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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1, line 12: the examiner suggests the phrase “The tube can made from …” should be changed to read “The tube can be made from ….”
Page 2, lines 30-31: the phrase “a tube configured to hold the tube” is unclear, and the examiner suggests changing the phrase to read “a tube positioning device configured to hold the tube.”
Page 3, line 1: “A laser cutting is configured …” should be changed to read “A laser cutting device is configured ….”
Page 3, line 31: the colon “:” should be replaced with a semicolon “;”.
Page 4, line 1: the colon “:” should be replaced with a semicolon “;”.
Page 11, line 18: the examiner suggests “stents of scaffolds” should be changed to read “stents or scaffolds.”
Page 14, lines 29-30: the examiner suggests “which cannot the use to produce medical devices” should be changed to read “which cannot be used to produce medical devices.”
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.
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: “tube positioning device” and “laser cutting device” in claim 1.
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.
Regarding the term “tube positioning device” in claim 1, this limitation recites the generic term “device” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure for performing the recited function. The recited function is holding the tube such that a portion of the tube extends from the tube positioning device along a longitudinal direction. The corresponding structure includes at least positioning device 2 including a fixation device, such as a clamping chuck, an adjustment apparatus, and an electric motor configured to move the clamping chuck longitudinally along the longitudinal direction and/or rotationally about the longitudinal direction, and equivalents thereof. ¶¶ [0025], [0026], [0059] and [0060].
Regarding the term “laser cutting device” in claim 1, this limitation recites the generic term “device” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure for performing the recited function. The recited function is forming the medical device from the tube. The corresponding structure includes at least laser cutting device 4 configured to produce/direct/focus a laser beam B onto the tube 5 to cut openings or other shapes into the tube to form the medical device, equivalents thereof. ¶¶ [0004], [0025], [0059], [0060], [0061] and [0088].
processing machine components disclosed for cutting the tubular workpiece, including the laser source and associated cutting arrangement configured to cut the tube to form the medical device, and equivalent 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.
Claim 2 is 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 bearing elements comprise a material having a hardness larger than a hardness of the tube.” The claim is directed to a production system, yet the recited hardness relationship is defined relative to “the tube,” the hardness of which may vary depending on the material and characteristics of the tube being processed. The specification discloses various possible tube materials, including nitinol, stainless steel, cobalt-chrome, and bioresorbable magnesium or any other suitable materials. Page 1, lines 12-13. As a result, it is unclear whether a given production system falls within the scope of the claim because the determination depends upon the hardness of a variable tube rather than a structural characteristic of the claimed production system itself. The claim defines the production system in relation to a variable property of the tube, which may differ from one tube to another. See MPEP 2173.05(b) II. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine with reasonable certainty whether a given production system satisfies the claimed hardness relationship.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keel et al. (US 20110253686) hereinafter Keel, in view of Fazeny (DE 102008011232).
Regarding claim 1, Keel teaches, in Fig. 1,
a production system (1, “laser processing machine”) for producing a medical device from a tube (22, “pipe-like workpiece”) (the examiner interprets the recitation “for producing a medical device” as an intended use of the claimed production system because it does not impart additional structural limitations to the claimed apparatus. Keel’s laser processing machine processes and cuts tubular workpiece and includes the recited structural components as follows), comprising:
a tube positioning device (3, “rotatable clamping chuck”) configured to hold the tube (22-) such that a portion of the tube (22) extends from the tube positioning device (3) along a longitudinal direction (X) (X, “longitudinal direction”) (¶ [0021]: “a rotatable clamping chuck for clamping the pipe-like workpiece during processing”; ¶ [0032]: “a rotatable clamping chuck 3 is provided through which a pipe-like workpiece 22 can be introduced into a rectangular processing range 2”; the examiner interprets the pipe-like workpiece as extending from the rotatable clamping chuck into the processing range along its longitudinal axis); and
a laser cutting device (Fig. 5: 21, “laser processing head”) configured to form said medical device from said portion of the tube (22) (¶¶ [0021], [0021]).
Regarding claim 1, Keel does not explicitly teach
a guiding device configured to guide said portion of the tube, comprising
a plurality of bearing elements each configured to abut said portion of the tube and each having a convex curvature in a plane spanned by the longitudinal direction (X) and a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (X).
However, Fazeny teaches a system for laser cutting medical stents from tubular blanks (Fazeny (translation), p. 3, ln. 11), wherein
a guiding device (Fig. 4: 15, “pipe guide assembly”) configured to guide said portion of the tube (Fig. 4: 12, “pipe”) (Fazeny (translation), p. 6, ln. 43: “the tube in the pipe guide assembly 15 guided”; p. 6, lns. 32-33: “the pipe 12 is guided in a defined position”), comprising
a plurality of bearing elements (Fig. 4: 28, “balls”) each configured to abut said portion of the tube (12) (Fazeny (translation), p. 6, lns. 42-43: “the balls 28 pressed against the pipe and this in the guide prism 25 press”) and each having a convex curvature in a plane spanned by the longitudinal direction (X) and a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (X) (the examiner interprets the spherical shape of the balls 28 as inherently providing a convex curvature in any plane passing through the center of the ball, including a plane spanned by the longitudinal direction of the pipe and a transverse direction perpendicular thereto).
Keel and Fazeny are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser cutting systems for tubular workpieces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the laser processing machine of Keel to incorporate the pipe guide assembly with bearing elements taught by Fazeny, in order to guide the tubular workpiece during laser cutting and improve machining accuracy (Fazeny (translation), p. 2, lns. 20-22: “the blank due to the short clamping length practically not vibrate. Furthermore, since the distance of the Impact point of the laser beam from the pipe guide assembly does not change during editing will achieved a high precision machining”).
PNG
media_image1.png
833
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Keel
PNG
media_image2.png
634
928
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Keel
PNG
media_image3.png
483
441
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Fazeny
Regarding claim 3, Keel in view of Fazeny teaches
the production system (Keel: 1) according to claim 1, wherein
the bearing elements (Fazeny: 28) comprise a rolling bearing steel material, a ceramics material or a hard metal material (Fazeny (translation), p. 6, ln. 38: “a ball … made of steel 28”).
Regarding claim 4, Keel in view of Fazeny teaches
the production system (Keel: 1) according to claim 1, wherein
at least one of the bearing elements (28) is formed by a spherical ball (Fazeny (translation), p. 4, ln. 28: “the rolling elements designed as a ball”).
Regarding claim 15, Keel in view of Fazeny teaches
the production system (Keel: 1) according to claim 1, wherein
the laser cutting device (Keel, Fig. 5: 21, “laser processing head”) is configured to form said medical device on an end of said portion of the tube (Keel: 22, “pipe-like workpiece”) (Fazeny (translation), p. 3, lns. 28-29: “the finished stent … is cut by the laser beam”), the guiding device (Fazeny: 15, “pipe guide assembly”) being arranged, when viewed along the longitudinal direction (X), in between the tube positioning device (Keel: 3, “rotatable clamping chuck”) and the laser cutting device (Keel: 21) (Fazeny (translation), p. 3, lns. 25-26: “Every tube 12 is in a manipulator 13 held during machining”; p. 3, lns. 33-34: “each of the two pipes to be machined 12 immediately adjacent to the area where the machining by the laser cutting head 8th done by a pipe guide assembly 15 held in his position”; Fig. 2 shows the pipe guide assembly 15 positioned between the manipulator 13 and the laser cutting head 8 along the longitudinal direction of the tube).
PNG
media_image4.png
772
1144
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Fazeny
Claims 2 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keel et al. (US 20110253686) hereinafter Keel, in view of Fazeny (DE 102008011232), and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 113857766) hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 2, Keel in view of Fazeny teaches
the production system (Keel: 1) according to claim 1, wherein
the bearing elements (Fazeny: 28) is made of steel (Fazeny (translation), p. 6, ln. 38: “a ball … made of steel 28”), and the tube is made of metal (p. 2, ln. 11: “a thin-walled metal tube is used”), but does not explicitly teach the bearing elements comprise a material having a hardness larger than a hardness of the tube.
However, Zhang teaches However, Zhang teaches a laser pipe cutting machine (abstract), wherein
the bearing elements (Fig. 3: 5, “first bearing”; 6, “second bearing”) comprise a material having a hardness larger than a hardness of the tube (Zhang (translation), p. 5, lns. 37-39: “by using chromium plating rod 12 and needle bearing, which is good for ensuring the hardness of the shaft rod itself, so that the bearing is more durable”; the examiner further finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the chromium-plated rod and needle-bearing structure to have a hardness greater than that of the processed tube because Zhang teaches increasing the hardness of the bearing structure to improve durability during repeated contact with the tube).
Keel, Fazeny and Zhang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser cutting systems for tubular workpieces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the bearing elements of the production system of Keel and Fazeny with the chromium-plated rod and needle-bearing construction as taught by Zhang, for the purpose of “ensur[ing] the hardness of the shaft rod itself, so that the bearing is more durable.” Zhang (translation), p. 5, lns. 37-39.
PNG
media_image5.png
721
947
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Zhang
Regarding claim 5, Keel in view of Fazeny teaches
the production system (Keel: 1) according to claim 1, comprising the bearing elements (Fazeny: 28) but does not explicitly teach at least one of the bearing elements comprises a cylindrical pin.
However, Zhang teaches a laser pipe cutting machine (abstract), wherein at least one of the bearing elements (Fig. 3: 5, “first bearing”; 6, “second bearing”) comprises a cylindrical pin (the examiner interprets the elongated cylindrical configuration of the first bearing 5 and the second bearing 6 shown in Fig. 3 as comprising cylindrical pins).
Keel, Fazeny and Zhang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser cutting systems for tubular workpieces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the cylindrical bearing elements and the associated orientation taught by Zhang, wherein “the axial direction of the first bearing 5 and the axial direction of the second bearing 6 are vertical to the central axis of the first clamping plate base 1” (Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 5-6), into the laser processing machine of Keel and Fazeny, in order to “ensure the processing [tubular workpiece] is accurately fixed and located in the radial direction when clamping … [and] can be processed with high precision” (Zhang (translation), p. 3, lns. 7-9).
Regarding claim 6, Keel in view of Fazeny and Zhang teaches
the production system (Keel: 1) according to claim 5, wherein
the cylindrical pin (Zhang: 5, 6) extends longitudinally along an axis of extension, wherein the axis of extension lies in a plane oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction (X) (Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 5-6: “the axial direction of the first bearing 5 is parallel to the axial direction of the second bearing 6; the axial direction of the first bearing 5 and the axial direction of the second bearing 6 are vertical to the central axis of the first clamping plate base 1”).
Regarding claim 7, Keel in view of Fazeny teaches
the production system (Keel: 1) according to claim 1, comprising the bearing elements (Fazeny: 28), but does not explicitly teach the bearing elements are arranged in a common plane oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction (X).
However, Zhang teaches a laser pipe cutting machine (abstract), wherein
the bearing elements (5, 6) are arranged in a common plane oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction (X) (Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 30-32: “the first bearing 5 is located at the front end of the clamping area of the first clamping jaw 4, the second bearing 6 is located at the rear end of the clamping area of the first clamping jaw 4”; Fig. 3: the examiner interprets the first bearing 5 and the second bearing 6 that are arranged on the clamping jaw 4 to engage the tubular workpiece at the front end and the rear end of the clamping area, as being disposed within a common plane of the chuck that is oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal/central axis of the tubular workpiece).
Keel, Fazeny and Zhang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser cutting systems for tubular workpieces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the bearing elements of the laser processing system of Keel and Fazeny in the common plane configuration as taught by Zhang, in order to “ensure the processing [tubular workpiece] is accurately fixed and located in the radial direction when clamping … [and] can be processed with high precision” (Zhang (translation), p. 3, lns. 7-9).
Regarding claim 8, Keel and Fazeny teaches
the production system (Keel: 1) according to claim 1, comprising the bearing elements (Fazeny: 28), but does not explicitly teach at least one of the bearing elements is arranged in a first plane oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction (X), and at least one other of the bearing elements is arranged in a second plane oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction (X) and displaced with respect to said first plane along the longitudinal direction (X).
However, Zhang teaches a laser pipe cutting machine (abstract), wherein
at least one of the bearing elements (5, 6) is arranged in a first plane oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction (X), and at least one other of the bearing elements is arranged in a second plane oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction (X) (Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 30-32: “the first bearing 5 is located at the front end of the clamping area of the first clamping jaw 4, the second bearing 6 is located at the rear end of the clamping area of the first clamping jaw 4”) and displaced with respect to said first plane along the longitudinal direction (X) (Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 5-6: “the axial direction of the first bearing 5 is parallel to the axial direction of the second bearing 6; the axial direction of the first bearing 5 and the axial direction of the second bearing 6 are vertical to the central axis of the first clamping plate base 1”) (the examiner interprets the first bearing 5 and second bearing 6 as defining respective planes perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tubular workpiece, with the first and second planes being axially displaced from one another because the bearings are located at the front and rear ends of the clamping area).
Keel, Fazeny and Zhang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser cutting systems for tubular workpieces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the bearing elements of the laser processing system of Keel and Fazeny in the axially displaced configuration as taught by Zhang, in order to “ensure the processing [tubular workpiece] is accurately fixed and located in the radial direction when clamping … [and] can be processed with high precision” (Zhang (translation), p. 3, lns. 7-9).
Regarding claim 9, Keel and Fazeny teaches
the production system (Keel: 1) according to claim 1, comprising
the guiding device (Fazeny: 15) having bearing elements (Fazeny: 28), but does not explicitly teach the guiding device comprises a first guiding section having a first body and a second guiding section having a second body, wherein a first subgroup of the plurality of bearing elements is arranged on the first body of the first guiding section and a second subgroup of the plurality of bearing elements is arranged on the second body of the second guiding section.
However, Zhang teaches, Fig. 1, a laser pipe cutting machine (abstract), wherein
the guiding device (Fig. 1: 3, “first clamping assembly”; 8, “second clamping assembly”; the examiner interprets a combination of the first clamping assembly 3 and the second clamping assembly 8, which support and position the tubular workpiece through bearing elements, as corresponding the claimed guiding device) comprises a first guiding section (3) having a first body (4, “first clamping jaws”) and a second guiding section (8) having a second body (9, “second clamping jaws”), wherein
a first subgroup of the plurality of bearing elements (5, 6) is arranged on the first body (4) of the first guiding section (3) (Fig. 3 shows the arrangement) and
a second subgroup of the plurality of bearing elements (Fig. 4: 10, “third bearing”) is arranged on the second body (9) of the second guiding section (8) (Fig. 4 shows the arrangement).
Keel, Fazeny and Zhang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser cutting systems for tubular workpieces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the guiding device of Keel and Fazeny with first and second guiding sections carrying respective subgroups of bearing elements as taught by Zhang, in order to “ensure the processing [tubular workpiece] is accurately fixed and located in the radial direction when clamping … [and] can be processed with high precision” (Zhang (translation), p. 3, lns. 7-9).
PNG
media_image6.png
823
1044
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Zhang
PNG
media_image7.png
746
1062
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Zhang
Regarding claim 10, Keel in view of Fazeny and Zhang teaches
the production system (Keel: 1) according to claim 9, wherein
the first guiding section (Zhang: 3) and the second guiding section (Zhang: 8) are configured to receive said portion of the tube (Keel: 22) between the first guiding section (Zhang: 3) and the second guiding section (Zhang: 8) (Zhang (translation), p. 2, lns. 18-19: “the second chuck seat is connected to the back side of the first chuck seat, and is coaxial with the first chuck seat”; p. 4, lns. 53-54: “the bearing surface of the third bearing 10 is used for abutting the processing pipe, the other end of the processing pipe is clamped”; p. 2, lns. 12-14: “the bearing surfaces of the first bearing and the second bearing are used for abutting the processing pipe material, the processing pipe material is clamped”; the examiner interprets the processed pipe as being received between the first clamping assembly 3 and the second clamping assembly 8 because the first and second clamping assemblies are disposed on opposite sides of the processed pipe and cooperate to clamp and support the pipe during processing)
regarding claim 11, Keel in view of Fazeny and Zhang teaches
the production system (Keen: 1) according to claim 10, wherein
the first guiding section (Zhang: 3) and the second guiding section (Zhang: 8) are tensioned with respect to one another to apply a guiding pressure to the portion of the tube received between the first guiding section (Zhang: 3) and the second guiding section (Zhang: 8) (Zhang (translation), p. 2, lns. 12-14: “the bearing surfaces of the first bearing and the second bearing are used for abutting the processing pipe material, the processing pipe material is clamped”; p. 4, lns. 53-54: “the bearing surface of the third bearing 10 is used for abutting the processing pipe, the other end of the processing pipe is clamped”; p. 3, lns. 7-8: “to ensure the processing pipe is accurately fixed and located in the radial direction when clamping”; the examiner interprets the first clamping assembly 3 and the second clamping assembly 8 as being tensioned with respect to one another because they cooperatively apply opposing clamping forces to the processed pipe to fix and position the pipe during processing).
Regarding claim 12, Keel in view of Fazeny and Zhang teaches
the production system (Keel: 1) according to claim 9, wherein
the first subgroup of the plurality of bearing elements (Zhang: 5, 6) is rotationally fixed to the first body (Zhang: 4) of the first guiding section (Zhang: 3) (Zhang (translation), p. 5, lns. 35-36: “the first bearing 5 and the second bearing 6 … are composed of a needle bearing and a chromium plating rod 12”; the examiner interprets the chrome-plated rod 12 as being fixedly mounted to the respective clamping jaw, as shown in Fig. 3, while permitting rotation of the needle bearing relative to the chromium-plated rod), and/or
the second subgroup of the plurality of bearing elements (Zhang: 10) is rotationally fixed to the second body (Zhang: 9) of the second guiding section (Zhang: 8) (Zhang (translation), p. 5, lns. 36-37: “the bearing rod of the third bearing 10 is composed of a needle bearing and a chromium plating rod 12”; the examiner interprets the chrome-plated rod 12 as being fixedly mounted to the respective clamping jaw, as shown in Fig. 4, while permitting rotation of the needle bearing relative to the chromium-plated rod).
Regarding claim 13, Keen in view of Fazeny and Zhang teaches
the production system (Keen: 1) according to claim 9, wherein
the first body (Zhang: 4) comprises at least one first receptacle in which one of the bearing elements (Zhang: 5, 6) of said first subgroup is received (Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 30-32: “the first bearing 5 is located at the front end of the clamping area of the first clamping jaw 4, the second bearing 6 is located at the rear end of the clamping area of the first clamping jaw 4”; the examiner interprets the portions of the first clamping jaw 4 that accommodate the first and second bearings 5 & 6, as shown in Fig. 3, as corresponding to the claimed first receptacle), and/or
the second body (Zhang: 9) comprises at least one second receptacle in which one of the bearing elements (Zhang: 10) of said second subgroup is received (Zhang (translation), p. 2, ln. 24: “the clamping area of the second clamping jaw is provided with a third bearing”; the examiner interprets the portion of the second clamping jaw 9 that accommodate the third bearing 10, as shown in Fig. 4, as corresponding to the claimed second receptacle).
Regarding claim 14, Keel in view of Fazeny and Zhang teaches
the production system (Keel: 1) according to claim 13, wherein
said one of the bearing elements (Zhang: 5, 6) of said first subgroup is clamped in said at least one first receptacle (Fig. 3; Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 30-32) such that said one of the bearing elements (Zhang: 5, 6) of said first subgroup is rotationally fixed (Zhang (translation), p. 5, lns. 35-36) in said at least one first receptacle (Fig. 3; Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 30-32) (the examiner interprets the chromium-plated rod 12 of the bearing assembly as being secured within the portion of the first clamping jaw 4 that receives the bearing element, thereby rotationally fixing the bearing element with respect to the receptacle), and/or
said one of the bearing elements (Zhang: 10) of said second subgroup is clamped in said at least one second receptacle (Fig. 4; Zhang (translation), p. 2, ln. 24) such that said one of the bearing elements (Zhang: 10) of said second subgroup is rotationally fixed in said at least one second receptacle (Fig. 4; Zhang (translation), p. 2, ln. 24) (Zhang (translation), p. 5, lns. 36-37: “the bearing rod of the third bearing 10 is composed of a needle bearing and a chromium plating rod 12”; the examiner interprets the chrome-plated rod 12 of the bearing assembly as being secured within the portion of the second clamping jaw 9 that receives the bearing element, thereby rotationally fixing the bearing element with respect to the receptacle).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jarsch (DE 102020130607), Yang et al. (CN 113977116), Lai et al. (CN 111730282), Schopf et al. (EP 2548692), Schopf et al. (EP 2548691), Boettcher et al. (DE 102012209077), Boettcher et al. (DE 102012209079), Sherpff et al. (CN 102756216).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights