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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification (29 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 1 limitation “a shearing drive…is configured to move the shearing blade”; “a positioning drive configured to carry out a positioning movement of the shearing blade” which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation 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.
For an example, First, "drive" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the "drive" is modified by functional language including “is configured to move the shearing blade”; and third, the "drive" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "shearing" preceding drive describes the function, not the structure of the drive. Similarly analysis with other limitations.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves 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
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung (KR102311854 B1 and Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Jung shows an extrusion residue shears (100, Figure 3) for extrusion presses, the extrusion residue shears comprising:
a frame (151, 154, Figure 3),
a shearing blade (121),
a shearing drive (130),
a die (as it is written, it does not provide a further structure of the die, therefore, it is unclear what type of the die is, thus, the seat plate 111, Figure 4 having a blade inlet groove 111b meets the metes and bounds of a die), and
a positioning drive (156) configured to carry out a positioning movement of the shearing blade which is separate from the shearing drive (Figure 3),
wherein the shearing drive (130) is configured to move the shearing blade (Figure 3) relative to the frame during a shearing movement of the shearing blade when shearing off the extrusion residue (12) from the die (see Abstract and Figure 7), the shearing movement being in a shear-off movement direction (see the blade towards to the seat 111 into the blade inlet groove 111b, Figures 4, 7-8) for shearing off the extrusion residue from the die and the shearing drive being configured to move the shearing blade from a shearing start position to a shearing end position (see Figures 7-8),
wherein the positioning movement has a positioning drive movement direction (see lifting means 153 for an up/down direction, Figure 5), and the positioning drive movement direction has a directional component in common with the shearing movement of the shearing blade moved by the shearing drive (since Figure 3, the lifting means 153 for lifting the cutting mechanism up and down direction and the blade moves up and down direction for cutting the pump 10 as seen in Figure 8), and
the positioning drive (153) is configured to move the shearing blade from a waiting position (Figures7-8) to the shearing start position (to shear) and/or from the shearing end position to the waiting position (back to the original position, see the discussion of the blade unit 120 is raised and lowered as seen in page 6, the middle paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, Jung shows that the shearing movement and the positioning movement make a constant transition into one another (see the discussion in claim 1 for both the shearing movement and the positioning movement being the same at a certain time during adjusting).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3, 6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of in view of Cai (CN 212945676 and Translation).
Regarding claim 2, Jung shows all of the limitations as stated above including that the shearing drive is connected with the shearing blade, however, it is not by a geared connection for pushing or pulling the shearing blade via the geared connection, and the geared connection comprises a toothed gear mechanism or is configured as such a gear mechanism (see the rack and pinion gear in figure 5).
Cai shows a shearing device (Figure 1) and Cai also shows two embodiments one is used a hydraulic system for driving a blade (11, Figure 2) and second embodiment is used an electric motor (407, Figures 4-6. See the embodiment 2 of Translation that “the hydraulic cylinder 401 …is replaced by … motor 407”. See early paragraph of the translation, the motor is an electrical motor) that is connected with the shearing blade for pushing or pulling the shearing blade via geared connection (gear 405 and screw 404), and the geared connection comprises a toothed gear mechanism or is configured as such a gear mechanism (Figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the shearing drive of Jung to have an electrical motor drive, as taught by Cai, since this is known alternative way for the same purpose and in order to allow the shearing drive to be accurately controlled shearing movements and lower maintenance. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to implement known technique to improve similar devices for the same purpose, as per MPEP 2143, section I, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale C.
Regarding claim 3, the modified shears of Jung shows that the shearing drive is connected with the shearing blade by a geared connection (see claim 2 above), and the shearing drive pushes the shearing blade via the geared connection, and the geared connection is a shape-fit geared connection (see Cai’s figure 5) for changing a rotational movement of the shearing drive into the shearing movement.
Regarding claim 6, the modified shears of Jung shows all of the limitations as stated above including that the shearing drive comprises an electric motor (see the modification in claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 9, the modified shears of Jung shows that the shearing drive for the shearing blade (see claim 1), which is carried by the shearing blade carrier (132, 122, Jung’s Figure 3) that extends in the shear-off movement direction, is connected to the shearing blade by a geared connection (rack and pinion gear, Cai’s Figure 5), which comprises a gear mechanism element and the shearing drive pulls the shearing blade (see rack and pinion for pushing and pulling mechanisms).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of in view of Seiya (CN 102858504 A and Translation).
Regarding claim 7, the modified shears of Jung shows all of the limitations as stated above except that that the positioning drive is NOT an electric motor.
Seiya shows a shearing device (Figure 1) having a motor (41) for positioning a blade (23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the positioning drive of Jung to have an electrical motor drive, as taught by Seiya, since this is known alternative way for the same purpose and in order to allow the positioning drive to be accurately controlled shearing movements and lower maintenance. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to implement known technique to improve similar devices for the same purpose, as per MPEP 2143, section I, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale C.
Claims 1 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi-zhong (CN 2298884 Y and Translation) in view of Jung.
Regarding claim 1, Shi-zhong shows an extrusion residue shears (Figure 8) for extrusion presses, the extrusion residue shears comprising:
a frame (see Figure 1, the part for holding the upper die or press 11),
a shearing blade (43),
a shearing drive (4),
a die (14/15, Figure 12), and
a positioning drive (451) configured to carry out a positioning movement of the shearing blade which is separate from the shearing drive (since the cylinder 451 connects to the blade, Figure 14),
wherein the shearing drive (4) is configured to move the shearing blade (43) relative to the frame during a shearing movement of the shearing blade when shearing off the extrusion residue (see extrusion material and the movements of the blade 43, Figures 14-15) from the die (14), the shearing movement being in a shear-off movement direction for shearing off the extrusion residue from the die and the shearing drive being configured to move the shearing blade from a shearing start position to a shearing end position (see Figure 16),
wherein the positioning movement has a positioning drive movement direction (Figures 12-14), and the positioning drive movement direction has a directional component in common with the shearing movement of the shearing blade moved by the shearing drive (see Figures 12-15), and
the positioning drive (451) is configured to move the shearing blade from a waiting position (as this is written, it is unclear how the positioning drive is moved the shearing blade. Therefore, looking at Figure 13, the blade connects to the lower pressure cylinder that is configured to move the shearing blade while the cylinder 41 moves) to the shearing start position (Figure 13) and/or from the shearing end position to the waiting position (see Figures 13-16).
If one argues that the cylinder 451 is not configured to move the shearing blade, then see Jung’s refence (see the discussion in claim 1 above) having two independent drivers (156, 130, Figure 3), wherein the driver 156 is for positioning the blade and the driver 130 is for blade shearing actions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system of Shi-zhong to have two independent drivers (one is for moving a blade for shearing and other is for positioning the blade), as taught by Jung, since this is known alternative way for the same purpose and in order to allow the positioning drive to be accurately controlled shearing movements and lower maintenance. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to implement known technique to improve similar devices for the same purpose, as per MPEP 2143, section I, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale C.
Regarding claim 15, the modified system of Shi-zhong shows that the extrusion press comprises an extrusion punch (63) for pressing material through the die (61, Figure 17 of Shi-zhong), thereby providing the extrusion residue on the die (see Figures 13-16 of Shi-zhong).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the new art in the rejections above.
With regards to “The cited references fail to disclose or suggest an extrusion residue shears as set forth in Applicant's amended independent claim 1 or new dependent claim 15” that is unclear since there is no amendment in claim 1.
With regards to new claim 15, see new rejections by new art above.
Please note that this invention is a structure claim (apparatus claim or an extrusion shears), the workpiece or extrusion material has been considered and given weight inasmuch as it infers structure in the apparatus(extrusion shears).
What are structures or parts of the extrusion shears differing from structures of the prior art?
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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 at (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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 7/29/2026
Prosecution Insights