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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “wherein said first and second cutting member are symmetrical with respect to said first axis of rotation so as to have the same orientation with respect to the directrix of feed when they reach the cutting position” should read: “wherein said first and second cutting member are symmetrical with respect to said first axis of rotation so as to have the same orientation with respect to the directrix of feed when either the first cutting member reaches the first cutting position or when the second cutting member reaches a cutting position thereof”. This proposed amendment is based on Examiner’s best understanding of the claims/disclosure/specification. This limitation is also treated under 35 USC 112b in case Examiner’s reading and understanding are in error.
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:
the “motion transmission means”, “motorized member” “driven member” and “motion transmission element” in claims 1 and 13.
The “another motion transmission element” of Claim 11.
With regard to the term “motion transmission means”:
first, the term “means” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “motion transmission”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “motion transmission” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the motion transmission means.
With regard to the term “motorized member”:
first, the term “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “motorized”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “motorized” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the motorized member.
With regard to the term “driven member”:
first, the term “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “driven”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “driven” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the driven member.
With regard to the term “motion transmission element”.
first, the term “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “motion transmission”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “motion transmission” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the motion transmission element.
With regard to the term “another motion transmission element”
first, the term “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “another motion transmission”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “another motion transmission” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the another motion transmission element.
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 11-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The limitation of Claim 11, reading: “a second rotating cutting member, which is mounted rotatable around a third axis of rotation on a second end of said rotating arm, and in that said cutting unit comprises another driven member driven in rotation around another axis of rotation” is indefinite. Specifically, it is not clear what the term “another axis of rotation” refers to, for example, is this a different axis of rotation as the third axis of rotation of claim 11, or from the first, second fourth or fifth axes of rotation of claim 1. For purposes of advancing prosecution, said limitation will be interpreted as met if the axis of rotation is different from any of the previously claimed rotation axes.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "wherein said first and second cutting member are symmetrical with respect to said first axis of rotation so as to have the same orientation with respect to the directrix of feed when they reach the cutting position". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because a cutting position of the second cutting member has not been previously delimited in the claim it is unclear if this refers to some other previously claimed structure, or whether this is a newly introduced structure. If this is newly introduced structure than the limitation should be preceded by the pronoun “a” instead of “the”.
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.
Claims 1-7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 4041813, Spencer.
Regarding Claim 1, Spencer discloses an apparatus for producing tubular products (abstract and col. 3, 40-65) starting from a tubular body (cylindrical logs L), wherein said apparatus comprises a cutting unit (42, 43, 42’) disposed along a directrix of feed (path P along which the logs are conveyed, col 3, 35-55) of said tubular body to be cut and having a rotating arm (43, which is disclosed to rotate about axis S, col. 3, 40-67) mounted rotating around a first axis of rotation (“S”) that is inclined by a first angle (α) with respect to said directrix of feed (col 3, 60-67) and on which there is mounted at least one cutting member (42, 47) provided with a cutting blade (42) to cut said tubular body in a cutting position while said tubular body advances along said directrix of feed (col 4, 50-67) and while the rotating arm rotates (col 4, 50-67), said at least one cutting member (42, 47) being driven in rotation by motion transmission means (92, 90, 89, 84, and 86) around a second axis of rotation (B) which is inclined with respect to said first axis of rotation (view angle theta, col 8, 5-25), wherein said motion transmission means (92, 90, 89, 84, and 86) comprise a motorized member (90/92), driven in rotation around a fourth axis of rotation (axis of rotation of output shaft 91), and a driven member (44), driven in rotation around a fifth axis of rotation (B, which as in the present invention is the same as the second axis of rotation) by said motorized member (92 92) through a motion transmission element (89), characterized in that said driven member (44) is integrally coupled to said cutting member (42 and 47) with the fifth axis of rotation (B) disposed in such a way as to coincide with the second axis of rotation (fig 1).
Regarding Claim 2, in Spencer said angle (α) and the spatial disposition of said first and second axes of rotation (S and P) are selected so that said at least one cutting member (42, 47), while cutting, follows a trajectory which allows to track, for a segment, the movement of said tubular body along said directrix of feed (col. 4, 1-10 “The angle of the skew in conjunction with the rotational velocity of the skew arm 43 causes the translation of the blades (in the longitudinal direction parallel to the path P) to match the velocity of the logs at two points during each cycle” and col. 8, 5-10, which discloses that the blade velocity is in the direction of the log travel, and thus the blade at least partially and for a segment of travel of the log tracks said travel along feed direction of the workpiece log).
Regarding Claim 3 in Spencer said angle (α) is comprised between 20 and 45° (col. 3, 60-65).
Regarding Claim 4, in Spencer said second axis of rotation (B) is parallel to said directrix of feed (P) when said cutting member (12) is in said cutting position (compare figs 1 and 7).
Regarding Claim 5, in Spencer said directrix of feed (P) and at least one of either said first axis of rotation (S) or said second axis of rotation (B) is horizontal when said cutting member (42 47) is in said cutting position (figs 1 and 7, the axis S is horizontal to the frame 40).
Regarding Claim 6, in Spencer said cutting member (42 an 47) and said driven member (44) are mounted on a common support (47) which in turn is mounted on one end of said rotating arm (43, see fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 7, in Spencer said common support (47) is mounted fixed to said rotating arm (fig. 1, since it rotates therewith).
Regarding Claim 9, in Spencer said motorized member (92) is mounted (operationally) on the rotating arm (43, via their mutual connection to frame 59).
Regarding Claim 10, in Spencer said fourth axis of rotation (theta) is parallel to said first axis of rotation (S)(at least in certain possible positions of the arm 44, “ the drive shaft 81 is connected to the blade spindle 47 by means of helical gears 82 and 83 which permit the positioning of the blade spindle 47 with its axis parallel to the path P”)(col 6, 20-40).
Regarding Claim 11, in Spencer the Apparatus as in claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above), also includes: wherein said cutting unit (42, 43, 42’) also comprises a second rotating cutting member (42’, 47’), which is mounted rotatable around a third axis of rotation (B’) on a second end of said rotating arm (43)(see fig 1), and in that said cutting unit comprises another driven member (44’) driven in rotation around another axis of rotation (B’, which axis is different from the first axis of rotation of claim 1) by said motorized member (92) through another motion transmission element (84), said other driven member (44’) being integrally coupled to said second cutting member (fig 1), wherein said other axis of rotation (B') is disposed so as to coincide with said third axis of rotation (fig 1).
Regarding Claim 12, in Spencer the Apparatus as in claim 11 (see claim 11 rejection above), also includes: wherein said first and second cutting member (42, 47 and 42’, 47’) are symmetrical with respect to said first axis of rotation (S)(fig 1) so as to have the same orientation with respect to the directrix of feed (P) when they reach the cutting position (since the cutting parts are symmetrically located with respect to the first axis of rotation).
Regarding Claim 13, Spencer discloses a cutting unit (42, 43, 42’, and 92 see abstract and col. 3, 40-65) for an apparatus for producing tubular products starting from a tubular body (abstract and col. 3, 40-65), wherein said cutting unit (42, 43, 42’, and 92) is configured to be disposed along a directrix of feed (P) of said tubular body to be cut and comprises a rotating arm (43) mounted rotating around a first axis of rotation (S) that is inclined by an angle (alpha, fig 1) with respect to said directrix of feed (see fig 1) and on which there is mounted at least one cutting member (42, 47)) provided with a cutting blade (42) to cut said tubular body in a cutting position (col. 3, 40-65) while said tubular body advances along said directrix of feed (col. 3, 40-65) and while the rotating arm rotates, said at least one cutting member (col. 4, 1-10 “The angle of the skew in conjunction with the rotational velocity of the skew arm 43 causes the translation of the blades (in the longitudinal direction parallel to the path P) to match the velocity of the logs at two points during each cycle”) being driven in rotation by motion transmission means (92, 90, 89, 84, and 86) around a second axis of rotation (B) which is inclined with respect to said first axis of rotation (view angle theta, col 8, 5-25), wherein said motion transmission means comprise a motorized member (86 “The pulley 86 [still referring to FIG. 9] is a double pulley with the downstream portion delivering rotational power to the blade pulleys while the upstream portion receives power from the motor 92”), driven in rotation around a fourth axis of rotation (axis of rotation of the pulley part 86), and a driven member (44), driven in rotation around a fifth axis of rotation (B, which as in the present invention is the same as the second axis of rotation) by said motorized member (92) through a motion transmission element (89), characterized in that said driven member (44) is integrally coupled to said cutting member (42)(fig. 1) with the fifth axis of rotation (R5] disposed in such a way as to coincide with the second axis of rotation (fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, in Spencer said fourth axis of rotation (axis of rotation of the pulley part 86) is coaxial to said first axis of rotation (S, see fig 1).
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 of this title, 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 8: is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPN 3983772, Oldham.
Regarding Claim 8, Spencer discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Also, in Spencer, said motorized member (90/92) and said driven member (44) each comprise a respective pulley (86 and 90), and in that said motion transmission element (89) is a belt, (col. 6, 34-50) which is configured to be disposed according to a twisted configuration, as a function of the position of said motorized member and of said driven member (since the belt remains attached to the driven member during the twisting of the driven member).
Spence lacks the motion transmission element / belt being a flexible member.
Oldham discloses a cutting device driven by a motion transmission element which connects a motor shaft to a cutting member, in the same field of endeavor as the cutting device driven by a motion transmission element which connects a motor shaft to a cutting member tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes the motion transmission element / belt being a flexible member 118 (connecting shaft motor driven 122 to cutter shaft pulley 116) in order to maintain proper engagement with the pulleys and also to maintain sufficient driving power for rotating the saw shaft (col. 6, 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer by having the belt motion transmission mechanism, thereof be flexible in order to maintain proper engagement with the pulleys and also to maintain sufficient driving power for rotating the saw shaft as taught by Oldham.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 4173846, 4041813, 5557997, 5984766, 5152203, 3773269, 4227654, 6644154, 3353430, 5924346, 3213731, 7634958, 4914997, 6711978, 8281696, 2140720, 20020157513, 5860346, and RE30598 each disclose state of the art pulley/belt powered cutter device and thus, each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on 571-272-4502. 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724