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 .
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. Therefore, the “mounting plate provided in the forward-backward moving plate”, the “rotation motor provided in the mounting plate, and the “spindle provided in the mounting plate” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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:
“a main up down driving part” in claim 1;
“a forward-backward driving part” in claim 1;
“a cutting impact prevention part” in claim 2;
“a roundness interlocking part” in claim 4;
“a cutting side up down driving part” in claim 5; and
“a roundness interlocking control part” in claim 5.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2 of the claim, “from the spiral pipe” should be inserted after “a butt-jointed portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “placed” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 4 of the claim, “provide” should be changed to “provided”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 11-12 of the claim, “a weld-bead” should be changed to “[[a]] the weld-bead”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 12 of the claim, “a pipe” should be changed to “[[a]] the spiral pipe”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 13 of the claim, a “:” should be inserted after “includes”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 20 of the claim, “end” should be inserted after “terminal”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2 of the claim, “for” should be inserted before “preventing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2 of the claim, a “:” should be inserted after “includes”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2 of the claim, “for” should be inserted before “preventing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2 of the claim, a “:” should be inserted after “includes”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 7 of the claim, “out” should be changed to “outer”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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.
Lines 14-15 of claim 1 state, “a mounting plate provided in the forward-backward movement plate to be movable up and down.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by the mounting plate being provided “in” the forward-backward movement plate. Be advised that Figure 2 of Applicant’s drawings seemingly show the mounting plate (161) as being provided on the forward-backward movement plate (140) rather than being provided “in” the forward-backward movement plate (140). If the mounting plate (161) was actually provided “in” the forward-backward movement plate (140) as is claimed, then how is that the mounting plate (161) is shown in dashed lines in Figure 2 as being vertically separated from the forward-backward movement plate (140)? Wouldn’t the mounting plate (161) have to be provided on the forward-backward movement plate (140) in order for this vertical separation to be possible?
Line 16 of claim 1 states, “a rotation motor provided in the mounting plate.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by the rotation motor being provided “in” the forward-backward movement plate. Be advised that Figure 4 of Applicant’s drawings show the rotation motor (162) as being provided on the mounting plate (161) rather than being provided “in” the mounting plate (161) as is claimed. As such, how or in what way is the rotation motor (162) provided “in” the mounting plate (161) like Applicant claims?
Line 17 of claim 1 states, “a spindle provided in the mounting plate.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by the spindle being provided “in” the forward-backward movement plate. Be advised that Figure 4 of Applicant’s drawings show the spindle (163) as being provided on the mounting plate (161) rather than being provided “in” the mounting plate (161) as is claimed. As such, how or in what way is the spindle (163) provided “in” the mounting plate (161) like Applicant claims?
Lines 20-21 of claim 1 state, “a cutting tool mounted on a terminal of the spindle, and including an insert for cutting the weld-bead.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as is written, it is unclear if the cutting tool includes the insert, or if the cutting part includes the insert but the cutting tool does not.
Lines 2-3 of claim 4 states, “a roundness interlocking part moving the cutting tool up and down by interlocking with a change in out of roundness of the pipe.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by “interlocking” in the context of the “roundness interlocking part” and the “change in out of roundness of the pipe.”
Line 3 of claim 4 states, “a change in out of roundness of the pipe.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what actually is “a change in out of roundness of the pipe.” Is this “change in out of roundness” a physical attribute of the pipe?
Lines 4-5 of claim 5 state, “a touch sensor provided on the bearing, and sensing a height of an outer surface in contact with a the outer surface of the pipe.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what the first instance of “an outer surface” is referring. Is the first instance of “an outer surface” referring to an outer surface of the weld-bead, or to an outer surface of the touch sensor, or to an outer surface of something else entirely?
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasquetto (U.S. Patent No. 9,545,677 B2) in view of Adams (Germany Pub. No. DE 102008037205 B3), or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasquetto (U.S. Patent No. 9,545,677 B2) in view of Adams (Germany Pub. No. DE 102008037205 B3) and further in view of Blackburn (U.S. Patent No. 4,349,182).
Claim 1: Figure 1 of Pasquetto shows a cutting apparatus (1) comprising a main frame (2, 3) and a cutting part (7, 8). Please be advised that the cutting apparatus (1) of Pasquetto is considered to be inherently capable of performing the claimed intended use of “for a spiral pipe for cutting a weld-bead protruding from a butt-jointed portion,” simply by providing to the main frame (2, 3) a spiral pipe having a weld-bead protruding from a butt-jointed portion thereof and by placing a cutting tool that is mounted to the cutting part (7, 8) in operative contact therewith. Please further be advised that the claims are drawn to an apparatus with an intended use of “for a spiral pipe for cutting a weld-bead protruding from a butt-jointed portion,” and the cutting apparatus (1) is blind as to the workpiece which it cuts, i.e. the cutting apparatus (1) of Pasquetto will cut whatever workpiece with which it is brought into operative contact by virtue of the cutting part (7, 8) thereof. Thus, the cutting apparatus (1) constitutes an “inline weld-bead cutting apparatus (1).”
In addition to the main frame (2, 3) and cutting part (7, 8), the inline weld-bead cutting apparatus (1) comprises an up-down movement plate (6) that is provided in the main frame (2, 3) to be movable up and down [column 3, lines 45-48].
Next, be advised that line 6 of claim 1 sets forth therein, “a main up down driving part driving the up down movement plate up and down.” Noting this, “a main up down driving part” is being interpreted by Examiner 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. Please be advised that “a main up down driving part” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed on page 9, lines 22-24 of Applicant's specification filed on 12/12/2023, as well as equivalents thereto.
With respect to the prior art and Pasquetto, Figures 4 and 5 thereof show two electric linear motors (13) for driving up and down movement of the up-down movement plate (6) [column 4, lines 38-45]. As such, the two electric linear motors (13) constitute an equivalent of the “main up down driving part.” This is because the two electric linear motors (13) of Pasquetto carry out the function that is specified in line 6 of claim 1, said function being, “driving the up down movement plate up and down.” Also, the two electric linear motors (13) of Pasquetto aren’t excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification, and the two electric linear motors (13) produce substantially the same result as the corresponding “main up down driving part (131, 132, 133)” of Applicant. Based on the foregoing, the two electric linear motors (13) will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as “the main up down driving part (13).”
Next, Examiner directs attention to Figure 6 which shows therein a forward-backward movement plate (23a) that is provided within the up-down movement plate (6) so as to be movable forward and backward. Be advised that the forward-backward movement plate (23a) is arranged in an upper face of the supporting beam (7) of the cutting part (7, 8). As such, the forward-backward movement plate (23a) and the supporting beam (7) are jointly engaged in a pass-through and sliding manner with a through hole of the up-down movement plate (6) [column 6, lines 47-54].
Next, please be advised that lines 9-10 of claim 1 set forth therein, “a forward-backward driving part driving the forward-backward movement plate forward and backward.” Noting this, “a forward-backward driving part” is being interpreted by Examiner 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. Please be advised that “a forward-backward driving part” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed on page 11, lines 17-19 of Applicant's specification filed on 12/12/2023, as well as equivalents thereto.
With respect to the prior art and Pasquetto, Figure 6 thereof shows a driving part (23b) that is rigidly fastened to the up-down movement plate (6) [column 6, lines 58-60]. When the driving part (23b) is powered, the forward-backward movement plate (23a) jointly with the supporting beam (7) is driven forward and backward in a pass through and sliding manner. Thus, the driving part (23b) of Pasquetto constitutes an equivalent of the “forward-backward driving part.” This is because the driving part (23b) carries out the function that is specified in lines 9-10 of claim 1, said function being, “driving the forward-backward movement plate forward and backward.” Moreover, the driving part (23b) of Pasquetto isn’t excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification, and the driving part (23b) of Pasquetto produces substantially the same result as the corresponding “forward-backward driving part (151, 152, 153)” of Applicant. As such, the driving part (23b) will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as “the forward-backward driving part (23b).”
As can be seen in Figure 6, the forward-backward movement plate (23a) is arranged in the upper face of the supporting beam (7) of the cutting part (7, 8). Thus, in at least this way, the cutting part (7, 8) is provided in the forward-backward movement plate (23a). Next, it is reiterated that by providing a spiral pipe having a weld-bead protruding from an outer surface/ butt-jointed portion thereof and by placing a cutting tool that is mounted to the cutting part (7, 8) in operative contact with said weld-bead, said weld-bead will be cut.
With regards to the cutting part (7, 8) it includes the supporting beam (7) as well as a vertically oriented tool holder head (8). Be advised that the entirety of the cutting part (7, 8) is movable up and down by means of the up-down movement plate (6) and the corresponding main up down driving part (13). Noting this, the tool holder head (8) includes an annular mounting plate (which is located at the rear portion of the tool holder head (8), see at least Figure 3) that is mounted to the front of each of the supporting beam (7) and the forward-backward movement plate (23a). Thus, in this way, (like it is within Applicant’s cutting apparatus in which the mounting plate being provided on the forward-backward movement plate is considered to be the same as being provided “in” said forward-backward movement plate) the annular mounting plate of Pasquetto is provided “in” the forward-backward movement plate (23a). Again, because the entirety of the cutting part (7, 8) is movable up and down, the annular mounting plate of said cutting part (7, 8) is also movable up and down by means of the up-down movement plate (6) and the corresponding main up down driving part (13).
Pasquetto though, does not provide disclosure on the cutting part (7, 8) further including, “a rotation motor provided in the mounting plate, a spindle provided in the mounting plate to be rotatable through a bearing, and receiving a rotational force of the rotation motor and having an up-down direction shaft, and a cutting tool mounted on a terminal end of the spindle, and including an insert for cutting the weld-bead.”
Figures 2-3 of Adams though, shows a tool holder head having a mounting plate (3), a rotation motor (23) provided “in” the mounting plate (3), and a spindle (9) provided “in” the mounting plate (3) to be rotatable through a bearing (19) and receiving a rotational force of the rotation motor (23) and having an up-down direction shaft. (Please be advised that like in Applicant’s cutting apparatus in which the rotation motor and the spindle are each provided on the mounting plate but are still considered to be provided “in” the mounting plate, in Adams by virtue of the rotation motor (23) and spindle (9) being provided on the mounting plate (3) this setup constitutes each (23; 9) being “in” the mounting plate). The tool holder head further comprises a cutting tool (31) mounted on a terminal end of the spindle (9), and including an insert (32) for cutting a weld-bead. Please be advised that the insert (32) of Adams is considered to be inherently capable of performing the claimed intended use of “for cutting the weld-bead,” simply by placing the insert (32) in operative contact with a weld-bead on a provided spiral pipe. Also, as can be seen in Figure 2, the tool holder head of Adams has a cutting impact prevention part (21, 22, 38) which prevents, for example, a cutting impact of the cutting tool (31) applied to the spindle (9) from being directly transmitted to the rotation motor (23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the tool holder head (8) of Pasquetto with the tool holder head of Adams, so as to provide the inline weld-bead cutting apparatus (1) of Pasquetto with the advantage of a tool holder head in which due to the cutting impact prevention part (21, 22, 38) thereof, a cutting impact of the cutting tool (31) applied to the spindle (9) is prevented from being directly transmitted to the rotation motor (23).
Lastly, Figure 1 of Pasquetto shows therein a part-holding table (24) which is structured to hold a piece, i.e. the spiral pipe, to be machined. Per Pasquetto, it has the capability of turning, on command, the piece about one or more reference axes [column 7, lines 15-22]. Noting this, the part-holding table (24) is considered to constitute a “pipe transfer line” because said part-holding table (24) is able to rotate and thus transfer, for example, the received spiral pipe about the one or more reference axes. Noting this, the main frame (2, 3) of Pasquetto is placed such that its base plate (2) and its supporting column (3) have the part-holding table/pipe transfer line (24) passing through the base plate (2) thereof.
However, should it be held that the claimed “pipe transfer line” is required to move a pipe into and/or out of the claimed cutting apparatus, for example, then Examiner directs attention to Blackburn because the part-holding table (24) of Pasquetto does not provide for such movement of a given pipe into and/or out of the cutting apparatus (1) of Pasquetto.
Figure 5 of Blackburn though, shows a base plate (12) on which a pipe transfer line is mounted, the pipe transfer line comprising a plurality of workpiece supporting rollers (57) and a plurality of conveyor transport rollers (67, 68). Regarding the workpiece supporting rollers (57), they provide support for a pipe (P) that is to be machined (see Figure 4). As to the plurality of rollers (67, 68), they are embodied as conveyor transport rollers to move the pipe (P) into cutting position and to move the pipe (P) to a discharge position after machining has been performed [column 12, lines 27-46]. Please be advised that the workpiece supporting rollers (57) are supported by shafts (56) that are set in rotation by means of a driving motor (60). As a result, the pipe is able to be rotated about its own axis [column 7, line 63 – column 8, line 15]. Further, the plurality of conveyor transport rollers (67, 68) are supported by a shaft (66) that are driven by a drive chain (70), a sprocket (69), and a drive motor (72) [column 8, lines 30-37].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the part-holding table (24) of Pasquetto with the pipe transfer line of Blackburn, so as to provide the cutting apparatus (1) of Pasquetto with the advantage of a system in which not only is a pipe able to be rotated about its own axis by means of the plurality of workpiece supporting rollers (57) but also the pipe is able to be conveyed into machining position and out of the cutting apparatus (1) through actuation of the plurality of conveyor transport rollers (67, 68). In making this modification, the pipe transfer line of Blackburn assumes the position on the base plate (2) of Pasquetto that the part-holding table (24) of Pasquetto previously occupied. Noting this, with this modification, the main frame (2, 3) of Pasquetto is placed such that its base plate (2) and its supporting column (3) have the pipe transfer line of Blackburn passing through the base plate (2) of said main frame (2, 3).
Claim 2: Please be advised that lines 2-4 of claim 2 set forth therein, “a cutting impact prevention part preventing a cutting impact of the cutting tool applied to the spindle from being directly transmitted to the rotation motor.” Noting this, “a cutting impact prevention part” is being interpreted by Examiner 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. Be advised that “a cutting impact prevention part” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed on page 5, lines 23-25 of Applicant's specification filed on 12/12/2023, as well as equivalents thereto.
With respect to the prior art, as was explained above in the rejection of claim 1, the modified cutting apparatus (1) of Pasquetto comprises the tool holder head of Adams, noting again that the tool holder head of Adams replaced the tool holder head (8) of Pasquetto. Next, Examiner directs attention to Figure 2 of Adams. As can be seen therein, the cutting impact prevention part (21, 22, 38) of the tool holder head of Adams corresponds in structure to Applicant’s disclosed “cutting impact prevention part.” This will now be explained.
As can be seen in Figure 2 of Adams, a first pulley (38) is provided on a shaft of the rotation motor (23), a second pulley (21) is provided a tip of the spindle (9), and a belt (22) is provided that connects the first (38) and second pulleys (21). With this structure of the rotation motor (23) being offset from the spindle (9), the cutting impact prevention part (of Adams) in the modified cutting apparatus (1) of Pasquetto prevents a cutting impact of the cutting tool (31) applied to the spindle (9) from being directly transmitted to the rotation motor (23).
Claim 3: As was stated above within the rejection of claim 2, the cutting impact prevention part (21, 22, 38) includes: a first pulley (38) is provided on a shaft of the rotation motor (23); a second pulley (21) is provided a tip of the spindle (9); and a belt (22) connecting the first (38) and second pulleys (21).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasquetto (U.S. Patent No. 9,545,677 B2) in view of Adams (Germany Pub. No. DE 102008037205 B3) and further in view of Baek (Korea Pub. No. KR 101536641 B1), or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasquetto (U.S. Patent No. 9,545,677 B2) in view of Adams (Germany Pub. No. DE 102008037205 B3) in view of Blackburn (U.S. Patent No. 4,349,182) and further in view of Baek (Korea Pub. No. KR 101536641 B1).
Please be advised that Baek was cited by Applicant on the IDS filed on 12/12/2023.
Please also be advised that a Machine Translation of Baek is relied upon below. This Machine Translation has been furnished by Examiner with this office action.
Claim 4: Pasquetto does not provide disclosure on the inline weld-bead cutting apparatus (1) further comprising “a roundness interlocking part moving the cutting tool up and down by interlocking with a change in out of roundness of the pipe.” Please be advised though that the cutting apparatus (1) is numerically controlled [column 2, lines 48-51].
Be advised that lines 2-3 of claim 4 set forth therein, “a roundness interlocking part moving the cutting tool up and down by interlocking with a change in out of roundness of the pipe.” Noting this, “a roundness interlocking part” is being interpreted by Examiner 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. Be advised that “a roundness interlocking part” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed on page 13, lines 20-22 of Applicant's specification filed on 12/12/2023, as well as equivalents thereto.
With respect to the prior art and Baek though, Figure 1 of Baek shows therein an inline weld-bead cutting apparatus comprising a main frame (22) on which a bead detection sensor (65) is mounted. Per Baek, the bead detection sensor (65) is installed in the cutting frame (22) adjacent to a cutter (45) and generates a signal about the positional variation of a weld bead (15) on a steel pipe (10). Regarding the weld bead (15), it itself is a change in out of roundness of the pipe (10) as said weld bead (15) interrupts the round geometry of said pipe (10). Noting this, the bead detection sensor (65), which is, for example, a proximity sensor or laser sensor [Machine Translation, page 5, lines 5-8], interlocks (as is best understood) with the change in out of roundness of the pipe (10) by focusing on the weld bead (15). Moreover, according to Baek, a control means (60) controls, for example, the up-down movement and the lateral movement of the cutter (45) at least in part based on received signals from the bead detection sensor (65) [Machine Translation, page 4, line 38 – page, line 4]. Thus, the bead detection sensor (65) via its signals, provides for moving the cutter (45) up and down after having interlocked with the change in out of roundness of the pipe (10).
Thus, the bead detection sensor (65) of Baek constitutes an equivalent of the “roundness interlocking part.” This is because the bead detection sensor (65) carries out the function that is specified in lines 2-3 of claim 4, said function being, “moving the cutting tool up and down by interlocking with a change in out of roundness of the pipe.” Also, the bead detection sensor (65) of Baek isn’t excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification, and the bead detection sensor (65) produces substantially the same result as the corresponding “roundness interlocking part (S11, S12, S13)” of Applicant. Thus, the bead detection sensor (65) will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as “the roundness interlocking part (65).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the inline weld-bead cutting apparatus (1) of Pasquetto with the roundness interlocking part (65) of Baek, so as to provide the cutting apparatus (1) of Pasquetto with the advantage of being able to adjust the cutting tool (31) through up and down movement thereof in response to signals generated from the roundness interlocking part (65) due to a change in out of roundness of the pipe resulting from the geometry of the weld-bead of said pipe.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten (without broadening) 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 Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Sunil K Singh 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.
/MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722 /SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722