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 .
Abstract Objections
The abstract is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The invention relates to”, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc.
The examiner suggests amending the abstract as follows, for example:
A crimping press 20 and a method for producing a crimped connection by way of the crimping press. The crimping press 20 comprising a first pressing jaw 60 and within which the rotatable shaft 42 is mounted rotatably. The first bearing system 41 comprises at least one ball bearing and at least one needle bearing.
Claim Objections
Claim 13, 15, 17, 19 and 21-24 are objected to because of the following informalities.
In re claim 13: the claim would be in better form if amended as follows:
A crimping press (20, 20a, 20b) for producing a crimped connection, comprising:
a first pressing jaw (60, 60a, 60b) and
wherein the crimping drive device (26, 26a, 26b) comprises a drive element (50, 50a, 50b), , , as well as at least one first bearing system (41, 41a, 51a, 51b) [[on]] within which the rotatable shaft (42, 42a, 42b, 52, 52a, 52b) is rotatably mounted, and
wherein the drive shaft (40, 40a, 40b) is an eccentric shaft (40, 40a) or a camshaft (40b), and the drive shaft (40, 40a, 40b) and the rotatable shaft (42, 42a, 42b, 52, 52a, 52b) are both rotatable in relation to each other, and the first bearing system (41, 41a, 51a, 51b) comprises at least one ball bearing and at least one needle bearing.
In re claim 15: to avoid potential clarity issues, replace “common” with –same–
In re claim 17: the claim would be in better form if there were a comma after “(50, 50a, 50b)”.
In re claim 19: “and also comprises” in line 3 should be –comprising–
In re claim 21: “wherein a passive force element (62b) is present that generates a force in a direction of the drive shaft” should be –further comprising a passive force element (62) that generates a force toward the drive shaft– to be consistent with fig. 4-5.
In re claim 22: “its” should be –an– to provide proper antecedent basis for “operating route”.
In re claim 23: the claim would be in better form if amended as follows:
A method for producing a crimped connection using the crimping press (20, 20a, 20b) according to claim 13, comprising:
moving the first pressing jaw (60, 60a, 60b) toward another pressing jaw (70, 70a) to produce a crimped connection.
In re claim 24: “5Ia, 5Ib” should be –51a, 51b–
Appropriate correction for the above list of issues 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 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) 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):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” 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 entirely performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” 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 the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for entirely performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” 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). The rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites a function without reciting sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function, and when there is no evidence that the claim limitation is a term of art known to be used to represent sufficiently definite structure.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) 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) because the claim limitation(s) use(s) a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation is:
“a guide device (61, 61 a) is provided for guiding the first pressing jaw (60, 60a, 60b) along its operating route” (clm. 22); the term “device” is a nonce term, is coupled to the functional language “for guiding …”, and is not preceded by a structural modifier; the corresponding structure is sliding rail(s) system 61, 61a, 71a (fig. 1, 2 and ¶ 25).
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as entirely performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to entirely perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to entirely perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. The claim recites “Use of a bearing system” without reciting any steps of using it and, thus, cannot be considered a process claim. It also cannot be considered a machine claim since the preamble clearly states the intent to claim the use of a bearing system. Further, the claim is obviously not directed to manufactures or compositions of matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In re claim 24: it is unclear what is required to infringe the claim since it recites “Use of a bearing system” with no steps of using it. Further, it is unclear if the crimping press and the crimping drive device are required features of the claim or if they are only there to describe the intended environment of the bearing system. For purposes of applying prior art, the claim is being interpreted as a crimping press comprising a drive device including a bearing system consisting of at least one ball bearing and at least one needle bearing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that forms the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.0
Claims 13-15, 17-18 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stepan (WO 80/01050 A1).
In re claims 13 and 23-24: Stepan discloses a crimping press comprising:
a first pressing jaw (die 122, fig. 2) and a crimping drive device (see fig. 1-2),
wherein the crimping drive device comprises a drive element 73, a drive shaft 20, 22 for moving the drive element, at least one rotatable shaft 83 for moving the first pressing jaw 122, and at least one first bearing system 80, 87, 88 on which the rotatable shaft is rotatably mounted (fig. 2, 1 and § [0053]), and
wherein the drive shaft 20, 22 and the rotatable shaft 83 are both rotatable in relation to each other (the drive shaft rotates about pin 10 relative to shaft 83, and shaft 83 rotates about its longitudinal axis relative to the drive shaft), and the first bearing system comprises at least one ball bearing 87, 88 and at least one needle bearing 80 (fig. 1-2).
Note that the features of claim 24 are also anticipated by the above analysis.
And Stepan further discloses, the first pressing jaw 122 is moved to another pressing jaw 131 to produce a crimped connection (§ [0045]), as required in claim 23.
In re claim 14, which depends on claim 13: Stepan discloses the at least one ball bearing 87, 88 and at least one needle bearing 80 of the first bearing system are arranged indirectly adjacent to each other (fig. 2).
In re claim 15, which depends on claim 13: Stepan discloses the at least one ball bearing 87, 88 and the at least one needle bearing 80 of the first bearing system are arranged in a common bearing housing (box support 3 having side plates 4, 5; fig. 1, 3 and § [0024]).
In re claim 17, which depends on claim 13: Stepan discloses the first bearing system 80, 87, 88 is partially arranged within the drive element 73 (fig. 2).
In re claim 18, which depends on claim 13: Stepan discloses the drive element 73 is a connecting rod (note that the connecting rod 50, 50a of the applicant’s drawings is shown to be more block shaped than a conventional connecting rod and, thus, Stepan’s block shaped drive element reads on the claimed connecting rod; not to mention it provides the same function as a conventional connecting rod).
In re claim 21, which depends on claim 13: Stepan discloses a passive force element 76 that generates a force in a direction of the drive shaft 20, 22 in an area of the drive element 73.
In re claim 22, which depends on claim 13: Stepan discloses a guide device 65 is provided for guiding the pressing jaw 122 along an operating route (fig. 2, 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stepan.
In re claim 16, which depends on claim 13: Stepan does not explicitly disclose the at least one needle bearing 80 (fig. 2) comprises a plurality of needles having a length/diameter ratio of 2.5 to 10.
However, assuming that the ratio is outside the claimed range, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stepan such that the ratio is within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection IV.A).
Claims 13, 15, 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aerts et al. (EP 2 843 779 A1), in view of Smith et al. (US 7,364,364 B2).
In re claim 13: Aerts discloses a crimping press comprising:
a first pressing jaw 9 and a crimping drive device (fig. 4),
wherein the crimping drive device comprises a drive element 12 and a drive shaft 1, 3 (fig. 7) for moving the drive element and at least one rotatable shaft 4, 5 for moving the first pressing jaw as well as at least one first bearing system 15 on which the rotatable shaft is rotatably mounted (fig. 5, 4), and
wherein the drive shaft 1, 3 and the rotatable shaft 4, 5 are both rotatable in relation to each other, and the first bearing system 15 comprises a needle bearing (§§ [0012] – [0013]).
Aerts is silent regarding the bearing system including at least one ball bearing.
Smith is, at least, pertinent to the problem the applicant is faced with and teaches a bearing system 20 comprising a ball bearing assembly 30 and a needle bearing assembly 40 within which a rotatable shaft 10 is rotatably mounted (fig. 1 and abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the needle bearing of Aerts with the bearing system of Smith, because selecting from known types of bearing systems allowing for sufficient functionality would be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
In re claim 15, which depends on claim 13: modified Aerts teaches the at least one ball bearing 30 and the at least one needle bearing 40 of the first bearing system 20 arranged in a same bearing housing 22 (fig. 1 of Smith).
In re claim 18, which depends on claim 13: Aerts discloses the drive element 12 is a connecting rod (fig. 4, 6-7).
In re claim 20, which depends on claim 18: Aerts discloses the drive shaft 1, 3 is a camshaft (fig. 4, 7 and § [0021]).
In re claim 21, which depends on claim 13: Aerts discloses a passive force element 7 is present that generates a force in a direction of the drive shaft in an area of the first pressing jaw and in an area of the drive element
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 5,544,576 A), in view of Kato (US 4,638,731 A), hereafter ‘Kato-731’, as evidenced by Aerts.
In re claim 13: Kato discloses a press capable of crimping, comprising:
a first pressing jaw 7 and a crimping drive device (fig. 5),
wherein the crimping drive device comprises a drive element 16, a drive shaft (shaft of the motor 20) for moving the drive element 16, at least one rotatable shaft 15 for moving the first pressing jaw 7, and at least one first bearing system 17, 18 within which the rotatable shaft is rotatably mounted (fig. 5), and
wherein the drive shaft and the rotatable shaft are both rotatable in relation to each other (fig. 5), and the first bearing system comprises at least one ball bearing (fig. 5).
Kato is silent regarding the at least one first bearing system comprising at least one needle bearing. However, an ordinary artisan understands that needle bearings have a higher load resistance relative to ball bearings and that the use of needle bearings would increase the longevity of the drive system, as evidenced by Aerts (¶ 12).
And Kato-731 teaches a press comprising a drive device including a rotatable shaft 4 mounted within a needle bearing 5 (fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kato such that one of the bearings 17, 17 and one of the bearings 18, 18 are needle bearings, as taught by Sankyo, thereby increasing the longevity of the drive device of Kato, as taught by Aerts.
Because modified Kato includes all of the structure required in claim 13 and is capable of performing a crimping operation, modified Kato reads on the crimping press of claim 13.
Note that the features of claim 24 are also anticipated by the above analysis.
And modified Kato further teaches, the first pressing jaw is moved to another pressing jaw to produce a crimped connection, as required in claim 23.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Recknagel (US 3,416,848 A) teaches a bearing system comprising a ball bearing and a needle bearing arranged in a same bearing housing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The cited prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of claim 19 when combined with those of the base claim and intervening claim 18. Also, it would not have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to modify any of the prior art references currently of record in the manner required by the combination of claims 13, 18 and 19, at least not without the benefit of the applicant’s disclosure. Indeed, to suggest such a modification would require impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared O. Brown whose telephone number is 303-297-4445. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 5:00 (Mountain Time).
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 complete and submit the Automated Interview Request (AIR) form located at the following website: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher (“Chris”) L. Templeton can be reached at 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 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. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center; and for information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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 THE USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725