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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 10A and 10B in age 5 last 3 lines.
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. 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 Objections
Claims 1-17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “Apparatus for removing rubber from tyres” should be changed to “An apparatus for removing rubber from tyres”.
Regarding claims 2-17, the phrase “Apparatus according to” should be changed to “The apparatus according to”.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “the nozzle assembly us supported” should be changed to “the nozzle assembly is supported”.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “a tyre part guided” should be changed to “the tyre part guided”.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “as it is guided underneath” should be changed to “as the tyre part is guided underneath”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Presently; claim limitation is: a means for directing in claim 1.
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 2 and 12-15 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 2 recites the limitation "the top section" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the lower section" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the bottom end" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation " the underside " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14-15 are rejected because they depend from claim 13.
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 1-3 and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Andreas (DE102016224866A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Andreas discloses apparatus for removing rubber from tyres (0001), the apparatus comprising
a main housing (fig.1: (39)) in which is supported a water jet nozzle assembly (fig.1: (06)),
a guide mechanism (fig.1: (26)) and a collection chamber (fig.1: (09)) (paragraphs 0026 and 0045),
the guiding mechanism providing a means for directing at least a section of flattened tyre part under the nozzle assembly in a manner that is substantially perpendicular to the nozzle assembly (paragraphs 0044-0046),
the nozzle assembly (fig.1: (06)) including at least one nozzle to direct high-pressure water onto the tyre part, to thereby remove the rubber, wherein the rubber is captured and delivered into the collection chamber (paragraphs 0024-0026, 0045, 0053 and 0068).
Regarding claim 2, Andreas discloses wherein the housing is constructed from upper and lower box sections (fig.2: (39)), the nozzle assembly (fig.1: (06)) being supported above the guide mechanism (fig.1: (26)) in the top section and an entrance to the collection chamber (fig.1: (09)) being located directly under the nozzle assembly in the lower section.
Regarding claim 3, Andreas discloses wherein the guide mechanism includes an array of rollers (fig.2: (31) and (32)).
Regarding claim 5, Andreas discloses wherein the roller array is supported by roller plates (fig.2: (27)), each connected to a respective side arched plate (fig.2: the plates of the guiding device (28) and (29)) (paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 6, Andreas discloses wherein at least one dividing rod extends between the side arched plates above the roller array (fig.5: see the rod above the roller (31)).
Regarding claim 7, Andreas discloses wherein the rollers are rotated by a drive wheel (fig.2: (13)) located under the guide mechanism within the housing.
Regarding claim 8, Andreas discloses wherein the rollers (fig.2: (31) and (32)) and roller plates (fig.2: (27)) are separated laterally to provide a gap in which the nozzle (fig.2: (06)) assembly us supported (fig.2).
Regarding claim 9, Andreas discloses wherein the nozzle assembly (fig.1: (06)) includes a nozzle support plate having a lengthwise slot, and a nozzle carrier which extends through the slot (fig.4 and paragraphs 0055-0062).
Regarding claim 10, Andreas discloses wherein the nozzle carrier is secured to a slide block located under the support plate to allowing slidable movement of the nozzle carrier within the slot (fig.4 and paragraphs 0055-0062).
Regarding claim 11, Andreas discloses, wherein the slide block is driven by a servometer attached to the housing (fig.4 and paragraphs 0055: motor and remote control “corresponding to servometer”).
Regarding claim 12, Andreas discloses wherein the bottom end of the nozzle carrier has at least one nozzle to direct high-pressure water on to a tyre part guided through the guide mechanism under the nozzle carrier (paragraphs 0024-0026, 0045, 0053 and 0068).
Regarding claim 13, Andreas discloses wherein a shoe is supported on the underside of the slide block to impart a compressive force to the tyre part as it is guided underneath the nozzle assembly (figs.2 and 4; paragraph 0046: see the bottom shoe of aperture of the element (06) that presses the strip (02)).
Regarding claim 14, Andreas discloses wherein the shoe has a central aperture through which the water is directed from the nozzle (figs.2 and 4; paragraph 0046: see the bottom shoe of aperture of the element (06) that presses the strip (02)).
Regarding claim 15, Andreas discloses wherein multidirectional rollers (fig. 4: (47)) are provided on the underside of the shoe.
Regarding claim 16, Andreas discloses wherein the collection container is a hopper (fig. 1: see the hopper below element (09)).
Regarding claim 17, Andreas discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises an exit chute or funnel to remove processed tyre parts from then housing (fig. 1: see the exit chute below element (09)).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreas (DE102016224866A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Minardi (US4600106A).
Regarding claim 4, Andreas does not disclose the roller array consists of a plurality of rollers of a first diameter, each divided by a roller of a second diameter, smaller than the first diameter.
Minardi teaches roller array consists of a plurality of rollers of a first diameter, each divided by a roller of a second diameter, smaller than the first diameter (abstract; figs.1-2 and col. 3 last 22 lines).
Both of the prior arts of Andreas and Minardi are related to a discharge device having a plurality of rollers;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify roller array of the apparatus of Andreas to have a plurality of rollers of a first diameter, each divided by a roller of a second diameter, smaller than the first diameter as taught by Minardi in order allow the process parts to fall between the rollers (Minardi: claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725