DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “intersection guide rails” recites in claim 1, line 25 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification page 12, lines 26-27 includes the following statement “Furthermore, the opposing centering fingers 114 may be supported in the same guide unit (for example, a guide rail or guide groove 112) as the centering fingers 111.”; however because the numerical label “112” is already used to designate the guide unit”; it is unclear from the statement above if the “guide rail” or “guide groove” are other names or synonyms for the guide unit. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-10, 14, 17, 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 6-7, 8 and 12, it is suggested to replace “the support rollers 101” with --the at least two support rollers (101) --. For claim language consistency.
In claim 1, lines 10 and 15, it is suggested to replace “the centering finger (111)” with --the at least one centering finger (111) --. For claim language consistency.
In claim 3, line 2, it is suggested to replace “the centering finger (111)” with --the at least one centering finger (111) --.
In claim 4, line 2, it is suggested to replace “the centering finger (111)” with --the at least one centering finger (111) --.
In claim 5, lines 1-2, and 3 it is suggested to replace “the centering finger (111)”
with --the at least one centering finger (111) --.
In claim 6, lines 4 and 4-5, it is suggested to replace “the centering finger (111)” with --the at least one centering finger (111) --.
In claim 7, lines 1-2, it is suggested to replace “the centering finger (111)” with --the at least one centering finger (111) --.
In claim 8, line 3, recites the limitation “a floor guide unit with a floor guide (116)” but because this limitation already has antecedent basis in the base claim 1, it should be replaced with --the floor guide unit with the floor guide (116) --.
In claim 9, lines 3 and 5, it is suggested to replace “the centering finger (111)” with --the at least one centering finger (111) --.
In claim 10, lines 7-8, and 9 it is suggested to replace “the centering finger (111)” with --the at least one centering finger (111) --.
In claim 12, line 2, it is suggested to replace “at least one of the support rollers (101)” with -- at least one of the at least two support rollers (101) --. For claim language consistency.
In claim 14, line 3, it is suggested to replace “the support rollers 101” with --the at least two support rollers (101) --.
In claim 17, lines 6 and 7, it is suggested to replace “the centering finger (111)” with --the at least one centering finger (111) --.
In claim 18, line 1, it is suggested to replace “A temperature control system (200)” with --The temperature control system (200) --.
In claim 20, lines 7 and 8, it is suggested to replace “the support rollers 101” with --the at least two support rollers (101) --.
In claim 20, lines 11 and 14, it is suggested to replace “the centering finger (111)”
with --the at least one centering finger (111) --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 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 recites the limitation "align the metal blank (150), which is placeable on the support rollers (101), in a predetermined orientation" in lines 11-13; and recites the limitation “align the metal blank (150) in a further predetermined orientation” in lines 16-17. In, particular the specification and figure 1 show a device (100) for aligning a metal blank (150) in a temperature control system (200) defined within a space encompassed by three directions or axes, namely a throughput direction (105), a transverse direction (106) and a perpendicular (107) that runs perpendicular to the throughput direction
105 and the transverse direction 106. Therefore, it is unclear what the claimed “a predetermined orientation” and “a further predetermined orientation” means and/or what constitutes besides the three directions or axes. The limitations are deemed vague, thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein the second centering unit (115) is arranged at a distance from the first centering unit (110) in the throughput direction (105) and/or transversely to the throughput direction (105)" in lines 18-20. In particular, it is unclear how the second centering unit (115) is arranged at a distance from the first centering unit (110) in the throughput direction (105) and at the same time transversely to the throughput direction (105) as required by the “and” or portion of the “and/or”. In addition, it is unclear how the second centering unit (115) is arranged at a distance from the first centering unit (110) transversely to the throughput direction (105), in that said structural
cooperative relationships between the second centering unit (115), the first centering unit (110) and the throughput direction (105) appear inconsistent with how these features are depicted or illustrated in figure 1. In figure 1, the second centering unit (115) appears to be arranged at a distance from and parallel to the first centering unit (110) in the throughput direction (105). The scope of the claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "intersecting guide rails along which the centering unit (110) and the further centering unit (115) may be guided accordingly in the throughput direction (105) or transversely thereto and may be adjusted accordingly" in lines 25-28. Each one of these phrases “guided accordingly” and “adjusted accordingly” is vague, in that the term “accordingly” does not necessarily provide any clear manner or context as to why and how the centering unit (110) and the further centering unit (115) are guided and adjusted respectively.
Regarding claims 9, 17 and 19, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite since a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9, 17 and 19 recites respectively the broad limitation and the narrower limitation “a fiber-reinforced material, in particular a fiber-reinforced ceramic, in particular comprising silicon carbide”, “a detection unit (104), in particular an optical detection unit (104)” and “a cooling unit, in
particular a contact cooler”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "aligning the metal blank (150) into a predetermined orientation" in line 9; and recites the limitation “align the metal blank (150) in a further predetermined orientation” in lines 15-16. In, particular the specification and figure 1 show a device (100) for aligning a metal blank (150) in a temperature control system (200) defined within a space encompassed by three directions or axes, namely a throughput direction (105), a transverse direction (106) and a perpendicular (107) that runs perpendicular to the throughput direction 105 and the transverse direction 106. Therefore, it is unclear what the claimed “a predetermined orientation” and “a further predetermined orientation” means and/or what constitutes besides the three directions or axes. The limitations are deemed vague, thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "wherein the second centering unit (115) is
arranged at a distance from the first centering unit (110) in the throughput direction (105) and/or transversely to the throughput direction (105)" in lines 16-18. In particular, it is unclear how the second centering unit (115) is arranged at a distance from the first centering unit (110) in the throughput direction (105) and at the same time transversely to the throughput direction (105) as required by the “and” or portion of the “and/or”. In addition, it is unclear how the second centering unit (115) is arranged at a distance from the first centering unit (110) transversely to the throughput direction (105), in that said structural cooperative relationships between the second centering unit (115), the first centering unit (110) and the throughput direction (105) appear inconsistent with how these features are depicted or illustrated in figure 1. In figure 1, the second centering unit (115) appears to be arranged at a distance from and parallel to the first centering unit (110) in the throughput direction (105). The scope of the claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "intersecting guide rails along which the centering unit (110) and the further centering unit (115) may be guided accordingly in the throughput direction (105) or transversely thereto and may be adjusted accordingly" in lines 25-28. Each one of these phrases “guided accordingly” and “adjusted accordingly” is vague, in that the term “accordingly” does not necessarily provide any clear manner or context as to why and how the centering unit (110) and the further centering unit (115) are guided and adjusted respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome
the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Hahn (US 11,192,164) is the closest prior art drawn to a device for aligning a metal blank for a temperature control system. Hahn teaches a system and a method of centering and aligning a metal blanks (10a, 10b, 11a, 11b, see figures 3a-3e and column 6, lines 1-4 and lines 47-65) outputted from a furnace comprising: conveyor roller (16, see figure 1, column 2, lines 39-55 and column 4, lines 31-51) for conveying the metal blank, outputted from a furnace (15, see figure 1 and column 4, lines 30-35) and displacing the blanks at least along a first horizontal axis (see figures 1 and 3a-3e); a plurality of shifting units (20a-20d, see figures 1, 2 and 3a-3e, column 5, lines 37-43) configured to lift and carry at least one blank independently of lifting and carrying at least one other blank, and to carry the blanks along a second horizontal axis substantially perpendicular to the first horizontal axis, and two or more adjustable lifting bars (18, see figures 2 and 3a and column 5, lines 15-20 and lines 30-43 and column 6, lines 24-34), being configured to lift the blanks along a vertical axis substantially perpendicular to both the first and second horizontal axes; and a plurality of centering pins (24, see figures 1, 2, and 3a-3e, column 2, lines 39-55, column 4, lines 52-64column 5, lines 30-48 and column 6, lines 28-55) for centering the blanks by moving one or more of the blanks carried on the shifting units (20a-20d, see figures 1, 2 and 3a-3e) along the second horizontal axis against the centering pins (24, see figures 1, 2, and 3a-3e).
Hahn, however differs from the instant claimed invention by failing to teach
and/or adequately suggest as in claims 1 and 20: a first centering unit (110) having at least one centering finger (111) which is movably arranged within the conveying plane (204) within which at least two support rollers (101) on which the metal blank (150) is placeable and conveyable through the temperature control system (200); wherein the at least one centering finger (111) is movable transversely to a throughput direction (105) in order to align the metal blank (150) in a predetermined orientation, and a second centering unit (115) with at least one centering finger (111) which is movably arranged within the conveying plane (204) such that the at least one centering finger (111) is movable transversely to the throughput direction (105) in order to align the metal blank (150) in a further predetermined orientation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dörr (US 9,010,524), Lopez Lage et al. (US 11,219,937) and Masciarelli, Jr. (US 6,019,211) are also cited in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759