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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are directed to new claim limitations which have not yet been considered. These new limitations are rejected over Little in view of Romano, below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 4: “couple[[ed]]ing” is an improper amendment. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 states “wherein said compressed air pipes and said cables extend externally from the portable box-like body to the cutting dies”. Fig. 1 shows the cables 19 within the box-like body 13 and not extending external to the body 13. The disclosure does not indicate that the cables extend outside of the body, or in any alternative position, beyond what is shown in Fig. 1. For purposes of examination, claim 4 will be treated as only the air pipes 17 extend outside of the body 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Little et al. (US7331244) in view of Romano (US20040187597).
Claim 1: Little teaches a test/inspection apparatus (assembly 20) for dies for electrical use, in particular for dies for cutting magnetic metal plates adapted to be packed or superimposed on top of one another to define layered packs for use in electric machines (this does not result in any structural differences over the prior art, Little is capable of performing the intended use), wherein said test/inspection apparatus is adapted for removably coupling to a cutting die (the apparatus 20 is removably coupled to the die 42 of a die set 40) positioned on a bench and operable independently from a cutting press for testing/inspecting off the cutting press special functions or mechanical elements of a cutting die which enable/disable one or more cutting elements of said die, wherein said test/inspection apparatus comprises a device (apparatus 20), which further comprises a portable box-like body (col. 3, lines 35-44), the portable box-like body (apparatus 20) comprising: one or more solenoid valves (solenoid valves 24a-c, col. 4, lines 31-38) arranged for enabling/disabling the actuation of one or more actuators (actuation assembly 20 and connections 22a-c connect to mechanical devices 44a-44c) external to the cutting press and coupled directly to a special functions or mechanical elements of a cutting die (the connections 22a-c are connected to the mechanical devices 44a-c of the die 42), one or more timing devices
Little fails to teach a power supply integrated within the portable box-like body.
However, Romano teaches a portable test device 100 (Fig. 1) including a power interface including a fixed power source 109a, 109b which are DC sources (batteries). Therefore, batteries are a portable power source.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a portable power source, as taught by Romano, with the device of Little for the obvious benefit of having a portable power source to simplify the device by not requiring connection to external power.
Claim 4, as best understood: Little in view of Romano teaches the device of claim 1. Little teaches wherein the at least one solenoid valve (valves 24a-c) is connected to at least one actuator (mechanical devices 44a-c) by means of compressed air pipes (pneumatic connections 22a-c, Fig. 1-2) and is connected to the at least one timer by means of cables (see Fig. 2 which shows connections from the control system 30; the control system 30 selectively controls the valves 24a-c in a particular, predetermined sequence/timing. Col. 9, lines 57-64), wherein said compressed air pipes extend externally from the portable box-like body to the cutting dies (Fig. 2 shows the connections 22a-c extending from the portable body 20).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Little in view of Romano further in view of Mills (US4587830).
Claim 2: Little in view of Romano teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the actuators comprise a double-acting piston.
However, Mills teaches a typical punch press which uses a double-acting actuator 20 to vertically reciprocate a piston rod 22.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a double-acting piston, as taught by Mills, with the device of Little in view of Romano in order to utilize convenient, slidable mounting (Mills, col. 1, lines 5-9).
Claim 3: Little in view of Romano further in view of Mills teaches the device of claim 2. Mills teaches wherein the pistons are of the pneumatic type (col. 1, lines 15-19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a double-acting piston, as taught by Mills, with the device of Little in view of Romano in order to utilize convenient, slidable mounting (Mills, col. 1, lines 5-9).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Little in view of Romano further in view of Lemelson (US4285903).
Claim 5: Little in view of Romano teaches the device of claim 4. Little teaches timing the valves 24a-c in order to implement a predetermined sequences of valve operations to simulate a predetermined sequence of mechanical operations without actually operating the stamping press (col. 4, lines 56-61). Little in view of Romano fails to teach wherein the solenoid valve opens and closes the compressed air circuit as a function of the number and sequence of pulses selected by the timer for an activation/deactivation of the actuator to simulate operational cycles of the cutting die special function synchronized with the number of pulses selected by the timer itself.
However, Lemelson teaches predetermined time durations for opening and closing a solenoid (col. 9, lines 49-59). The pulses and pulse sequence are a manner of keeping track of time using a clock (timer) in order to meet a predetermined time for organized opening and closing of solenoid valves.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a predetermined time (count) for activation or deactivation of a solenoid in order to use the predetermined time, as taught by Lemelson, with the device of Little in view of Romano in order to permit flow through the solenoid only at predetermined times (Lemelson, col. 9, lines 29-35).
Claim 6: Little in view of Romano teaches the apparatus according to claim 4, but fails to teach wherein the at least one timer activates/deactivates the at least one solenoid valve by means of an electrical pulse of on/off type to the solenoid valve, said current pulse being adjustable in time by adjusting the number of pulses per minute.
However, Lemelson teaches predetermined time durations for opening and closing a solenoid (col. 9, lines 49-59). The pulses and pulse sequence are a manner of keeping track of time using a clock (timer) in order to meet a predetermined time for organized opening and closing of solenoid valves. At said predetermined times, the controller 71 generates a control pulse signals applied to open and close valves(col. 9, lines 55-58).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a predetermined time (count) for activation or deactivation of a solenoid in order to use the predetermined time, as taught by Lemelson, with the device of Little in view of Romano in order to permit flow through the solenoid only at predetermined times (Lemelson, col. 9, lines 29-35).
Claim 7: Little in view of Romano teaches the apparatus according to claim 4. Little teaches wherein the number of solenoid valves corresponds to the number of actuators which is corresponding to the number of special functions or mechanical elements of a cutting die to be tested (three valves 24a-c, three mechanical devices 44a-c). Little in view of Romano fails to teach wherein the number of timers is functional to the number of solenoid valves.
However, Lemelson teaches that a single timer (master controller 71) can independently control multiple solenoid valves 90, 91, 93, Fig. 5 and is therefore functional to the number of valves. Lemelson fails to teach that the number of timers corresponds to the number of actuators and special functions. However, the use of multiple timers to control respective multiple valves and actuators is a duplication of parts which produces no new or unexpected results since Lemelson illustrates only one timer is needed.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a number of timers functional to the number of actuators and special functions in order in order to provide a more fail-safe device in the event of failure of an individual timer.
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 JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 4/23/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights