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 Objections
Claims 2 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: it is suggested to amend the limitation “the vertical and/or lateral positioning” to read as “a vertical and/or lateral positioning”. 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:
“drive mechanism…structured to impart a reciprocating motion” in claim 11 [no corresponding structure is provided; see paragraph 0041].
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.
Claim 11-20 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.
With regards to claim 11, the claim limitation “drive mechanism…structured to impart a reciprocating motion” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification designates the drive mechanism as numeral 114 in the figures, it fails to detail the structure that is encompassed within the drive mechanism and the figures shown a box labeled as the drive mechanism. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pora et al (US 4,702,098).
In reference to claim 1, Pora et al discloses a redraw assembly for use with a can bodymaker, the redraw assembly comprising
a hold down body (36) structured to be slidably coupled to a frame (16) of the bodymaker [see figure 1, col. 4 lines 39-43],
a redraw sleeve assembly having a redraw sleeve (62) adjustably coupled to the hold down body and structured to apply a force to a cup engaged with a toolpack of the bodymaker [see col. 5 lines 9-21], and
a means is provided to dynamically adjust an aspect (radially adjusting) of the redraw sleeve with respect to the hold down body while the bodymaker is in operation forming a can body [see col. 5 lines 18-20].
Pora et al discloses that a means is provided for radially adjusting the redraw sleeve (62) but fails to disclose the specifics of the means. Pora et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the means is a controller (i.e. automatic).
However, it would have been within the realm of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a controller that automates the radial adjustment of the redraw sleeve, since it has been held that broadly providing an automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art [see In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the means of Pora et al to be a controller, in order to efficiently adjust the redraw sleeve during a redraw operation of the can bodymaker.
In reference to claim 2, the aspect comprises one or more of a vertical and/or lateral positioning [Pora et al discloses a radial adjustment which encompasses both vertical and lateral positioning adjustments; see col. 5 lines 18-19] of the redraw sleeve (62) relative to the hold down body (36).
In reference to claim 11, Pora et al discloses a bodymaker comprising
a frame,
a ram (punch) slidably coupled to the frame,
a toolpack coupled to the frame,
a drive mechanism (crank) coupled to the ram and structured to impart a reciprocating motion to the ram to reciprocate between a first retracted portion, wherein the ram is spaced from the toolpack, and a second extended position, wherein the ram extends through the toolpack [see col. 1 lines 51-58 & col. 3 lines 37-44], and
a redraw assembly comprising
a hold down body (36) structured to be slidably coupled to a frame (16) of the bodymaker [see figure 1, col. 4 lines 39-43],
a redraw sleeve assembly having a redraw sleeve (62) adjustably coupled to the hold down body and structured to apply a force to a cup engaged with a toolpack of the bodymaker [see col. 5 lines 9-21], and
a means is provided to dynamically adjust an aspect (radially adjusting) of the redraw sleeve with respect to the hold down body while the bodymaker is in operation forming a can body [see col. 5 lines 18-20].
Pora et al discloses that a means is provided for radially adjusting the redraw sleeve (62) but fails to disclose the specifics of the means. Pora et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the means is a controller (i.e. automatic).
However, it would have been within the realm of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a controller that automates the radial adjustment of the redraw sleeve, since it has been held that broadly providing an automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art [see In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the means of Pora et al to be a controller, in order to efficiently adjust the redraw sleeve during a redraw operation of the can bodymaker.
In reference to claim 12, the aspect comprises one or more of a vertical and/or lateral positioning [Pora et al discloses a radial adjustment which encompasses both vertical and lateral positioning adjustments; see col. 5 lines 18-19] of the redraw sleeve (62) relative to the hold down body (36).
2. Claim(s) 1, 7, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pora et al (US 4,702,098).
In reference to claim 1, Pora et al discloses a redraw assembly for use with a can bodymaker, the redraw assembly comprising
a hold down body (36) structured to be slidably coupled to a frame (16) of the bodymaker [see figure 1, col. 4 lines 39-43],
a redraw sleeve assembly having a redraw sleeve (62) adjustably coupled to the hold down body and structured to apply a force to a cup engaged with a toolpack of the bodymaker [see col. 5 lines 9-21], and
a manual pressure adjustment control (142) is provided to dynamically adjust an aspect (clamping force) of the redraw sleeve with respect to the hold down body while the bodymaker is in operation forming a can body [see col. 6 lines 52-58].
Pora et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a controller (i.e. automatic) is provided to dynamically adjust the aspect (clamping force).
However, it would have been within the realm of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a controller that adjusts the clamping force provided by the redraw sleeve, since it has been held that broadly providing an automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art [see In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the manual pressure adjustment control of Pora et al to be a controller, in order to efficiently adjust the clamping force provided by the redraw sleeve during a redraw operation of the can bodymaker.
In reference to claim 7, the aspect comprises the force that the redraw sleeve (62) is structured to apply [see col. 6 lines 52-58].
In reference to claim 11, Pora et al discloses a bodymaker comprising
a frame,
a ram (punch) slidably coupled to the frame,
a toolpack coupled to the frame,
a drive mechanism (crank) coupled to the ram and structured to impart a reciprocating motion to the ram to reciprocate between a first retracted portion, wherein the ram is spaced from the toolpack, and a second extended position, wherein the ram extends through the toolpack [see col. 1 lines 51-58 & col. 3 lines 37-44], and
a redraw assembly comprising
a hold down body (36) structured to be slidably coupled to a frame (16) of the bodymaker [see figure 1, col. 4 lines 39-43],
a redraw sleeve assembly having a redraw sleeve (62) adjustably coupled to the hold down body and structured to apply a force to a cup engaged with a toolpack of the bodymaker [see col. 5 lines 9-21], and
a manual pressure adjustment control (142) is provided to dynamically adjust an aspect (clamping force) of the redraw sleeve with respect to the hold down body while the bodymaker is in operation forming a can body [see col. 6 lines 52-58].
Pora et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a controller (i.e. automatic) is provided to dynamically adjust the aspect (clamping force).
However, it would have been within the realm of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a controller that adjusts the clamping force provided by the redraw sleeve, since it has been held that broadly providing an automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art [see In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the manual pressure adjustment control of Pora et al to be a controller, in order to efficiently adjust the clamping force provided by the redraw sleeve during a redraw operation of the can bodymaker.
In reference to claim 17, the aspect comprises the force that the redraw sleeve is structured to apply [see col. 6 lines 52-58].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 8-10 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.
Claims 13-16 and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Debra Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)272-1904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm 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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Debra M Sullivan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725