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 do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 201 (see e.g. page 6, line 6).
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. 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:
Page 1, line 4, as well as page 2, lines 1 and 3, refer to “the present patent”. Given that the application in not yet patented, it is recommended that this be amended to recite --the present disclosure--, for example.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
First lower device (e.g. claim 1)
Second lower device (e.g. claim 1)
First upper device (e.g. claim 1)
Second upper device (e.g. claim 1)
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 (e.g. conventional mechanical or hydraulic devices - page 8, lines 3-4).
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 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 first upper device for translating said second lower guide (200)”. From the context of the disclosure, it is unclear how the a first upper device would translate said second lower guide. It appears as if this should recite --a first upper device for translating said second upper guide (300).
Claim 10 recites “A procedure for loading/unloading tools (110, 210,310,410) into/from a loading device”. The attempt to combine what amounts to two distinct processes (loading and unloading) into a singular claim makes the claim generally unclear and difficult to follow, especially in view of several subsequent “and/or” limitations. Applicant should consider splitting the loading and unloading methods into separate claims, or else more clearly describe a sequence of loading followed by unloading or vice-versa.
Claim 10 recites “a loading device” in line 2. It is unclear if this is the loading device described in claim 6 as subsequently referenced, or a different device. Applicant may consider amending this to recite --the loading device of claim 6-- and omitting the “providing” step.
Claim 10 recites “said tools” in line 12. It is unclear to which tools this refers as apparently two sets (e.g. lines 1-2 and line 6) have been established.
Claim 10 recites “transferring said tools (110, 310) from said press (P)” in line 12. However, the tools were last preloaded onto the second lower and/or upper guide per lines 6-8, so it is unclear how they can now be transferred from the press.
Claim 10 recites “moving, with a synchronized movement, said first and said second lower guide (100, 200) and/or said upper guide. It is unclear what specific guides are being moved in synchronicity with what other guides. For example, it appears as if a single guide (“or said upper guide”) can be moved with a synchronized movement, but it is unclear with what else.
Claim 10 recites “said upper guide” in line 16. It is unclear to which (first or second) this refers.
Claim 10 recites “said upper guide” in line 17. It is unclear to which (first or second) this refers.
Claim 10 recites “said tools” in line 19. As noted above, at least two sets appear to be established, and so it is unclear to which this refers.
Claim 10 recites “transferring said tools (210,210', 410) from said second lower guide (200) and/or said upper guide”. However, the tools were last transferred to the first lower/upper guide per lines 12-14, so it is unclear how they can now be transferred from the press.
Claim 10 recites “said upper guide” in line 20. It is unclear to which (first or second) this refers.
Claim 10 recites “said lower guide” in line 20. It is unclear to which (first or second) this refers.
Claim 10 recites “said upper guide” in line 20. It is unclear to which (first or second) this refers.
The remaining claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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, 5-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (WO2020230731, with reference to U.S. PGPub 20220203429 as an English equivalent).
Claim 1: Sato et al. discloses a device (56) for loading bending tools (12, 14) into a press (16), comprising: a first lower guide (one of 82 - Fig. 2; paragraph 53) oriented according to a first direction (L-R); a second lower guide (another one of 82, not shown but understood as being arranged in the front-rear direction relative to the first as cited above) arranged to be parallel to said first lower guide (e.g. along the L-R direction, Id.); a first lower device (92) for translating said second lower guide in a second direction (U-D, paragraph 55), which is orthogonal to said first direction (vertically as compared to horizontally); a second lower device (88) for translating said first lower guide and said second lower guide in a third direction (FF-FR - paragraph 55), which is orthogonal to said first direction and to said second direction; a first upper guide (one of 66 - Fig. 2; paragraph 50) oriented according to said first direction (L-R); a second upper guide (another one of 66, not shown but understood as being arranged in the front-rear direction relative to the first as cited above) arranged is to be parallel to said first upper guide (e.g. along the L-R direction, Id.); a first upper device (78) for translating said second lower guide in said second direction (U-D, paragraph 52), which is orthogonal to said first direction; a second upper device (74) for translating said first upper guide and said second upper guide in said third direction (FF-FR - paragraph 52), which is orthogonal to said first direction, wherein said lower guides and said upper guides are configured so that one or more tools or dies (12, 14) can be slidably assembled thereon (e.g. paragraphs 90, 92-93, 97; Figs. 6B-6C). It is noted that the first and second upper and lower devices are disclosed as being known (paragraphs 52 and 55) and are implicitly mechanical, and so are considered to read on the interpretation under 112(f).
Claim 2: Said first lower device (92) is configured to selectively translate said second lower guide (82) in said second direction (vertically) between a lower position with respect to said first lower guide and a position, in which said lower guide is coplanar and side by side with respect to said first lower guide (it “moves the selected lower stocker 82 to the lower exchange position”, paragraphs 53, 55).
Claim 3: Said first upper device (78) is configured to selectively translate said second upper guide (66) in said second direction (vertically) between a higher position with respect to said first upper guide and a position in which said second upper guide is coplanar and side by side with respect to said first upper guide (it “moves the selected upper stocker 66 to the upper exchange position”, paragraphs 50, 52).
Claim 5: Said second lower device (88) is configured to selectively arrange said first lower guide or said second lower guide (82) in an aligned and coplanar position with respect to a lower transfer guide (46), the lower transfer guide being intended to be positioned to be aligned and coplanar with a lower guide (40) of a press (16 - e.g. Figs. 1-2).
Claim 6: Said second upper device (74) is configured to selectively arrange said first upper guide or said second upper guide (68) in an aligned and coplanar position with respect to an upper transfer guide (44), the upper transfer guide being intended to be positioned to be aligned and coplanar with an upper guide (30) of a press (16 - e.g. Figs. 1-2).
Claim 7: Said first lower device (92) and said second lower device (88) move said lower guides independently of said first and said second upper device and vice versa (implied as cited previously, as they are separate devices).
Claim 8: Said first and said second lower device (92, 88) move said lower guides so that they are synchronized with said first and second upper device and vice versa. It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the first and said second lower device are presumed capable of being “synchronized” with said first and second upper device and vice versa, i.e. simply being controlled in some manner in conjunction with each other.
Claim 9: Said lower transfer guide (46) is configured for a sliding movement of said bending tools (paragraph 46).
Claim 11: Said upper transfer guide (44) is configured for a sliding movement of said bending tools (paragraph 45).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Cavicchia et al.
Claim 4: Sato et al. discloses Said second lower device (88) is configured to translate said first and said second lower guide (82), and wherein said second upper device is configured to translate said first and said second upper guide, but not necessarily respectively integrally with each other. However, Cavicchia et al. discloses a similar device wherein a set of guides 16 may be translated integrally with each other along a direction (along rails 35 in Fig. 3; paragraph 48; noting they may still be translated vertically independently). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the Sato device to have translated the respective guides integrally, for example in order to have saved movement steps by allowing moving both guides together on a common platform.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al.
Claim 10: Sato et al. discloses a procedure for loading/unloading tools (12, 14) into/from a loading device (56), onto a press (16) equipped with a lower guide (40) and with an upper guide (30), the procedure comprising: providing the loading device according to claim (as discussed for claim 6 above); preloading a plurality of tools (12, 14) by manually or automatically positioning said plurality of tools on said second lower guide (82) and/or on said second upper guide (66 - tools 12 and 14 are shown loaded on guides 66 and 82 in Figs. 2-3; loading would inherently be one of manual or automatic; the provision of a plurality of each of guides 66 and 82 implies any may be used to hold tools at a given time, see paragraphs 50 and 53); positioning said first lower guide (82) to be coplanar and aligned with said lower transfer guide (46) and/or positioning said first upper guide (66) to be coplanar and aligned with said upper transfer guide (44 - an upper and/or lower guide preparing for receiving tools would have to be aligned with the respective upper and lower transfer guides in order to allow for sliding tools to the guides from the press); transferring said tools from said press (P) to said first lower guide (82) and/or to said first upper guide (66) by sliding said tools along said lower transfer guide and/or upper transfer guide (implied at paragraphs 90, 93); moving said first and said second lower guide (82) and/or said upper guide (66) so that said second lower guide and/or said upper guide is positioned to be aligned and coplanar with the lower transfer guide or respectively said upper transfer guide (the upper and/or lower guides holding the tools would have to be aligned with the respective upper and lower transfer guides in order to allow for sliding tools to the press); and transferring said tools from said second lower guide and/or said upper guide to said lower guide (40) and/or respectively said upper guide (30) of said press (16) by sliding said tools along said lower transfer guide and/or respectively said upper transfer guide (implied in paragraph 92).
Sato does not explicitly describe moving the guides “with a synchronized movement”. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have operated the guides with a synchronized movement since it has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). Please note that in the instant application, page 8, lines 1-2, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for synchronized versus independent operation and contemplates both.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726