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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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.
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 1-2, 4, 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoeber (EP 2 386 391 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Hoeber discloses a press device comprising:
a frame (fig. 1) having a target base (a combination of 12 and 16) disposed over an upper portion thereof;
a back support (23) extending vertically from the frame adjacent the target base (figs. 1-2);
a linear actuator (5) mounted to the frame (fig. 2) and positioned to actuate along a translation axis substantially parallel to the target base (figs. 1-2) and toward the back support (23) ;
a fracturing tool (4) coupled to the linear actuator (fig. 2) to actuate along the translation axis over the target base (see the last two blade options in fig. 5); and
a first positioning actuator (15) coupled to the frame to actuate along the target base in a direction (17) substantially perpendicular to the translation axis (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, the press device of claim 1 wherein the linear actuator (5) is positioned to actuate substantially horizontally (see fig. 2, which shows the actuator moves from right to left).
Regarding claim 4, the press device of claim 1 wherein the linear actuator includes a hydraulic cylinder (see para. 8).
Regarding claim 6, the press device of claim 1 further comprising a second positioning actuator (6) coupled (indirectly) to the frame to actuate along the target base toward the back support (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Hoeber discloses a method for operating a press device comprising: providing a press device (1) comprising:
a frame (fig. 1) having a target base (a combination of 12 and 16) disposed over an upper portion thereof (figs. 1-2),
a back support (23) extending vertically from the frame adjacent the target base,
a linear actuator (5) mounted to the frame and positioned to actuate along a translation axis substantially parallel to the target base and toward the back support (23) (figs. 1-2),
a fracturing tool (4) coupled to the linear actuator (5) (fig. 2) to actuate along the translation axis over the target base, and
a first positioning actuator (15) coupled to the frame to actuate along the target base in a direction (17) substantially perpendicular to the translation axis (fig. 1);
placing an object (2) on the target base between the fracturing tool and the back support (fig. 3);
controlling the first positioning actuator (15) to move the object (2) into a desired position aligned with the fracturing tool (see para. 17);
connecting a power unit (see “the operator actuates another switch to start a splitting process” in para. 18) operably to the linear actuator to selectively induce linear translation of the fracturing tool; and
operating the power unit to fracture the object (2) with the fracturing tool (see para. 18).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Babcock et al. (hereinafter “Babcock”) (US 7,255,143 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Babcock discloses a press device (10) for fracturing an object comprising:
a frame (12) having:
a target base (fig. 1) disposed on an upper portion thereof, and at least one guide rail (see col. 6, lines 14-16);
a backplate (20) coupled to the target base and extending vertically therefrom (fig. 1);
a linear actuator (16) having a first end coupled to the frame and an opposite second end positioned to actuate over the frame toward the backplate (20) (fig. 1);
a tool mount (18) coupled to the second end of the linear actuator (16) (fig. 4) and slidably coupled to the at least one guide rail such that the tool mount translates over the upper portion of the frame along the at least one guide rail when actuated by the linear actuator (fig. 1); and
a fracturing tool (30) mounted to the tool mount (18) (fig. 9) configured to fracture an object in response to actuation of the linear actuator (16) (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the press device for fracturing an object of claim 7 wherein the at least one guide rail includes a plurality of guide rails (col. 6, lines 14-16, which inherently discloses left and right rails for receiving openings formed by L-members (54) and a base member (31) as shown in fig. 7); and
wherein the tool mount (18) includes a plurality of openings (see openings formed by L-members (54) and a base (31) as shown in fig. 7) formed therein to receive the plurality of guide rails therethrough.
Regarding claim 9, the press device for fracturing an object of claim 7 wherein the fracturing tool includes a changeable wedge removably coupled to the tool mount (col. 6, lines 58 to col. 7, line 8 and fig. 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeber in view of Cowie (WO 2017/100822 A1).
Hoeber discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth above. Hoeber discloses an open configuration above the target base (12, 16) (see figure 3, when the object (2) is not on the target base, there is an “open configuration”). Hoeber discloses feet at the bottom of the frame (fig. 1). Hoeber does not expressly disclose the feet are adjustable leveler feet.
Cowie, in a related pressing art, discloses a press device (1) comprising a frame (fig. 1) having adjustable feet (112) coupled to the bottom thereof (fig. 1) in order to stabilize the press device before it is to be put into use (see para. 54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feet of Hoeber, to be adjustable, as taught by Cowie, in order to stabilize the press device before it is to be put into use.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babcock.
Babcock discloses the changeable wedge is mounted to the tool mount using any type of mounting means (col. 6, lines 64-66). Babcock does not disclose changeable wedge and the tool mount are mounted to each other in a sliding dovetail joint. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a sliding dovetail joint as a mounting means because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known mounting means such as the sliding dovetail joint on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babcock in view of Horter (hereinafter “Horter”) (EP 2 832 510 A1).
Babcock discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth above. Babcock does not expressly disclose a camera removably attached to the press device.
Horter, also in a wood splitting art, disclose a press device having a camera (see “Kamera” in para. 24) to make the wood splitting process easier to monitor (para. 24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the press device of Babcock with a camera, as taught by Horter, in order to make the wood splitting process easier to monitor.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeber in view of Banjo et al. (hereinafter “Banjo”) (US 2016/0318206 A1).
Hoeber discloses the linear actuator comprises a hydraulic cylinder (see para. 8); and the power unit as set forth above. Hoeber further discloses the power unit to fracture the object with the fracturing tool includes operating the power unit via a remote control (see “switch” in para. 18, which is remoted from the fracturing tool). Hoeber does not expressly disclose the power unit comprises: a liquid reservoir, a pump operably coupled to the liquid reservoir and the hydraulic cylinder, a prime mover driving the pump to pressurize liquid from the liquid reservoir and provide the pressurized liquid selectively to the hydraulic cylinder, and an energy source configured to power the prime mover.
Banjo, in a related wood splitting art, discloses a power unit for a press device comprising a liquid reservoir, a pump operably coupled to the liquid reservoir and a hydraulic cylinder (50), a prime mover (i.e. a motor) driving the pump to pressurize liquid from the liquid reservoir and provide the pressurized liquid selectively to the hydraulic cylinder, and an energy source configured to power the prime mover (see para. 40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the power unit of Hoeber, with a liquid reservoir, a pump operably coupled to the liquid reservoir and the hydraulic cylinder, a prime mover driving the pump to pressurize liquid from the liquid reservoir and provide the pressurized liquid selectively to the hydraulic cylinder, and an energy source configured to power the prime mover, as taught by Banjo, in order to move the fracturing tool.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 11-13, 15, and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “wherein the frame includes a plurality of guide rods extending parallel to the translation axis, and further comprising a tool mount coupling the fracturing tool to the linear actuator, the tool mount having a pair of openings formed therein to receive the plurality of guide rods such that the fracturing tool is supported by the plurality of guide rods when actuated by the linear actuator”, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 11, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “a first positioning actuator coupled to the frame and configured to position the object on the target base in a desired position aligned with the fracturing tool; and a second positioning actuator coupled to the frame and configured to hold the object against the backplate”, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-13 would be allowable in virtue of their dependence upon claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “wherein the one or more cameras includes a first camera removably mounted on the tool mount and a second camera removably mounted on the frame or the backplate”, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 17, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “wherein the object includes an explosive device; and further comprising manually lifting and transporting the press device to a desired location for fracturing the explosive device; and wherein placing the object on the target base includes operating a robot to lift and transfer the explosive device to the target base”, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 18, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “controlling a second positioning actuator coupled to the frame configured to actuate in a direction substantially parallel to the translation axis to secure the object against the back support”, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 would be allowable in virtue of its dependence upon claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725