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 “one or more pulleys with ‘V’ or toothed belts” in claim 63 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 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 65, 70, 72 and 87 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.
Claim 65 recites “the bar includes a plurality of holes four coupling the bar support structure to the first support wheel.” This recitation contains new matter because the specification at the time of filing lacks support for the wheel not being part of the bar support structure. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 70 recites “the support wheel control device is connected to a compressed air source.” This limitation contains new matter because it lacks support in the specification at the time of filing for the control device being connected to a compressed air source. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 72 recites “a fitting disc shaft coupled to the fitting disc and a bearing receptacle positioned on a first side of the column via a fitting disc shaft bearing” in Lines 2-3. This limitation contains new matter because the bearing receptacle is not disclosed as being positioned via a fitting disc shaft bearing. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 72 recites “the support arm is positioned between each side of the column and positioned orthogonal to the fitting disc shaft.” This limitation contains new matter because the support arm is not disclosed as being positioned between each side of the column or being positioned orthogonal to the fitting disc shaft. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 87 recites “each of the cutting device further comprises an adjustment mechanism positioned between the cutting blade receptacle and the body.” This limitation contains new matter because it lacks support in the specification at the time of filing. In particular, the adjustment mechanism is not disclosed as being between the claimed features. Instead, the adjustment mechanism is within the body. Appropriate correction required.
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 58-88 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 58 recites “a cage rotation device coupled to the fitting disc rotation device” in Line 7. This limitation gives rise to a lack of clarity concerning the scope of each of the cage rotation device and the fitting disc rotation device. It is unclear how the cage rotation device is considered coupled to the fitting disc rotation device. These rotation devices work independently of one another and are separated by the structural guide pipe. The structural guide pipe is claimed in claim 62 as being separate from the cage rotation device. As such, the scope of each of the cage rotation device and the fitting disc rotation device are unclear. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 58 recites limitation “cage rotation device,” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, if the motor is attached to the cage rotation device and not part thereof, then it is unclear what constitutes the cage rotation device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 58 recites “wherein at the cutting device is movably disposed” in Line 14. It is unclear whether a limitation is missing or this recitation merely contains a grammatical error. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 58 recites “a pipe” in Line 17. Yet, antecedent basis for this limitation has already been set forth. As such, it is unclear whether this is a different pipe from that earlier recited. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 64 recites “a first plurality of apertures . . . to align with and connect to the cage rotation device” in Lines 3-5. Yet, it is unclear how the apertures align and connect to the cage rotation device. It is unclear how the apertures connect to the rotation device absent an intervening feature. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 64 recites “a second plurality of apertures . . . positioned to align with one or more bars.” It is unclear if the one or more bars include the bar recited in claim 1 or these are meant to be different bars that do not include the previously recited bar. Furthermore, it is unclear how they are positioned to align with the bars as opposed to connect with the bar(s). Appropriate correction required.
Claim 65 recites “coupling the bar support structure to the first support wheel.” The scope of the bar support structure is unclear if the first support wheel is not considered part thereof. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 71 recites “a second support wheel” in Line 1. Yet, claim 58 only sets forth a bar. It is unclear whether the second wheel is on that bar or a different bar is inferred. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 71 recites “a pneumatic control system,” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 72 recites “the support wheel” in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The claim previously sets forth first and second support wheels. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 72 recites “the support wheel control device is configured to position the support wheel at a position parallel or a perpendicular to the bar.” It is unclear how the positions are considered either parallel or perpendicular. That is, a feature may be parallel or perpendicular to another, but it is difficult to ascertain how a position is considered parallel or perpendicular. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 72 recites “a fitting disc shaft coupled to the fitting disc and a bearing receptacle positioned on a first side of the column via a fitting disc shaft bearing” in Lines 2-3. It is unclear whether just the bearing receptacle is positioned by the shaft bearing or the fitting disc shaft is positioned as well by said shaft bering. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 72 recites “the support arm is positioned between each side of the column and positioned orthogonal to the fitting disc shaft.” The scope of “each side” is unclear as the claim previously sets forth first and second sides. That is, it is unclear if each side relates only to the first and second sides or other sides as well. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 74 recites “the fitting disc is rotatably disposed on the fitting disc shaft.” It is ambiguous as to whether the fitting disc is rotatable with the fitting disc shaft or rotatable relative to the fitting disc shaft. That is, the scope of “rotatably disposed” is unclear. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 75 recites “each of the cutting device” in Line 1. Yet, claim 58 only sets forth a cutting device. As such, this limitation creates a lack of clarity as to the number of cutting devices. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 76 recites “the fitting disc shaft is mechanically coupled to an electric motor of the fitting disc rotation device.” It is unclear whether the fitting disc shaft is part of the fitting disc rotation device or not. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 81 recites “when the cutting lever” as well as “parallel” and “perpendicular” in Lines 2 and 3, respectively. The term “when” creates a vagueness within the claim as to whether or not the rest of the claim is required if “when” never happens. It is also unclear how the parallel and perpendicular nature is to be determined because the claim fails to specify the manner in which the parallelism or perpendicularity is determined (e.g., respective longitudinal axes). Appropriate correction required.
Claim 82 recites “a vertical position parallel” and “a horizontal position perpendicular” in Lines 1-2. It is unclear how the parallel and perpendicular nature is to be determined because the claim fails to specify the manner in which the parallelism or perpendicularity is determined (e.g., respective longitudinal axes). Appropriate correction required.
Claim 84 recites “parallel” and “perpendicular” relative to two respective positions. It is unclear how the parallel and perpendicular nature is to be determined because the claim fails to specify the manner in which the parallelism or perpendicularity is determined (e.g., respective longitudinal axes). Appropriate correction required.
Claim 85 recites “an angle less than 30° relative to a longitudinal surface of the pipe.” It is unclear how the angle is determined because the claim lacks description of the how the measurement is taken from the cutting blade. Furthermore, it is unclear how a longitudinal surface of a pipe differs from any other surface thereof. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 87 recites “each of the cutting device” in Line 1. Yet, claim 58 only sets forth a cutting device. As such, this limitation creates a lack of clarity as to the number of cutting devices. Appropriate correction required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7, 10-11, 13, 15-17, 19-20, 22, 24, 26-27, 30-38, 40, 42-43, 45-46, 48-50, 52-54 and 57 have been considered but are moot because the claims have been canceled.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Paysinger (US Patent No. 4,343,207); Siracusa (IT BO20130698 A1); Kitaoka et al. (JP 60141404 A); Pendleton (US Patent No. 3,717,055); and Vitel (FR 2333625 A1).
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 RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722