited pair of core wires 17 of the cited cable exposed from either of a pair of free ends of the cited cable are adjusted by rotating either of a respective one of the pair of free ends of the cited cable; rather, Kanno-1 merely shows and describes that only the portion of wires 17, which is clearly shown as being in between free ends of the wires 17, that exits the nozzles 18 is twisted (e.g., part of the wires 17 between the spools 61 and the nozzles 18 are not rotated and "the wires 17 that continue from the coil 70" are similarly not rotated). (See paragraphs [0111] and [0127] along with Figure 9 of Kanno-1) Consequently, the cited pair of core wires 17 of the cited cable exposed from a free end of the cited cable are not rotated by rotating the free end of the cited cable.
These arguments are also not found to be compelling. First, the arguments again rely upon improperly added new matter and thus are not germane at all. Second, the process is not claimed, as noted above, the claims are directed to a system, i.e. an apparatus, and not to a method. Third, “free ends of the cables” are not defined in the specification, are not shown in the drawings and are not defined in the claims and are therefore defined by the reader. Fourth, the applicant’s arguments about the free ends clearly demonstrate that the purported free ends are not actually “free” at all, because they are being gripped. Thus the Applicant’s own interpretation and arguments contradict themselves in a manner which cannot be resolved. If a cable is end is “free” by virtue of not being held or gripped, then the moment it is gripped it is not free. Fifth, it is quite clear to any POSITA that the apparatuses of the prior art can without a doubt be used to hold any portion of a cable, including the distal end. As such, the arguments are not compelling, and the claims are properly rejected.
Applicant continues by repeating the above arguments with respect to Kanno-2. The redundant arguments are not compelling for the same reasons as already detailed.
Subsequently, Applicant has listed each of the 103 rejections and then asserted that these rejections are not proper because the rejections of claim 1 are purportedly not proper. No new arguments on the merits are actually presented by the Applicant with respect to these rejections, and as such, these allegations of patentability are not compelling for the same reasons as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See, for example, Szelag (US 2021/0281060 A1) which is especially pertinent to the claimed invention, including the unsupported new matter directed to the free ends of the cable (par. 0021).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571)272-0993. 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights