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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed 2 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 21 April 2026, except for any objection(s) and/or rejection(s) under 35 USC 112 repeated below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The claims recite a host of features that are not indicated with reference characters in the drawings. To provide a few non-exhaustive examples, none of the “a fetching assembly”, “a cutting station”, and “a first pressing assembly” as recited in claim 1; “a first moving assembly” and “a second pressing assembly” as recited in claim 2; “a first pressing block” and “a second pressing block” as recited in claim 3; and “a pressing arm” as recited in claim 4 is indicated with a reference character in the present drawings. Therefore, it is not clear that the present drawings illustrate these features. If these features are illustrated, then the features should be provided with respective reference characters. If these features are not illustrated, then the features must be shown or the features canceled from the claim(s). Again, this list is non-exhaustive. The Applicant should review all claims to ensure that all claimed features are indicated with a reference character in the drawings. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 1 recites, “the first pressing assembly and the support platform are movable relative to each other to form a height difference”. To the extent that this recitation encompasses the support platform being stationary with only the first pressing assembly moving to achieve the height difference, this feature is not illustrated in the present drawings. The present drawings only illustrate an embodiment that includes movement of the support platform to achieve the height difference; no embodiment where the support platform remains stationary is illustrated. As such, the drawings fail to illustrate that the first pressing assembly and the support platform are movable relative to each other, at least to the extent that “relative to each other” permits the support platform to remain stationary.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
Initially, if the Applicant re-writes the specification to address the issues identified below, the examiner respectfully requests Applicant file a clean copy of a substitute specification in accordance with MPEP 608.01(q) so that the examiner is able to conduct keyword searching to ascertain the inclusion of all claim terminology in the specification.
The amendment filed 2 July 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: paragraphs 5 and 35 have been amended to describe that the first pressing member and the support platform are “movable relative to each other to create a height difference”. This amendment permits the support platform to be stationary and the first pressing member to be the only one of the two structures that moves. However, relative movement that encompasses the support platform being stationary was not disclosed in the present application as originally filed (see paragraph 44, e.g.). Therefore, paragraphs 5 and 35 have been amended to introduce new matter because relative movement encompasses the support member remaining stationary, and the present application as filed does not disclose the support member remaining stationary to achieve the height difference. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). In this case, the claims are replete with terminology lacking a specification antecedent basis. The specification should be amended to provide every claim feature with a specification antecedent basis. In view of the numerosity of features lacking antecedent basis, the examiner provides a non-exhaustive list below of features that lack a specification antecedent basis. The Applicant should review all claims to ensure that all claimed features have an antecedent basis in the specification. The non-exhaustive list of features lacking antecedent basis in the specification is:
“a fetching assembly” as recited in claim 1, including identifying the corresponding structure of the fetching assembly (while the specification provides an antecedent basis for “a fetching device”, there is no antecedent basis for “a fetching assembly”, although claim 2 requires the fetching assembly to include a first moving assembly and a second pressing assembly);
“a cutting station” as recited in claim 1 (while the specification provides an antecedent basis for “a cutting device”, there is no antecedent basis for “a cutting station”);
“a first pressing assembly” as recited in claim 1;
“a first moving assembly” as recited in claim 2;
“a second pressing assembly” as recited in claim 2;
“a first pressing block” as recited in claim 3;
“a second pressing block” as recited in claim 3; and
“a pressing arm” as recited in claim 3.
Again, the examiner stresses that this list is non-exhaustive and that the Applicant should review all claims to ensure that all claim terminology has an antecedent basis in the specification. Correction of the above is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 at the second line of the paragraph beginning “an edge” recites, “the surface”. This recitation should specify the surface of the edge to avoid confusion with previously introduced surfaces (see claim 2, e.g.).
Claim 8 at the fifth to last line recites, “the strip section”. This recitation should read – the second strip section – for consistency with claim 1.
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.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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:
“a fetching assembly” as recited in claim 1 (first, “assembly” is a generic placeholder for “means” because an assembly is not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for any particular type of structure – e.g., in the present claims, the Applicant refers to multiple different assemblies having different functions, which is evidence that an “assembly” is not a term known in the art for any particular type of structure; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “fetching” and “configured to press the metal strip from the feeding reel and convey the metal strip to the cutting station”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “fetching” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the assembly);
“a first pressing assembly” as recited in claim 1 (first, “assembly” is a generic placeholder for “means” as noted in the preceding paragraph; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “pressing” and “configured to press the metal strip”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “pressing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the assembly);
“a first moving assembly” as recited in claim 2 (first, “assembly” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “moving” and “drives the second pressing assembly”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
“a second pressing assembly” as recited in claim 2 (first, “assembly” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “pressing” and “closes the pressing channel to bring the first pressing surface close to the second pressing surface”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., even though the second pressing assembly may have the structure of a pressing channel, the structure of a pressing channel is insufficient to perform the recited function that the second pressing assembly “closes the pressing channel”); and
“a second supporting member” as recited in claim 4 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “supporting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function).
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.
Note that “a feeding reel” as recited in claim 1 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because a reel is a structure that is able to perform a feeding function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “a first pressing assembly” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as explained above and is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for failing 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 as explained below. Per MPEP 2181(IV), a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description. Therefore, claim 1 lacks adequate written description.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, “the first pressing assembly and the support platform are movable relative to each other”. To the extent that this recitation encompasses the support platform being stationary and the first pressing assembly moving, this recitation fails to comply with the written description requirement. The support platform being stationary with only the first pressing assembly moving to achieve the height difference was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The present application as originally filed only contemplates an embodiment where the support platform moves to achieve the height difference. E.g., see paragraph 44 of the present application as originally filed disclosing that, “By setting the first elastic member 144 between the bottom of the second supporting member 14 and the fourth pressing module 132, when the second supporting member 14 drives the fourth pressing module 132 to rise and press the strip against the third feeding module 131, the second supporting member 14 can still continue to rise by compressing the first elastic member 144 to drive the support platform 12 to rise and exceed the height of the first pressing mechanism 13, thus causing a height difference between the strip section located on the first pressing mechanism 13 and the strip section located on the support platform 12 for cutting.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, to the extent that “relative to each other” as recited in claim 1 permits the support platform to be stationary, claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 2, the claim limitation “a first moving assembly” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as explained above and is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for failing 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 as explained below. Per MPEP 2181(IV), a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description. Therefore, claim 2 lacks adequate written description.
Regarding claim 2, the claim limitation “a second pressing assembly” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as explained above and is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for failing 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 as explained below. Per MPEP 2181(IV), a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description. Therefore, claim 2 lacks adequate written description.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/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 claim 1, claim limitation “a first pressing assembly” 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. No “first pressing assembly” is described in the present specification, as the phrase “first pressing assembly” is not used in the present specification. Moreover, to the extent that the corresponding structure of the “first pressing assembly” is disclosed in the present specification, the specification fails to clearly link the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the recited function. The present specification discloses each of “a first pressing surface”, “a first pressing mechanism”, and “a first pressing module”. It is unclear whether one of these structures is intended to correspond to the recited “first pressing assembly”, or whether the “first pressing assembly” is intended to correspond to some other structure. The fact that the Applicant amended “a first pressing mechanism” to read – a first pressing assembly – suggests that Applicant intends to alter the scope of the recitation. That is, the fact that Applicant amended the claim to no longer recite “a first pressing mechanism” suggests that the Applicant intends to refer to some other structure besides the first pressing mechanism. However, the present specification makes no mention of “a first pressing assembly”, and thus the corresponding structure of the first pressing assembly is unclear. 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “a fetching assembly” 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. No “fetching assembly” is described in the present specification, as the phrase “fetching assembly” is not used in the present specification. Moreover, to the extent that the corresponding structure of the “fetching assembly” is disclosed in the present specification, the specification fails to clearly link the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the recited function. The present specification discloses each of “a first pressing surface”, “a first pressing mechanism”, and “a first pressing module”. It is unclear whether one of these structures is intended to correspond to the recited “first pressing assembly”, or whether the “first pressing assembly” is intended to correspond to some other structure. The fact that the Applicant amended “a first pressing mechanism” to read – a first pressing assembly – suggests that Applicant intends to alter the scope of the recitation. That is, the fact that Applicant amended the claim to no longer recite “a first pressing mechanism” suggests that the Applicant intends to refer to some other structure besides the first pressing mechanism. However, the present specification makes no mention of “a first pressing assembly”, and thus the corresponding structure of the first pressing assembly is unclear. 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.
Regarding claim 2, claim limitation “a first moving assembly” 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. No “first moving assembly” is described in the present specification, as the phrase “first moving assembly” is not used in the present specification. Moreover, the fact that the Applicant amended “a first moving mechanism” to read – a first moving assembly – suggests that Applicant intends to alter the scope of the recitation. That is, the fact that Applicant amended the claim to no longer recite “a first moving mechanism” suggests that the Applicant intends to refer to some other structure besides the first moving mechanism. However, the present specification makes no mention of “a first moving assembly”, and thus the corresponding structure of the first moving assembly is unclear. 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.
Regarding claim 2, claim limitation “a second pressing assembly” 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. No “second pressing assembly” is described in the present specification, as the phrase “second pressing assembly” is not used in the present specification. Moreover, the fact that the Applicant amended “second pressing mechanism” to read – second pressing assembly – suggests that Applicant intends to alter the scope of the recitation. That is, the fact that Applicant amended the claim to no longer recite “a second pressing mechanism” suggests that the Applicant intends to refer to some other structure besides the second pressing mechanism. However, the present specification makes no mention of “a second pressing assembly”, and thus the corresponding structure of the second pressing assembly is unclear. 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.
Claim 4 at the paragraph beginning ‘the third cam ...’ recites “a strip section”. Claim 4 is indefinite because the relationship between the strip section introduced in claim 4 and the strip sections already introduced in claim 1 is unclear. In particular, it is unclear whether claim 4 is introducing a new strip section, or whether the strip section introduced in claim 4 can be interpreted as being the same as one of the strip sections already introduced in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites, “a second cam”. This recitation is indefinite in view of claim 5 already introducing a second cam. It is unclear whether claim 6 is intends to introduce some additional cam, or whether claim 6 intends to refer to the cam already introduced in claim 5.
Claim 6 recites, “the drive motor comprises a limit groove and a second cam”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the recitation includes a typographical error. Previously, the claim required that “the driving device” – where “the driving device” corresponds to a structure of which the drive motor is a merely sub-component – comprises the limit groove and the second cam. As amended to require that the drive motor comprises the limit groove and the second cam, the claim appears to be inconsistent with claim 5. That is, claim 5 introduces a rotating shaft having cams fixed thereon as a structure that is in addition to, rather than being a part of, the drive motor. Thus, it is unclear whether claim 6 intends to require that the rotating shaft comprises the limit groove and the second cam.
Claim 7 recites, “the third moving assembly”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 7 indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether claim 7 intends to introduce some new moving assembly, or whether claim 7 intends to refer to one of the previously introduced moving assemblies.
For each of claimed feature identified above that is indefinite stemming from interpreting the feature under 35 USC 112(f), 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.
Claims Not Subject to Prior Art Rejection
Claims 1-10 are not subject to any prior art rejection under 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103; however, no determination of allowability can be made for these claims in view of the numerous issues raised above under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b). For a discussion of claim 1, as best understood, avoiding the best-known prior art, see the Claims Not Subject to Prior Art Rejection section at pages 14-17 of the Non-Final Office action mailed 21 April 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive.
Under the Claim Interpretation heading at page 15 of the Remarks, it is unclear whether the Applicant is asserting that “fetching assembly” should not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Regardless, even if the specification, drawings, and/or one or more dependent claims recite structure of the fetching assembly, that is insufficient to avoid interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) for the purposes of claim 1. Thus, since “fetching assembly” as recited in claim 1 satisfies the three prong test of MPEP 2181 as explained above, the recitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The same can be said for other claims interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth above. The Applicant cannot avoid interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) by pointing to structure disclosed in the specification, drawings, or one or more dependent claims (although, once a dependent claim recites sufficient structure of a limitation interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), the limitation is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) only for that dependent claim and claims depending therefrom).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
