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: medium conveying mechanism that conveys a sheet like medium in claim 1; a processing unit drive mechanism in claim 1; support unit in claim 1; a processing unit in claim 1; a transmission member in Claim 3; a pair of connection members of Claim 6.
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 4-5 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.
The term “close” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “a vicinity of a corner portion” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “vicinity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,594,499 to Rapsey in view of US 4,514,246 to Forrer.
In re Claim 1, Rapsey teaches a medium processing device (see Figs. 1-8) comprising:
a processing unit drive mechanism (see Figs. 1-8, mounting arrangement #40/41 which is movable above the table by way of structures #46/48/52/49, 41, etc. and the computer systems used to move the tool #1a) that includes a support unit that supports a processing unit that processes the medium (see Figs. 6-8, showing assembly #40 including #79 which secures tool #1a in #82 – The support unit was interpreted as structure #79/72/73 which pivot about axis #77 and hold processing unit #1a), the processing unit drive mechanism being capable of executing a first operation of moving the support unit together with the processing unit along the medium in a support unit feeding direction intersecting the medium feeding direction (see Fig. 5, #40/41, and tool #1a is movable along guide tube #51 as well as along racks #46 – see also Col. 7, ll. 1-58), and a second operation of changing a distance between the medium and the processing unit by rotating the support unit together with the processing unit about a virtual axis along the support unit feeding direction (see Fig. 6-8, showing that head #1a pivots about shaft #77 (see also Col 8, ll. 4-47; see also Col. 8, ll. 33-47 which states: “The solenoid 90 has an armature 92 which bears on the upper surface of the actuating arm 80, so that when the solenoid is energized with electricity by operating a switch (not shown) via a lead 93 plugged into the front of the head 41 as shown in FIG. 5, the armature extends and pushes the arm 80 downwards against the action of the spring 87 to lift the clamping arm 79 and bring the tool point 4a out of contact with the sheet 44.”).
Rapsey does not teach a medium conveying mechanism that conveys a sheet- like medium in a medium feeding direction.
However, Forrer teaches that it is known in the art of gantry type cutting devices to provide rollers, that convey a sheet like medium in a feeding direction (see Forrer, Figs. 1-2, rollers #56, which are considered a medium conveying mechanism, in that they convey a sheet material in a feeding direction to the table on which a gantry type cutting device is overhead).
In the same field of invention, gantry type cutting devices for sheet type workpieces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add rollers to the device of Rapsey to move the workpiece onto the table as taught by Forrer. Doing so provides a mechanism for unrolling workpieces from a roll to easily place them on the table for the gantry cutter to cut. Such a mechanism prevents the user from having to manually unroll the workpiece, saving time as well possible damage from manually unrolling a workpiece.
In re Claim 2, modified Rapsey, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the processing unit drive mechanism includes a shaft member (see Figs. 5-8, shaft #77 about which the head pivots when the armature #92 of solenoid #90 extends) that guides the support unit movably in the support unit feeding direction about a virtual axis (the axis of #77) along the support unit feeding direction, and executes the second operation by rotating the support unit about the shaft member (see Col. 8, ll. 4-47).
In re Claim 3, modified Rapsey, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the processing unit drive mechanism includes a transmission member (see flat surface of #80 on which #92 contacts to rotate the assembly about #77 – transmission member was interpreted under 35 USC 112(F) as flat surface of #22 in Applicant’s disclosure) that extends in the support unit feeding direction and rotates about the shaft member by transmitting power by a motor (when #90 extends #92 to bear on the surface of actuating arm #80, the assembly rotates about the shaft member #77), and the support unit moves in the support unit feeding direction along the shaft member and the transmission member in the first operation (the assembly holding tool #1 moves in the support feeding direction by the gantry assembly #51, 49, #50, etc. of Fig. 5), and rotates together with the transmission member in the second operation (the assembly holding tool #1 moves about #77 by actuator #90).
In re Claim 6, modified Rapsey, in re Claim 1, teaches further comprising: a pair of connection members connecting the shaft member and the transmission member at both ends in the support unit feeding direction (see Figs. 6-8, #77/#77, which connect #80 to the pivoting shaft #77) wherein the shaft member and the transmission member rotate together in the second operation (#80 rotates about the axis of the shaft member and the bearings #78 allow the shaft member to rotate with the actuation of #90).
In re Claim 7, modified Rapsey, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the processing unit is a cutting tool that cuts the medium (see Figs. 1-8, #1a is a tool the cuts the workpiece sheet #44), and the support unit includes a holder detachable portion to and from which a holder for holding the cutting tool is attachable and detachable (see Fig. 8, #82/79/84/83/81).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,594,499 to Rapsey in view of US 4,514,246 to Forrer, and further in view of US 2014/0020542 to Heo.
In re Claim 8, modified Rapsey, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the support unit includes a sensor that is capable of detecting an alignment mark provided on the medium.
However, Heo teaches that it is known when cutting flat workpieces to provide sensor (see Fig. 2, camera #160; see also Para. 0007, 0037) that is capable of detecting an alignment mark provided on the medium (see Para. 0007, 0037).
In the same field of invention, cutting devices for cutting web-type workpieces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a camera to detect an alignment mark on the workpieces, as taught by Heo, to the device of modified Rapsey. Doing so identifies the alignment state of the workpiece so that the cutter can be properly aligned with the workpieces to cut at the proper location (see Heo, Para. 0037).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
The closest prior art includes:
US 4,594,499 to Rapsey;
US 4,514,246 to Forrer;
US 2014/0020542 to Heo; and
US 2014/0352514 to Broeker.
None of the cited prior art teach the transmission member (interpreted under 35 USC 112F as #22 in Applicants Fig. 3) as including a planar portion located on a plane including a central axis of the shaft member. The structure that moves in Rapsey is offset from the plane of the central axis, as is the structures in Forrer, Heo and Broeker. None of the cited prior art, alone or in combination, teach this limitation or a reason to modified the known structure to arrive at this limitation. As such, the support unit includes a contact portion that comes into contact with the planar portion, and the processing unit drive mechanism brings the processing unit close to the medium by pressing the planar portion against the contact portion in the second operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724