DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) have been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim interpretation have been considered and are persuasive in part. Regarding claim 4, Applicant argues the limitation “forming unit” is now recited in claim 4 and includes several structural elements, and should not be interpreted under §112(f). The examiner agrees. Regarding the limitation “unwinder unit”, Applicant argues this term “would be self-explanatory to those of ordinary skill in the art and the associated structures or optional structures for unwinding a coil material from a bobbin would be well-known to such persons.” The examiner respectfully submits the question with respect to §112(f) is not whether one of ordinary skill in the art could think of suitable structure that could be used to perform the claimed function, but, rather, whether the claimed limitation is purely functional, or if it denotes sufficient structure for performing the entire claimed function. In the instant case, the examiner has reconsidered, as the term “unwinder” could be considered a structural term. However, the examiner disagrees with respect to the remaining claim limitations. Specifically, Applicant argues “feeding unit”, “sensing device” and “transfer unit” follow the same logic as Applicant’s argument with respect to “unwinder unit”. Applicant argues “[t]he terms preceding the generic terms 'unit' or 'device' are not simply generic modifiers but instead are structures or components known to those of ordinary skill in the art. No other structure should be necessary for those of ordinary skill in the art to understand the meaning of these recitation.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The term “feeding unit” conveys no more structure than “feeding device”, “feeding means”, “feeding mechanism”, device for feeding”, “mechanism for feeding”, or “means for feeding”. Similarly for “sensing device” and “transfer unit”. The terms “feeding”, “sensing” and “transfer” denote function, not structure. The terms “unit” and “device” are nonce terms. Please also note the complete function identified for each of these elements (#3 above). For example, the feeding unit is used for cutting the material coil supplied from the flattening rollers to a preset length. In other words, the claimed unit is equivalent to means for feeding and cutting. Although one of ordinary skill in the art can certainly think of various conventional means for achieving the claimed functions, the claim language itself does not include any language that denotes the structure being claimed, so that the full scope of the claim may be ascertained. What type of feeding device, or sensing device, or transfer device is actually being claimed? By not including structure, Applicant is attempting to claim any and all types of such devices, including ones not disclosed by Applicant and not finding support in the application.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that none of the limitations use the terms “means for” or “step for”, MPEP 2181 also mentions that “[t]his strong presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation is shown to use a non-structural term that is "a nonce word or a verbal construct that is not recognized as the name of structure" but is merely a substitute for the term "means for," associated with functional language.” This is the case here, the terms “unit” and “device” are substitutes for “means for”.
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: feeding unit [for] cutting the material coil supplied from the flattening rollers to a preset length in claim 1, sensing device [for] detecting a home position of the material coil when the material coil cut into the preset length is supplied to the forming unit in claim 5, and transfer unit [for] moving a guide pin toward the hairpin seated on a second forming block after finishing the forming and loading the hairpin on the guide pin to a guide rail in claim 6. Note that in a method claim the function of an element corresponds to what the element accomplishes relative to the other elements recited in the claim.
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 § 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.
To the extent Applicant disagrees with the claim interpretation, prior art is applied as follows:
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyazaki (US2019/0109523A1).
Miyazaki discloses the claimed invention as follows (refer to Fig. 1 unless otherwise noted):
Claim 1. A method for forming a hairpin, the method comprising:
unwinding (see [0049]) a material coil (6) wound around a bobbin (7) by an unwinder unit (8);
flattening the material coil supplied from the unwinder unit by flattening rollers (9a, 9b; see [0049]);
cutting (at 11; see [0049]) the material coil supplied from the flattening rollers to a preset length by a feeding unit (3; alternatively, 11, as [0087] mentions section 11 includes a servomotor such that the wire rod 6 is cut to length, which is understood as meaning the servomotor can feed the wire relative to the cutting section 11); and
forming a hairpin (see Fig. 3 and [0053]) having a head portion (17a, Fig. 3) and a leg portion (17b) by press-molding the material coil of the preset length supplied from the feeding unit by a plurality of forming blocks (14A, 14B, 15A, 15B, 16A and 16B in Figs. 2, 4, 6 and 9-12; alternatively, 52A and 52B in Fig. 19; see [0100]).
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein, in cutting the material coil, the preset length is varied by controlling a horizontal position of a cutter of the feeding unit, depending on a specification of the hairpin to be formed. See Fig. 4. Hairpins of different widths can be made, which necessarily requires different lengths of material coil to be cut, which is, necessarily, done by controlling the horizontal position of the cutter 11 relative to the left end of the material coil 6, as seen in Fig. 1. See [0087].
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(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki in view of APA (admitted prior art).
Taking into consideration the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): Miyazaki discloses an unwinder unit (8) and cutting the material coil (6) in cutting section 11. In [0087] Miyazaki states “a control data with respect to the length of the wire rod 6 is expanded and output to the drive mechanism in the cutting section 11 for driving the corresponding servomotor so that the wire rod is cut to a predetermined length.” While lacking details, this is understood as meaning the cutting section 11 includes drive means for advancing the material coil 6 relative to the cutting section. However, Miyazaki does not disclose the cutting being by a feeding unit having the disclosed structure (see [0071] to [0083]) and equivalents thereof, corresponding to the claimed feeding unit in which the cutting is performed.
Therefore, Miyazaki discloses the claimed invention as follows:
Claim 1. A method for forming a hairpin, the method comprising:
unwinding (see [0049]) a material coil (6) wound around a bobbin (7) by an unwinder unit (8);
flattening the material coil supplied from the unwinder unit by flattening rollers (9a, 9b; see [0049]);
cutting (at 11; see [0049]) the material coil supplied from the flattening rollers to a preset length
forming a hairpin (see Fig. 3 and [0053]) having a head portion (17a, Fig. 3) and a leg portion (17b) by press-molding the material coil of the preset length supplied from the feeding unit by a plurality of forming blocks (14A, 14B, 15A, 15B, 16A and 16B in Figs. 2, 4, 6 and 9-12; alternatively, 52A and 52B in Fig. 19; see [0100]).
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein unwinding the material coil comprises:
loading the bobbin on a bobbin loading portion (clearly, the bobbin 7 must have been loaded into the section holding the bobbin, seen in Fig. 1);
releasing the material coil
discharging the unwound material coil from the bobbin loading portion
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein, in cutting the material coil, the preset length is varied by controlling a horizontal position of a cutter of the feeding unit, depending on a specification of the hairpin to be formed. See Fig. 4. Hairpins of different widths can be made, which necessarily requires different lengths of material coil to be cut, which is, necessarily, done by controlling the horizontal position of the cutter 11 relative to the left end of the material coil 6, as seen in Fig. 1. See [0087].
In the Remarks filed 9/24/2025 Applicant stated:
The applicants have not created or invented these units or devices but have instead applied them to the specific method recited in the claims. Those of ordinary skill in the art would readily know and understand what structures and structural or component options would be associated with the recited feeding unit, sensing device, transfer unit, and unwinder unit.
This is taken as an admission that the claimed unwinder unit and the claimed feeding unit capable of cutting material coil are prior art. See MPEP 2129(I).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to implement the cutting section 11 of Miyazaki as a conventional feeding unit capable of cutting the material coil, as admitted by Applicant to be conventional and the work of another. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to do so as a simple substitution of one known element with another element performing the same function, with predictable results. With respect to claim 2, APA discloses an unwinder unit including “a bobbing loading portion configured to load the bobbin and rotate by a motor; an unwinder roller that is connected to the bobbin loading portion through a link arm operated by a first cylinder, movable by the link arm and the first cylinder to contact the material coil, and configured to unwind the material coil; a plurality of guide bars disposed at respective corners of the bobbin loading portion and configured to guide the material coil unwound from the bobbin; and a plurality of flattening rollers configured to flatten the material coil supplied from the unwinder roller”. See [0013]. “[0065] The material coil 10 wound around the bobbin 11 is unwound by an unwinder roller 23. [0065] reads “The unwinder roller 23 is connected to the bobbin loading portion 21 through a link arm 25 operated by a first cylinder C1 and may be moved in position through the link arm 25 and the first cylinder C1 to contact the material coil 10 wound around the bobbin 11.” [0066] reads “In other words, the bobbin 11 is rotated by the bobbin loading portion 21 and the material coil 10 wound around the bobbin 11 is unwound by the unwinder roller 23. Then, the material coil 10 unwound from the bobbin 11 is discharged from the bobbin loading portion 21 and supplied to a supply portion 29, while being supported by guide bars 27 disposed at respective corners of the bobbin loading portion 21.”
Since the claimed unwinder unit and its mode of operation are conventional, as disclosed by APA, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to implement the unwinder 8 of Miyazaki using an unwinder unit of the type disclosed by APA, as a simple substitution of one known element for another, with predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm ET.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729