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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Figure 1: 4, 8
Figure 2: 14, 18, 30, 36
Figure 3: 56
Figure 4: 14, 20, 30
Figure 6: 20
Figure 1: has two elements are labeled with reference numeral “6” - in the specification is noted to be that is “6” is a degree indicator – both elements are clearly not degree indicators; therefore one reference numeral label is incorrect.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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, 7, 8 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 11 currently have the word “A” capitalized in the middle of the claim and it should not be capitalized.
Claim 2 currently recites: “The device of claim one”
and should read “The device of claim 1,”
Claim 7 currently recites: “A device as in claim 2”
and should read “The device of claim 2,”
Claim 8 currently recites: “A device as in claim 3”
and should read “The device of claim 3,”
Claim 11 should end with a period, not a semicolon as currently presented.
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.
Claims 3-6, 9-10 and 12-18 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 3-6, 9-10 and 12-18 are all written as independent claims that are broader than the invention as originally filed i.e., they are so broad they can be considered outside the scope of tube bending. It is suggested, in order to overcome this rejection, to amend these claims to be dependent claims.
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 1-18 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:
“A device for bending metal tube or pipe whereas the device has a main body with a hydraulic cylinder in the middle with one or more ropes, cables or chains used to pull and bend the tube or pipe, the device comprising: A main body having two openings on each end and two openings on top for one or more rope, cable, or chains to go through with a body having at least one end that holds the cylinder by means of a pin. “
It is not clear if this limitation “whereas the device has a main body with a hydraulic cylinder in the middle with one or more ropes, cables or chains used to pull and bend the tube or pipe” is meant to positively recite elements and to further be considered to be required parts of the device since the limitation precedes the transitional phrase “comprising.” It is also noted that “a main body” or “a body” is recited as three separate recitations in the claim – it is not clear if multiple bodies are being claimed or if the same, single body is meant to be referred to.
It is noted that once an element is recited a first time i.e. “a main body” subsequent recitations should be recited with “the” or said” i.e. “the body.” For purposes of examination, the claim is understood to be read as follows, appropriate correction is required:
“A device for bending metal tube or pipe, the device comprising:
a main body;
one or more rope, cable, or chains;
and a hydraulic cylinder;
wherein the body having two openings on each end and two openings on top for the one or more rope, cable, or chains to go through;
and wherein the body having at least one end that holds the hydraulic cylinder by means of a pin.”
Claim 2 recites: “wherein the main body holding a hydraulic cylinder has a counter balance swivel attachment at the end of the hydraulic ram connected with a pin to the ram and two pins on the outer ends to connect the ropes, cable or chain to keep even pressure on each of them.” It is not clear if an additional hydraulic cylinder is required or if it is meant to refer to the hydraulic cylinder set forth in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the hydraulic ram.” It is not clear if an additional pin is required or if it is meant to refer to the pin set forth in claim 1. Similarly are the “two pins” additional pins? The “outer ends” of what element? “Even pressure” on each of what elements?
Claims 3-6, 9, 10 and 12-18 appears to lack a transitional phrase (e.g. “comprising”). A transitional phrase defines the scope of the claim in terms of what unrecited elements or method steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim, as well as clearly separating the preamble of the claim from the body of claim. Accordingly, the lack of a transitional phrase renders the claim indefinite because the scope of the claim is not clearly defined. For the purposes of examination this will be interpreted as an open transitional phrase (i.e. equivalent to “comprising”). Please see MPEP 2111.03.
Claim 3 recites: “has one or more leverage wheels designed with a slot in the center to hold one or more ropes, cables or chains.” It is not clear what the metes and bounds of “designed with” encompasses.
Claim 4 recites: “A device that uses one or more leverage wheels with one or two connection points to fasten a rope or cable.” It is unclear if the wheels are required elements of the device. The claim requires “connection points” but it is unclear what element these points are connected to.
Claim 5 recites: “A device that uses one or more idler pulleys to position one or two ropes or cables between a hydraulic ram and one or two leverage wheels that turn a die.” It is unclear what elements are required in this claim.
Claim 6 recites: “A device that uses one or more leverage wheels that hold one or more ropes, cables or chains to turn a die over 180 degrees without stopping.” It is unclear what elements are required in this claim.
Claim 7 recites: “A device as in claim 2 which has a counter balance swivel attachment at the end of the hydraulic ram which is used as a safety device to catch and stop the device by using two ropes or cables rather than one.” It is not clear what the metes and bounds of “used as a safety device encompasses. It is further unclear how an element i.e. swivel attachment is part of the device and must also stop the device. What part of the device is being stopped?
Claim 8 recites: “A device as in claim 3 with one or two leverage wheels used to pull more or less weight depending on the radius or diameter of the leverage wheels or wheel designed also to pull the weight faster or slower depending on the radius or diameter.”
It is unclear if the wheels set forth here are mean to be additional wheels or if they are meant to refer to the wheels set forth in claim 3. It is further unclear if the “or wheel” is introducing an additional wheel or one of the previously set forth wheels. It is further unclear what additional structural limitations are required herein.
Claim 9 recites: “A device that uses a hydraulic cylinder that pushes on one or more ropes which in turn makes the rope, ropes or cable pull on the leverage wheels it was designed for.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the rope, ropes or cable” – only one or more ropes were previously set forth. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the leverage wheels.” It is unclear what element “it” is referring to. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of “designed for” is encompassing.
Claim 10 recites: “A device that has two vertical plates on top of a tube body with holes in them to hold two metal dies.” It is unclear what element has the holes? The plates or the tube body? It is understood that the term “a tube body” is mean to be “a main body” as the tube is the workpiece and not an element of the device.
Claim 11 recites: “A device that bends tube and pipe past 180 degrees with a hydraulic cylinder all in one outward stroke of the cylinder comprising of:
at least one rope;
at least one hydraulic pump;
a hollow tube that holds the hydraulic cylinder attached at one end;
a counter balance swivel attachment at the end of the hydraulic ram that holds two or more ropes for safety and even pressure;
one or more vertical plates above the main body to hold dies with different sizes;
a metal degree indicator to place a magnet for a limit switch to stop at;
a limit switch that is connected to a hydraulic pump to kill the power;
a 12 volt or 24 volt battery to power the hydraulic pump;
A stand to hold the tube and pipe bender also to hold the battery and pump;”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for:
“the hydraulic ram”
“the main body”
“the tube and pipe bender”
One line 7, “two or more ropes” – it is unclear if these ropes are meant to be an addition to the “at least one rope” set forth on line 3 or meant to include the “at least one rope” from line 3.
On line 10 of claim 11, the term “a hydraulic pump” – it is not clear if this is meant to require an additional pump or refer to the previously set forth pump. For purposes of examination, it is understood that this term is meant to be “the hydraulic pump.” Similarly, on line 12, “pump” should be “the/said pump.” It is not clear is the limit switch on line 10 is mean to be an additional limit switch or mean to refer to the limit switch on line 9.
The limitation “a hollow tube that holds the hydraulic cylinder attached at one end” is unclear. The specification only refers to a “tube” in the sense of a workpiece, not a required element of the device and not something that can hold the hydraulic cylinder.
It is not clear what the metes and bounds of “one or more vertical plates above the main body” encompasses. The term “above” could suggest that the plates are not attached in any way to the body. However, it appears from the drawings that the plate are “attached” or “mounted” to the top of the main body.
“A stand to hold the tube and pipe bender” – it is not clear if the “tube and pipe bender” limitation is meant to introduce an additional element or reference the “device” as a whole
Claim 12 recites: “A device that can automatically stop by means of a magnet placed on a metal degree indicator whereas the magnet triggers a limit switch.” It is not clear what is required by the claim since the claim is written functional almost like a method claim with structural elements added
Claim 13 recites: “A device with a main tube that has two holes parallel to each other to insert rope or cable through to be able to wrap around and attach to two leverage wheels on one end and a hydraulic ram with a counter balance swivel on the other end along with an idler pulley in the middle.” It is understood that the term “main tube” should be “main body.” It is unclear what element the rope or cable must wrap around.
Examiner noted that claims are replete with issues under 35USC 112 and the above listing is not inclusive, Applicant is required to review all of the claims for compliance to 35 USC 112 so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention, the scope of the protection sought and the proper application of the prior art.
Examiner notes that no art has been applied to claims 2, 4-5, 6-11, 13-16 and 18; however, the claims as currently presented are not deemed allowable and Applicant is required to clarify in compliance with 35 USC 112 so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention and the protection sought.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eaton (US Patent 4,269,054), as best understood.
With regards to claim 1, Eaton discloses a device intended for bending metal tube or pipe, the device comprising:
a main body (134, 136, 138, 140, 142);
one or more chains (41, 43);
and a hydraulic cylinder (146);
wherein the body having two openings on each end [openings not labeled, please see annotated Figure 5 below] and two openings (at least 137, 139, 141) on top intended for the one or more chains to go through; and
wherein the body having at least one end that holds the hydraulic cylinder (146) by means of a pin, [pin is unlabeled, please see annotated Figure 3 below].
PNG
media_image1.png
570
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5 from US Patent 4,269,054
PNG
media_image2.png
595
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 from US Patent 4,269,054
With regards to claim 3, as best understood, Eaton discloses a device comprising one or more leverage wheels (214, 224) with a slot in the center to hold one or more chains (212, 220), as seen in at least Figure 7.
With regards to claim 6, as best understood, Eaton discloses a device comprising one or more leverage wheels (214, 224) that hold one or more chains (212, 220) that has the capability to turn a die (230, 232) over 180 degrees without stopping.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garner et al. (hereafter “Garner”)(US Patent 3,531,963), as best understood.
Garner discloses a device comprising an idler pully (26) between a hydraulic ram (56) and one or more leverage wheels (42, 94).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lance (US Patent 3,808,856), as best understood.
Lance discloses a device comprising a magnet (365), degree indicator (361) and a limit switch (367), as described in Columns 15-18. Lance discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the degree indicator is metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the particularly claimed material composition of the structure since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of mechanically efficiency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and further show the state of the art:
US Patent 3,016,943; 3,475,938; 3,417,601; 4,833,907 and 5,615,572
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725