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: “operated unit” and “grasping unit” in claims 1 and 7.
Regarding the operated unit, the claims recite a generic term, i.e., operated unit, and a function, i.e., configured to be operated by the push member, without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as cutting unit 44 (Para. [0100]), which includes first and second lever members 74, 76 and a cutter 72 (Para. [0101]), and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the grasping unit, the claims recite a generic term, i.e., grasping unit, and a function, i.e., configured to grasp the wire, without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as grasping unit 100, which includes clamping members 152, 154 and 156 (Para. [0072]), 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 § 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 5 and 6 are 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.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the claim recites “wherein the trigger is aligned with the operated unit in the front-rear direction when the rebar tying tool is viewed in a direction perpendicular to the front-rear direction” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what is required for these components to be “aligned” in the front-rear direction, i.e., does align require these components to be the same distance from the front of the rebar tool measured in the front-rear direction or do they have to be sequential with no overlap in the front-rear direction. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as the trigger and the operated unit are both positioned in the rebar tying tool between the front and back in the front-rear direction.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0245229 A1 to Yoshida in view of US 10,570,620 B2 to Matsuno.
Yoshida teaches a rebar tying tool configured to tie rebars with a wire (Abstract; Fig. 1), the rebar tying tool comprising:
a screw shaft 72 configured to rotate (Paras. [0047], [0054] and [0056]; Figs. 5A-B);
a sleeve 71 through which the screw shaft 72 is inserted, and configured to move in a front-rear direction and rotate (Figs. 5A-B; Paras. [0048] and [0055]-[0056]);
a fin 74a,b member attached to the sleeve 71 and configured to permit and prohibit rotation of the sleeve 71 (Paras. [0066]-[0068]; Figs. 1-2 and 5);
a push member 83 attached to the sleeve, wherein the push member 83 does not rotate along with the rotation of the sleeve 71 (Fig. 5; Paras. [0041] and [0099]; the push member is attached to the sleeve such that it moves forward with it while also not rotating with the sleeve, and it is noted that push member is known in the art as a plate that engages a transmission unit connected to the cutter and therefore is not being interpreted under 112f);
an operated unit 62 having a longitudinal direction in the front-rear direction and configured to be operated by the push member 83 when the sleeve 71 moves in the front-rear direction (Fig. 1; Para. [0041]); and
a grasping unit 7B, 70 protruding from a front part of the sleeve 71, configured to rotate with the sleeve 71, and configured to grasp the wire (Fig. 5; Paras. [0048]-[0049] and [0098]),
wherein the push member 83 is disposed on a front side relative to the fin member 74a,b (Fig. 5 shows that the push member has portions in front of the fin member).
Yoshida fails to explicitly teach a push member configured to rotate about the sleeve. While Yoshida states that the push member does not rotate with the sleeve (Para. [0099]), the reference is silent regarding how the push member is maintained in position.
Matsuno teaches a rebar tying tool (Abstract, Fig. 1) including a fins 124a,b and push member 126 (Fig. 12; Col. 13, Lns. 27-52 and 60-62) wherein the push member 126 is configured to rotate but is prohibited from rotating by pins 150 positioned around the push member 126 (Fig. 12; Col. 13, Lns. 27-52).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the push member of Yoshida to be capable of rotating but held in position by pins as taught by Matsuno so that the push member may be movable or replaceable relative to the other components, for example during maintenance, while being held in position when in an assembled configuration.
Regarding claim 2, modified Yoshida teaches the rebar tying tool according to claim 1 (Figs. 1 and 5), wherein the operated unit comprises:
an operated member which the push member 83 is configured to contact and configured to be operated by the push member 83 when the push member 83 is in contact with the operated member (Examiner Annotated Fig. 1 is provided below to show the operated member); and
a cutter 61 configured to cut the wire and work when the operated member is operated by the push member 83 (Fig. 1; Para. [0083]).
PNG
media_image1.png
533
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, modified Yoshida teaches the rebar tying tool according to claim 2 (Fig. 1), wherein the operated unit further comprises a link member connecting the operated member and the cutter 61 (Examiner Annotated Fig. 1 shows the link).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yoshida teaches the rebar tying tool according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the push member 83 is clamped between the sleeve 71 and the fin member 74 a,b in the front-rear direction (Fig. 5A shows that the push member 83 is between the back end of the sleeve and the fins).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yoshida teaches the rebar tying tool according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), further comprising a trigger 12A configured to be pushed into by a user, wherein the trigger is aligned with the operated unit 62 in the front-rear direction when the rebar tying tool is viewed in a direction perpendicular to the front-rear direction (Fig. 1; Para. [0045]; as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection above, this limitation is interpreted as both of these components are between the front and back of the rebar tying tool in the front-rear direction, and Fig. 1 shows these are both positioned in such a manner).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yoshida teaches the rebar tying tool according to claim 3 (Fig. 1), further comprising a trigger 12A configured to be pushed into by a user (Fig. 1; Para. [0045]), wherein the push member 83 is clamped between the sleeve 71 and the fin member 74 a,b in the front-rear direction (Fig. 5A shows that the push member 83 is between the back end of the sleeve and the fins), and the trigger 12A is aligned with the operated unit 62 in the front-rear direction when the rebar tying tool is viewed in a direction perpendicular to the front-rear direction (Fig. 1; Para. [0045]; as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection above, this limitation is interpreted as both of these components are between the front and back of the rebar tying tool in the front-rear direction, and Fig. 1 shows these are both positioned in such a manner).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida teaches a rebar tying tool configured to tie rebars with a wire (Fig. 1; Abstract), the rebar tying tool comprising:
a screw shaft 72 configured to rotate (Paras. [0047], [0054] and [0056]; Figs. 5A-B);
a sleeve 71 through which the screw shaft 72 is inserted, and configured to move in a front-rear direction and rotate (Figs. 5A-B; Paras. [0048] and [0055]-[0056]);
a fin 74 a,b configured to rotate with the sleeve 71 (Paras. [0066]-[0068]; Figs. 1-2 and 5);
a push member 83 attached to the sleeve 71, wherein the push member 83 does not rotate along with the rotation of the sleeve 71 (Fig. 5; Paras. [0041] and [0099]; the push member is attached to the sleeve such that it moves forward with it while also not rotating with the sleeve);
an operated unit 62 having a longitudinal direction in the front-rear direction and configured to be operated by the push member 83 when the sleeve 71 moves in the front-rear direction (Fig. 1; Para. [0041]); and
a grasping unit 7B, 70 protruding from a front part of the sleeve 71, configured to rotate with the sleeve 71, and configured to grasp the wire (Fig. 5; Paras. [0048]-[0049] and [0098]),
wherein the push member 83 is disposed on a front side relative to the fin 74a,b (Fig. 5 shows that the push member has portions in front of the fin member).
Yoshida fails to explicitly teach a push member configured to rotate about the sleeve. While Yoshida states that the push member does not rotate with the sleeve (Para. [0099]), the reference is silent regarding how the push member is maintained in position.
Matsuno teaches a rebar tying tool (Abstract, Fig. 1) including a fins 124a,b and push member 126 (Fig. 12; Col. 13, Lns. 27-52 and 60-62) wherein the push member 126 is configured to rotate but is prohibited from rotating by pins 150 positioned around the push member 126 (Fig. 12; Col. 13, Lns. 27-52).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the push member of Yoshida to be capable of rotating but held in position by pins as taught by Matsuno so that the push member may be movable or replaceable relative to the other components, for example during maintenance, while being held in position when in an assembled configuration.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yoshida teaches the rebar tying tool according to claim 7 (Fig. 1), wherein the operated unit comprises:
an operated member which the push member 83 is configured to contact and configured to be operated by the push member 83 when the push member 83 is in contact with the operated member (Examiner Annotated Fig. 1); and
a cutter 61 configured to cut the wire and work when the operated member is operated by the push member 83 (Fig. 1; Para. [0083]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yoshida teaches the rebar tying tool according to claim 7 (Fig. 1), wherein the sleeve 71 comprises:
a cylindrical portion (Figs. 5A and B shows the sleeve 71 has a cylindrical shape, including in the region in which the push member is located); and
a flange portion (Examiner Annotated Fig. 5A shows that the sleeve 71 includes a flange portion, i.e., the area rearward of push member 83 with a larger diameter than the rest of the sleeve 71),
PNG
media_image2.png
306
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the push member 83 is disposed on the cylindrical portion (Fig. 5), and the movement of the push member relative to the sleeve is restricted by the push member 83 contacting the flange portion (Fig. 5A shows the push member is on the cylindrical portion of the sleeve and is restricted from moving rearward of the sleeve by the flange).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2009/0283171 A1 (Figs. 1-3) and US 7,255,135 B2 (Figs. 1-7) each teach a rebar tying tool includes a screw shaft, sleeve, fin members and a push member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725