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 because all the Figures exhibit poor line quality and thus the details within the drawings are not clearly identifiable. 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.
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:
“a cutting blade receptacle mounted in an inverted position” as in line 20 of claim 1,
“a replacement bar of a longer length when a collar length” as in lines 1-2 of claim 12;
“a centerline of the bar is positioned adjacent at 3 o’clock position of the pipe” as in lines 1-2 of claim 13;
“a laser device” as in lines 1-2 of claim 16;
“two or more support wheels are coupled to the cutting device via one or more dampeners” as in lines 1-2 of claim 18;
“a rotating cylinder disposed on a shaft for correct positioning of the cutting device relative to the pipe” as in lines 2-3 of claim 19;
“a lever to adjust the rotating cylinder between contact with the nozzle at a first position and a second retracted position” as in lines 1-2 of claim 20;
“two tapered roller bearings between the shaft and the rotating cylinder, to support radial loads during a cutting operation” as in lines 1-3 of claim 21;
“the cutting lever is actuated by a hydraulic or pneumatic device” as in line 2 of claim 22; and
“the rotating cylinder is coupled to a shaft, wherein the shaft is coupled to the bar” as in lines 1-2 of claim 44;
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: pipe preservation unit in claim 1; pipe rotating support in claim 1; a structure in claim 1; cutting device in claim 1; automated drawing device in claim 1; structure base in claim 7; laser device in claim 16; hydraulic or pneumatic device in claim 22.
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 1-2, 7, 9-13, 16, 18-23 and 44 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 11 “a structure” however the metes a bound of what exactly encompasses this structure are unclear. What exactly is this structure? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 1 recites a “cutting blade receptable mounted in an inverted position” in line 20. It is unclear in relation tow hat this inverted position is being disposed at. Inverted how? From where? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 1 recites an “automated drawing device” in Line 24. The scope of the term “drawing” is unclear. The normal meaning of the term does not fit the context here.1 Appropriate correction required.
Claim 11 recites “a length of the bar depends on a collar length of the pipe” in Lines 1-2. It is unclear from where to where are each of the length of the bar and the pipe are being defined at. How does this relation of having a length of the bar depending on a collar length is defined? Appropriate correction required.
Claim 12 recites “the cutting device comprises a replacement bar of longer length when a collar length exceeds 300mm” in lines 1-2. First it is unclear what “of longer length” means. Longer length than what? Furthermore, the term “when” is a conditional term and as such, it is unclear if the condition is actually needed to satisfy the scope of the claim. What will happen “when the collar length does not exceed 300mm? Furthermore, it is unclear from where to where is this collar length being defined at. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 13 recites “a centerline of the bar is positioned adjacent a 3 o’clock position of the pipe” in lines 1-2. The entirety of the claim is unclear and confusing. When is this centerline positioned? How is this centerline of the bar positioned? Where and how exactly this positioned adjacent a 3 o’clock position of the pipe, is being defined at? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 16 recites “a laser device for positioning the bar relative to the pipe at a precise location” in lines 1-2. It is unclear how exactly this laser device positions the bar relative to the pipe at a precise location. What exactly defines this “precise location”? Precise location of what? From where to where? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 18 recites “the two or more support wheels are coupled to the cutting device via one or more dampeners” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether these features have a respective relationship or not. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 19 recites “the positioning stop comprises a rotating cylinder disposed on a shaft, for correct positioning of the cutting device relative to the pipe” in lines 1-3. However, it is unclear how exactly this rotating cylinder disposed on a shaft is performing the intended function. It is unclear if additional structural limitations are needed to bridge the function with the structure. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 20 recites “a first position and a second retracted position” in lines 2-3. It is unclear where exactly each of these positions are being defined at. Further clarification is needed.
Prior Art Rejection
Due to the clarity issues throughout the claims, an art rejection will not be attempted at this time. In the event the clarity issues are resolved, a prior art rejection may be made at that time in a final rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Castille et al. (US Patent No. 10,625,345); Siracusa (IT BO20130698 A1); Kitaoka et al. (JP 60141404 A); and Karpachevskyy (US PGPub 2019/0160544).
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
1 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drawing.