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 .
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:
adjustment structure and connection structure in claim 3, disclosed as a combination of waist-shaped hole, a mounting hole, or a group of round holes (¶77-79), and equivalents thereof;
a control assembly in claim 9/a blocking member in claim 10, disclosed as a blocking block, a blocking ball, or a blocking plate (¶110), and equivalents thereof;
a drive member in claim 10, disclosed as a drive cylinder, a drive hydraulic cylinder, and a drive motor (¶112), and equivalents thereof.
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 § 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) 1-2, 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian CN 210848944 U in view of Qui CN 216096986 U,
Re claim 1, Tian discloses a dust extraction apparatus [figs. 1-2], characterized by comprising:
a copper nozzle 2 configured to abut against a welding region of a to-be-welded object, wherein the copper nozzle has a penetrating channel [fig. 1];
a cover plate provided 1 with a through hole [through hole connected to connecting block 4, see fig. 9], wherein the cover plate has a first end face and a second end face opposite each other, the copper nozzle is disposed on the first end face, and the channel communicates with the through hole [through connecting block 4];
a dust extraction assembly 5 [fig. 10] disposed on the second end face, wherein a cavity having a first port 51 and a second port [side exhaust port of dust removing pipe 5, figs. 1, 10] is formed in the interior of the dust extraction assembly, the first port 51 facing the through hole [fig. 1].
Tian does not specifically teach a suction apparatus connected to the second port.
However, Qui teaches a welding device for batteries using copper nozzles and including both a blowing device 150 and a suction device 170.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the suction apparatus of Qui with the dust extraction apparatus of Tian, in order to yield the predictable result of exhausting dust from the welding operation.
Re claim 2, Tian further teaches the dust extraction assembly comprises a dust-extraction tube body [circle part of pipe 5 in fig. 10] and a sealing cover [rectangle part of pipe 5 in fig. 10], wherein the dust-extraction tube body is disposed on the second end face, the cavity is formed in the interior of the dust-extraction tube body, the dust-extraction tube body is provided with an opening [inherent opening inside of rectangle part] and the second port, the sealing cover is disposed on the dust-extraction tube body, and the sealing cover is configured to seal part of the opening so as to form the first port 51.
Re claim 5, Qui further teaches the cover plate is provided with a chamfer 161 at a connection position 160 between the through hole and the second end face [face with outlet 126].
Re claim 6, Tian further teaches the cover plate is provided with a plurality of such through holes, the copper nozzle is provided in plurality, the plurality of copper nozzles are disposed on the first end face and respectively communicate with corresponding through holes [fig. 1]; and a plurality of such cavities are formed in the interior of the dust extraction assembly, and the first ports of the cavities respectively face the corresponding through holes 51.
Re claim 7, Tian further teaches the dust extraction assembly is provided with a plurality of such first ports 51, and each of the cavities communicates with at least one of the first ports.
Re claim 8, Tian further teaches the copper nozzle comprises a copper nozzle body and a mounting portion 23 [fig. 7], wherein the copper nozzle body is provided with the channel, the mounting portion is connected to the copper nozzle body, and the mounting portion is disposed on the first end face.
Claim(s) 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian CN 210848944 U in view of Qui CN 216096986 U and in further view of Bennet US 2006/0086272 A1.
Re claim 9, Tian and Qui teach the invention as discussed above but fail to teach a control assembly and the control assembly is configured to be able to control unblocking/blocking of the second port.
However, Bennet teaches a control assembly 200 [fig. 8] and the control assembly is configured to be able to control unblocking/blocking.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control assembly of Bennet and dispose it in the cover of the dust exhaust assembly of Tian, in order to yield the predictable result of controlling the flow of dust exhaust through the dust removal pipe.
Re claim 10, Bennet further teaches the control assembly comprises:
a blocking member 206;
Bennet does not teach a drive member, wherein an output end of the drive member is connected to the blocking member, and the drive member is configured to drive the blocking member to move to unblock or block the second port.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a drive member to the control assembly of Bennet since it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art [MPEP 2144.04 III].
Re claim 11, Bennet further teaches a connection member 200, wherein the connection member is provided with a connection hole and an insertion slot [see fig. 8], the connection hole of Bennet communicates with the second port of Tian [in the combination], the second port of Tian communicates with the suction apparatus of Qui via the connection hole of Bennet [in the combination], and the insertion slot intersects the connection hole [fig. 8]; and the blocking member 206 is a flipper, and the drive member [as rejected above for claim 10] is configured to drive the flipper 206 to move until the flipper is inserted into the insertion slot of Bennet and blocks the connection hole.
Re claim 12, Tian further teaches a battery production line, characterized by comprising the dust extraction [Abstract].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not show or fairly render obvious the combination set forth in the claims. In particular, the prior art does not show one of the dust-extraction tube body and the sealing cover is provided with an adjustment structure (interpreted under 112 f above), and the other one of the dust-extraction tube body and the sealing cover is provided with a connection structure (interpreted under 112 f above), the connection structure being configured to be able to connect to any part of the adjustment structure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights