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 cam-like formation is configured at least partially in a concave “and/or convex manner” on line 3 of claim 8, 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 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: “milling member” and “actuation member” throughout claims 1-10.
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 1-10 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 in:
Line 6 “a geometrically determined blade”. However, it is unclear what exactly is catalogued as a “geometrically determined” blade. How can a blade be “geometrically determined”? Further clarification is needed
Line 7 “profile having a transverse profile”. However, it is unclear in relation to what is this profile considered “transverse”. Further clarification is needed.
Line 16 “a formation”, however it is unclear what exactly is a “formation”. Formation of what? Further clarification is needed
Line 16 “a formation which has an inclination, of the blade carrier”. It is unclear if the formation has an inclination, or if the blade carrier has an inclination, or of the formation is on the blade carrier? Further clarification is needed.
Line 17 “a first functional position”. It is unclear what exactly is catalogued as a first functional position. Functional in relation to what? From where to where is this position defined at? Further clarification is needed
Lines 19-20 “a second functional position”. It is unclear what exactly is catalogued as a second functional position. Functional in relation to what? From where to where is this position defined at? Further clarification is needed
Line 22 a second group of the plurality of blade carriers of “a same track path of the one or more track paths”. However, since line 18-19 that “the first group of movable blade carrier of one or more track paths”, it is confusing if the first and second group of the plurality of blade carriers are each on the same one or more track paths or not. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 2 recites in line 3 that the second group of the plurality of blade carriers “are arranged in a non-movable manner on the milling member”. However, it is unclear in relation to what are these blade carrier considered to be “non-movable manner”. Since the milling member rotates, then because the blade carriers are disposed on the milling member, then the blade carriers are movable with the milling member. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 4 the phrase “associated with” in lines 5 and 8 renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how exactly the first track path is associated with a running face of the transverse profile and how the second track path is associated with a lateral and/or medial edge region of the transverse profile. Additionally, it is unclear what exactly is a running face of the transverse profile. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 7 line 3 the phrase “cam-like formation” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what the metes and bounds of something that is cam-like, are. Is it a cam or not? Further clarification is needed. Line 5 recites “chip-removing processing processing”, the double “processing processing” is unclear. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 8 line 2 the phrase “cam-like formation” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what the metes and bounds of something that is cam-like, are. Is it a cam or not? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 9 the phrase “can be” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the plurality of actuation members are actually being adjusted independently of each other, or not. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 10 recites in lines 7-8 Line 7 “produce different transverse profile geometries of the profile”. However, it is unclear in relation to what is this profile considered “transverse”. What are “transverse profile geometries” of the profile? Further clarification is needed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mevert et al. US 2011/0243678 (hereafter—Mevert--).
In regards to claim 1, Mevert discloses an apparatus (1) comprising: a milling member (4) capable of being driven in a rotational manner, and a plurality of blade carriers (5) attached to the milling member, (4) each blade carrier having a geometrically determined blade (2) for the chip-removing processing of a profile (3) the profile having a transverse profile of a rail of a track member (in the same way as presented by Applicant), wherein a first group of the plurality of blade carriers (5) is capable of being moved relative to the milling member (4) in order to adjust different working positions during engagement of the blade (2) of the respective movable blade carrier (5) in the profile (3), each movable blade carrier (5) is arranged so as to be capable to be radially deflected on the milling member (4) by an actuation member (7) during a rotating movement of the milling member (4) wherein the actuation member (7) cyclically comes into contact with a formation (6), which has an inclination (Figure 3), of the blade carrier (5), wherein in a first functional position, exclusively the blades (2) of the first group of movable blade carriers (5) of one or more track paths (18) move into engagement with the profile (3), and in a second functional position, exclusively blades (2) of a second group of the plurality of blade carriers (5), of a same track path (18) or of the one or more track paths (18) move into engagement with the profile (3).
In regards to claim 2, Mevert discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, Mevert also discloses that the blade carriers (5) of the second group of the plurality of blade carriers are arranged in a non-movable manner on the milling member (4) (in Figure 2, refer to the group that is not in contact with actuator 7 disposed on 13, but the actuator 7 whose axis 9 is parallel to axis of shaft 10).
In regards to claim 3, Mevert discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, Mevert also discloses that the movable blade carriers (5) of the first group of the plurality of blade carriers and/or movable blade carriers (5) of another group of the plurality of blade carriers are configured to be able to be deflected by a respective actuation member (7).
In regards to claim 4, Mevert discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 2, Mevert also discloses that the plurality of blade carriers (5) are arranged beside each other in a direction of a rotation axis (9) in adjacent track paths (18), wherein exclusively movable blade carriers (5) are arranged in at least a first track path (18) that is associated with a running face of the transverse profile (3), and different groups of movable blade carriers (5) and non-movable blade carriers (5) are arranged in at least a second track path (18) that is associated with a lateral and/or a medial edge region of the transverse profile (see Figure 2 and Figure 4, in the same way as presented by Applicant).
In regards to claim 5, Mevert discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 2, Mevert also discloses that adjacent blade carriers (5) of different track paths (18) are arranged with an offset in a circumferential direction (see Figures 2 and 4).
In regards to claim 6, Mevert discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 4, Mevert also discloses that the movable blade carriers (5) and/or non-movable blade carriers (5) of different groups of the same track path (18) are arranged in the circumferential direction alternately and/or in a state distributed uniformly on the profile milling member (see Figures 2 and 4).
In regards to claim 7, Mevert discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, Mevert also discloses that the formation (6) is a cam-like formation (6) and has an inclination (see Figure 3), against which the actuation member (7) cyclically abuts in a sliding and/or rolling manner during the chip-removing processing processing (in the same way as presented by Applicant).
In regards to claim 8, Mevert discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 7, Mevert also discloses that the cam-like formation (6) is configured at least partially in a concave and/or convex manner (in the same way as presented by Applicant on Figure 2, see Figure 3 of Mevert).
In regards to claim 9, Mevert discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, Mevert also discloses that the apparatus (1) comprises a plurality of actuation members (7) that can be adjusted independently of each other.
In regards to claim 10, Mevert discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, Mevert also discloses a method comprising: cyclically deflecting a blade (2) during the chip-removing processing of the profile (3) with respect to an axis (9) of the milling member (4) thereby moving the blade (2) along a planar path (8), and during the processing of the profile (3), in order to produce different transverse profile geometries of the same profile (3), activating at least one actuation member, (7) so that either blades (2) of a first group of movable blade carriers (5) of at least one track path (18) or blades (2) of a second group of a plurality of blade carriers (5) that are arranged on the milling member (4) of the same track path (18) engage in the profile (3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE N RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00 am -5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/NICOLE N RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722