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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statement (IDS) was not submitted.
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) 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: Reeling unit, cutting unit, and power unit in claim 1.Corresponding structure was found respectively in §[0018] for reeling unit which is interpreted as a tensioning unit, §[0019] for cutting unit, and §[0017] for power unit which is a battery.
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(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.
Claims 1-7 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.
In re claim 1 : “the connecting shaft and the axle being rotated simultaneously”, it is unclear what structure is being claimed when a method step is claimed within a device claim.
In re claim 2-7 : rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (KR 102315941 B1) in view of Sikora et al. (US 12187470 B2), hereafter Jang_1 and Sikora respectively.
In re Claim 1: Jang_1 discloses a strapping tool (§[0001], see English translation attached with this office action found in global dossier), comprising a body (fig.1, 100), the body (100) including a reeling unit (200), a cutting unit (§[0039], cutting unit is not shown in figures) and a press unit (§[0040] - §[0042], 350, referred as opening/closing unit), the press unit (350) including a press plate (press plate is comprised of 329, 323, and “MP”, see annotated picture below ), the press plate being fixed to a bottom of the body (100) and extending outward (figs.1 and 5 show that the press plate is outward); characterized by: the body (100) including a grip portion (fig.1, 500, referred as lever unit); the press unit (350) including a servo (351) and an axle (“X”, see annotated picture below), the servo (351) being electrically connected (§[0031], this section describes about a control unit and power supply), the servo (351) having an output shaft (“OS”, see annotated picture below), the output shaft (“OS”) being connected to a connecting shaft (“CS”, see annotated picture below), the connecting shaft (“CS”) being connected to one side of the axle (“X”), the output shaft (“OS”, see annotated picture below), the connecting shaft (“CS”) and the axle (“X”) being rotated simultaneously (§[0042]), another side (“Y”, see the annotated picture below) of the axle (“X”) being integrally formed with an eccentric shaft (352), the eccentric shaft (352) extending outward, the eccentric shaft (352) being fitted with a shaft seat (“SS”, see annotated picture below”), a press block (323, referred as inner gripper part) being pivotally connected to the shaft seat (“SS”).
Annotated picture (Jang_1, zoomed from fig.5):
PNG
media_image1.png
659
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jang_1 is silent about a button on the grip, a mounting portion, a mounting portion being equipped with a power unit, and the servo being electrically connected to the button.
However, Sikora teaches about a button (fig.1, 90) on the grip portion (fig.1, 88). Also, Sikora teaches a mounting portion (“MP2”, see annotated picture below), the mounting portion (“MP2”, see annotated picture below) being equipped with a power unit (80).
Annotated picture (Sikora, fig.1):
PNG
media_image2.png
631
795
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Both Jang_1 and Sikora are silent about the button being electrically connected to the servo.
However, Sikora teaches (col. 13, lines 63-64) that control button (fig.1, 90) is depressed to connect the electric motor (78) with battery (80) and one with ordinary skill in the art would know that a button (fig.1, 90) needs to be electrically connected to start an electrical servo motor (fig.1, 78).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the strapping tool (Jang_1, §[0001]) of Jang_1 and include the button from Sikora (Sikora, fig.1, 90) on the grip portion (Jang_1, fig.1, 500) and make electrical connection to the servo (Jang_1, fig.5, 351) as taught by Sikora (col. 13, lines 63-64) for the purpose of having a single control button (90) to control operation of pressing and cutting in conjunction (column 16, lines 30 to 39).
In re Claim 2: which depends on claim 1: Jang_1 in view of Sikora discloses the strapping tool as claimed in claim 1. Jang_1 further discloses when the servo (351) rotates the output shaft (“OS”, see annotated picture above), the press block (323) is lifted (§[0041], referred as opening) to move away from the press plate (press plate is comprised of 329, 323, and “MP”, see annotated picture above); when the servo rotates ([§0031], rotation time and speed is controlled using a control unit) the output shaft (“OS”, see annotated picture above) lowers the press block (323) for the press block (323) to press against a plastic band (§[0041], referred as closing). Note that a packing strap is not positively claimed.
Sikora teaches using the button (fig.1, 90) to start a servo (78, col 13 (lines 58 to 67)). After modification, the button would start the servo to rotate.
In re Claim 3: which depends on claim 1: Jang_1 in view of Sikora discloses the strapping tool as claimed in claim 1. Jang_1 further discloses the servo (351) is an actuator (Note that the second motor 351 is used to actuate the linking members to close/open the plastic band from gripper unit (350), a servo actuator (351) can be controlled using a control unit (§[0031]) for rotation speed and duration of rotation which can control the rotation angle).
In re Claim 4: which depends on claim 1: Jang_1 in view of Sikora discloses the strapping tool as claimed in claim 1. Jang_1 further discloses an axle seat (“AXS”, see annotated picture above) is provided on the press plate (press plate is comprised of 329, 323, and “MP”, see annotated picture above), the axle seat (“AXS”, see annotated picture above) has an axle hole (“AXH”, see annotated picture above), and the axle (“X”) is inserted in the axle hole (“AXH”).
Claim(s) 5,7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (KR 102315941 B1) in view of Sikora et al. (US 12187470 B2) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Jang et al. (KR 102226589 B1) hereafter Jang_2.
In re Claim 5: which depends on claim 1: Jang_1 in view of Sikora discloses the strapping tool as disclosed in claim 1. Jang_1 further discloses the servo (351) further includes a linking member (not shown in picture, described as “in conjunction”), the linking member (described as “in conjunction”) is connected to the servo (351) and the servo drives the linking member (§[0039],described as descending operation of the open/close of 350).
Both Jang_1 and Sikora are silent about the cutting unit with a blade tube and a blade shaft.
However, Jang_2 teaches about a cutting unit (800) includes a blade tube (820) and a blade shaft (810), the blade shaft (810) is inserted in the blade tube (820) for rotating the blade shaft (810) a predetermined angle to cut the first band disposed inside the blade tube (820)([0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the strapping tool of Jang_1 in view of Sikora and include a blade tube (Jang_2, 800) and a blade shaft (Jang_2, 810) from Jang_2 for the purpose of making a cutting unit that is driven by the servo together with press unit.
In re Claim 7: which depends on claim 5: Jang_1 in view of Sikora and Jang_2 discloses the strapping tool as claimed in claim 5. Jang_1 discloses the servo (351) rotates to cut a packing strap (§[0039], referred as plastic band) and lifts the press block (§[0039],referred as opening of the unit 350) in conjunction.
Sikora further teaches pressing the button (fig.1, 90, ) to cut the strap (column 16, lines 30 to 39). After modification, pressing the button would activate the servo to cut and release the packing strap, and lift the press block.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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: claim 6 includes additional claim limitations which further limit claim 5 such that the prior art of record does not appear to disclose, teach nor suggest the product of claim 6. Examiner considered applying teaching of Jang_2 to the disclosure of Jang_1 to arrive at the invention claimed in claim 6. But Examiner concluded undue hindsight would be necessary to restructure Jang_1 according to the teaching of Jang_2 to arrive at the invention claimed in claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD A RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Christopher 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. 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.
/M.A.R./
Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights