DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
Figure 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 8, “1C” should read --1c--. 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
feeding mechanism configured for feeding a conductor along a feeding axis and through an aperture in a feeding direction in claim 1;
transmission mechanism … configured to convert movement of the actuator into movement of the pressing member in the thrust direction in claim 10.
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 and 13-15 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.
In claim 1, line 5, the limitation “each portion” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5, the limitation “said passage extends transversely to the feeding axis, the passage being configured to allow said pressing member to pass through” renders the claim indefinite, because claim 4 recites “the distribution member comprises a passage configured to receive and guide the conductor”. It is unclear how the passage can guide the conductor (in the feed direction), but, at the same time, the passage extends transversely to the feed direction.
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) 1-5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponzio (WO2012/156066A1) and further in view of Bibeau (US2007/0079642A1).
Claim 1 recites limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as discussed above.
The structure corresponding to a feeding mechanism configured for feeding a conductor along a feeding axis and through an aperture in a feeding direction, each portion having a predetermined length is deemed to be a pair of motorized belts pressing on the conductor and applying pull/thrust force to the conductor, or a pair of clamping units clamping the conductor using jaws that can hold and release the conductor in a coordinated and intermittent manner, as described in [0028] of the application as published, or equivalent structure.
Ponzio discloses the claimed invention as follows (limitations not disclosed are crossed out, below):
Claim 1. An apparatus (see Fig. 1) for manufacturing coil members for insertion into slots of a core of a dynamo-electric machine, said coil members being formed by bending portions of an electric conductor, said apparatus comprising:
a feeding mechanism (16, including motorized belts 16a and 16b; see Fig. 1 and page 5, lns. 3-10) configured for feeding a conductor along a feeding axis and through an aperture (80, Fig. 3) in a feeding direction (10’, Fig. 3), each portion having a predetermined length;
a bending mechanism (51, 52, Figs. 5-13a) positioned downstream of said aperture along the feeding direction (see Fig. 5), and comprising at least one bending member (e.g., 51) having a surface movable in a direction transverse to the feeding axis, to bend a portion of the conductor (slide member 23 on which the bending mechanism 51, 52 is disposed, can move in the X-X’ direction (see Figs. 5, and 8-13);
Claim 2.
Bibeau discloses an apparatus for bending a wire 70 to form a coil 132 (see Fig. 21). The apparatus includes a bending mechanism 16 (see Fig. 7) which includes a wire holding assembly 74 for selectively immobilizing the wire 70 during the bending process and a wire bending assembly 76 for bending a selected portion of the wire 70. See Fig. 7 and [0065]. “The wire holding assembly 74 includes a bracket 78, defining a wire-receiving support, to which is mounted an actuator 80 provided with a piston 82 having an active (i.e., contact) surface, defining a movable friction element, that may slide through an aperture of the bracket 78. The assembly 74 also includes a channel element 84 provided with a longitudinal channel 85 configured and sized to receive the wire 70 and defining a fixed friction element, and a top plate 86 interconnecting the element 84 and the bracket 78.” See [0066]. “The wire 70 is prevented from moving when it is frictionally engaged by the piston 82 when it is extended through the aperture of the bracket 78.” (see [0067]). As mentioned in [0075], “the piston 82 is actuated to prevent wire movement during the bending process and returns to its resting position while wire is fed to the bending mechanism.” In Bibeau, the conductor is fed as shown in Fig. 8, in the direction of arrow 94, from a feeding mechanism 14 through holding assembly 74 having the piston 82, and exits at an aperture of 74 as shown in Fig. 8. When the desired length of conductor has been fed, the feeding is stopped and the piston 82 is actuated to prevent wire movement (see [0072]). As shown in Fig. 9, bending of the conductor takes place (see [0073]). Therefore, the piston 82 stabilizes the conductor after feeding and before bending.
In view of the teachings of Bibeau, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus of Ponzio with a suitably modified and positioned wire holding assembly similar to that of Bibeau, at an appropriate location along the wire feed path, such as immediately after the aperture 80, the exit of the wire holding assembly now constituting the claimed aperture. The piston of such a wire holding assembly corresponds to the claimed pressing member, and the claimed backing surface is defined by the surface of channel element 84 on the opposite side of the wire, relative to the piston 82, as the wire passes through the channel 85.
Modified Ponzio reads on claims 2-5, 8 and 9 (reference will be made to the structural elements disclosed by Bibeau)
Claim 2. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said active surface (contact surface of piston 82) of said pressing member is configured to apply a pressing force to said conductor in a thrust direction (toward the conductor 70) substantially transverse to said feeding direction (94), the pressing force being directed to press said conductor against said backing surface (surface of channel element 84 on the opposite side of the wire, relative to the piston 82).
Claim 3. The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein said active surface of the pressing member is configured to be positioned at a selectable predetermined position along said thrust direction for applying said pressing force to said conductor (i.e., in contact with the conductor and away from the conductor; see [0075]).
Claim 4. The apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising a distribution member (74) comprising a passage (85, Fig. 7) configured to receive and guide the conductor, wherein said aperture is formed in the distribution member along the feeding axis (at the exit from 74, close to 88 and 90 in Fig. 8).
Claim 5 (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The apparatus according to claim 4, wherein said passage (passage in which the piston 82 moves) extends transversely to the feeding axis, the passage being configured to allow said pressing member to pass through, and wherein said distribution member internally carries said backing surface facing the passage (surface of channel element 84 on the opposite side of the wire, relative to the piston 82).
Claim 8. Apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising an actuator (portion of piston 82 disposed within 80) mechanically connected to the pressing member and configured to move the pressing member in said thrust direction.
Claim 9. The apparatus according to claim 8, wherein said actuator is configured to move in said feeding direction to cause the pressing member to move in the thrust direction.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponzio in view of Bibeau, further in view of Lohkamp (US2012/0285554A1).
Ponzio, as modified in view of Bibeau, renders obvious the claimed invention, except for the limitations of claims 10, 11 and 13-15.
Bibeau discloses an actuator 80 having a piston 82. Paragraph [0125] mentions “Even though the actuators discussed hereinabove are pneumatic actuators, other technologies such as hydraulic or electric could be used.”
The use of a rod and crank mechanisms to convert rotary motion to linear motion to drive a piston, as an alternative to linear actuators such as pneumatic cylinders is ubiquitous, as a general concept in widespread use, not specific to any particular art.
See for example [0025] of Lohkamp. In Fig. 4, crank 148 (claimed crank) is connected to piston 122 via connecting rod 146 (e.g. claimed rod; claimed connection member). Motor 180 rotates crank 140.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to implement the actuator 80 with piston 82 of modified Ponzio as a motor-actuated rod-and-crank mechanism driving the piston, as an alternative manner of providing reciprocal motion to a piston, with predictable results. In modifying the actuator as such, the connection member (rod) would be movable relative to the distribution member (74).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponzio in view of Bibeau and Lohkamp, further in view of Cai (CN2050025795U).
Ponzio, as modified above, renders obvious the claimed invention, but does not disclose the connection member being connected to the actuator by a quick-coupling mechanism).
The concept of providing a quick-disconnect between a rod and crank of a rod-and-crank arrangement is known. See crank 4 connected to rod 3 (Fig. 10). Removing locating pin acts as a quick-disconnect, quickly disconnecting the rod from the crank.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to connect the rod and crank of modified Ponzio, to include a locating pin which can be removed to act as a quick disconnect, for disconnecting the rod from the crank, with predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Regarding art rejections, Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to take Bibeau's clamping mechanism, separate it from its bending function, and reposition it upstream in Ponzio's apparatus as now claimed. The apparatus for manufacturing coil members for insertion into slots of a core of a dynamo-electric machine of amended claim 1 addresses a fundamentally different problem in a different location, stabilizing the wire immediately after feeding and before bending, rather than clamping it at the bending point as disclosed by Bibeau. Therefore, combination of Ponzio and Bibeau would fail to achieve the apparatus for manufacturing coil members for insertion into slots of a core of a dynamo-electric machine of amended claim 1.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In Bibeau, the conductor is fed as shown in Fig. 8, in the direction of arrow 94, from a feeding mechanism 14 through holding assembly 74 having the piston 82, and exits at an aperture of 74 as shown in Fig. 8. When the desired length of conductor has been fed, the feeding is stopped and the piston 82 is actuated to prevent wire movement (see [0072]). As shown in Fig. 9, bending of the conductor takes place (see [0073]). Therefore, the piston 82 stabilizes the conductor after feeding and before bending, contrary to Applicant’s assertion that Bibeau clamps it at the bending point. In modifying Ponzio to include a holding assembly, the holding assembly would be disposed right after aperture 80, to facilitate clamping the fed conductor, prior to bending. The exit of the holding member would then be the claimed aperture, rather than aperture 80.
Regarding functional limitations, the examiner agrees that some limitations now recite sufficient structure to no longer be considered as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Although the same references are used, the scope of the claims was changed to a sufficient extent to allow additional claims to be rejected using the previously cited prior art. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm ET.
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.
/LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights