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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claim languages filed on 2/12/26 has been fully considered and made of record. Claims 1-5 are now pending in that unelected invention method claims 3-4 are existed and is requested to be cancelled or taken an appropriate action.
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 claimed “a movement mechanism” (claim 5, lines 2-3), 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Since the scope of the claims 1-2, 45clearly directed to the wave forming “device” as indicated in lines 1-2 of the above claims. In formulate the rejection on the merits the Examiner presumes that the claims directed to a device (based on the structure elements) that made up the device rather than the intended use of the claimed device and claims will be rejected accordingly.
It is unclear as to exactly what being referring to as “a movement mechanism” (see new claim 5, lines 2-3) since specification has support for such above (see ¶ [0036] indicated) but no details have been shown or provided in drawings in order to better understanding of the claimed device. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In this case the subject matter such as “a movement mechanism” (see claim 5, lines 2-3) was not fully described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1-2, and newly added claim 5 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. This rejection is set forth from the previous Action dated 11/14/25 under 112 sections.
Regarding claim 5, the terms or phrase “configured to” (see lines 2 and 3) is considered to be functionally intended use. Since, it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2111.04 and/or 2173.05(d). The office hereby notes the phrase(s) do not limit a claim to a particular structure but rather makes optional and does not denote how features are structurally associated.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Smith (US 4,210,999). This rejection is set forth in the previous Action under section of 102 rejections.
the Smith discloses regarding,
Claim 5, further comprising “a movement mechanism 41 configured to move the restrainer relative to the group of conductors, wherein the movement mechanism 41 is configured to: advance the restrainer to engage apex parts of the conductors when the conductors are in the partially folded state, such that the apex parts are fitted into the plurality of grooves; and move the restrainer away from the apex parts after the conductors reach the fully folded state, thereby removing the apex parts from the plurality of grooves “ is considered met by the Smith without the intended use above. Applicant(s) refers to See MPEP § 2111.04 and/or 2173.05(d) for details of whether the limitations following the phrase “configured to” is/are part of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Luttge (US 20190260276).
Luttge discloses the claimed a wave winding conductor forming device comprising:
a restrainer 3, 3a provided with a plurality of grooves (comb like 3a) configured to receive fold parts of the conductors 2 each consisting of at least two unit wires while the conductors are transition from a partially folded state to a fully folded state (see Figs. 1-2, and discussed in ¶[0032]),
wherein the plurality of grooves of 3a are dimensioned to limit a width of each of the conductors 2 to a predetermined distance during said transition (see Figs. 1-2, 5-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
260
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note: regarding, the phrase: “configured to fold a group of conductors in thickness directions, the group of conductors including a plurality of conductors having straight parts, the wave winding conductor forming device” (see claim 1 preamble, lines 1-3) is considered to be functionally intended which does not further limit the claimed device.
Similar to the above also occurrence after the phrase “configured to” in claim 1, lines 5-9, respectively.
The Luttge further discloses, regarding.
Claim 2, wherein the plurality of grooves (see Figs. 1-2 as marked up above) are arranged in parallel to each other at predetermined intervals in correspondence with the plurality of conductors 2 disposed to be formed at the same time (see Figs. 1-2, and discussed in light of ¶ [0032]),
Claim 5, further comprising a movement mechanism (see X direction) configured to move the restrainer 3/3a relative to the group of conductors 2 (see Figs. 5, 7, and discussed in ¶ [0029]),
wherein the movement mechanism (X direction) (see Fig. 5).
Regarding the phrases:” is configured to: advance the restrainer to engage apex parts of the conductors when the conductors are in the partially folded state, such that the apex parts are fitted into the plurality of grooves; and move the restrainer away from the apex parts after the conductors reach the fully folded state, thereby removing the apex parts from the plurality of grooves” (see claim 5, lines 4-8) is/are functionally intended use, since no inventive structure limitation associated therefrom. Thus, the intended use above is/are not inventive features when departing from the Luttge‘s teaching without exercising any inventive skills, (see also MPEP § 2111.04 and/or 2173.05(d).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/12/26 regarding pending rejected claims 1-2 and 5 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Because the applied prior art of record discloses every aspect structural limitation as set for in claim 1-2 and new claim 5 (see above).
Further, Applicant(s) contends that the applied prior art to Smith does not teach the recites of “wherein the restrainer provided with a plurality of grooves “configured to “receive fold parts of the conductors each consisting of at least two unit wires while the conductors are transitioning from a partially folded state to a fully folded state, wherein the plurality of grooves are dimensioned to limit a width of each of the conductors to a predetermined distance during said transition." The Examiner disagreed because above phrase is intended use which does not further limit the claimed device since no further structure elements existed in the above. Thus, above argument is/are not found to be persuasive and the prior art retained for same season provided from record.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., see page 3, ¶ [0002] of Applicant’s” Remarks” which refers to Applicant specification’s paragraph 0106) which is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejected pending claims have been acknowledged, however their arguments do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Further claim 5 has been added raises issues of claim objected to and 112 issues (see above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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 J 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt