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 .
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:
“first adjustment mechanism” in claim 1-2, 5, 8, 12-13, and 16 and
“second adjustment mechanism” in claim 1-2, 5, 8, 12-13, and 16.
Based on the specification, first adjustment mechanism and second adjustment mechanism are interpreted as linear slides coupled to and movable along at least a portion of a rail and equivalents thereof.
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 § 102
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-9, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Sano (US 7,657,996).
Regarding claim 1, Sano teaches a tube clamp arrangement for a tube welding device for joining two tubes, the tube clamp arrangement comprising:
a first mounting plate (Figure 24, 26A-C, and 30A-30C, item 164 and Col 19, ln 59- Col 20, ln 5) configured to join together a first tube-holding assembly (Figure 14) and a first adjustment mechanism (Figure 1, 2, 14 and 24), the first adjustment mechanism configured to move in a first direction in a first plane (Figure 4 and 14 and Col 9, ln 58- col 10, ln 2); and
a second mounting plate (Figure 24, 26A-C, and 30A-30C, item 174 and Col 20, ln 6- Col 20, ln 30) configured to join together a second tube-holding assembly and a second adjustment mechanism (Figure 1, 2, 14 and 24), the second adjustment mechanism configured to move in a second direction in the first plane (Figure 8, 12a-b, Figure 17, movement A and B; Col 9, ln 32-58; Col 24, ln 18-35).
The claim as recited requires a first and second mounting plate capable of joining a tube-holding mechanism and adjustment mechanism. The claim as recited does not positively claim a first and second tube-holding assembly and first and second adjustment mechanism.
Accordingly, limitations directed to first and second tube-holding assembly and first and second adjustment mechanism are functional limitations related to the capabilities of the first and second mounting plates to join a tube-holding assembly and adjustment mechanism.
Regarding claim 2-3, Sano teaches the arrangement as applied to claim 1, wherein the first adjustment mechanism is capable of moving the first mounting plate and the first tube-holding assembly joined therein, wherein the first adjustment mechanism is capable of including a linear slide coupled to and movable along at least a portion of a rail (Col 9, ln 58- Col 10, ln 2 and Col 12, ln 20-49).
Regarding claim 8-9 and 11, Sano teaches the arrangement as applied to claim 2, wherein the second adjustment mechanism is configured to move the second mounting plate and the second tube-holding assembly joined thereto in a second direction that is different from the first direction (Figure 8, 12a-b, Figure 17, movement A and B; Col 9, ln 32-58; Col 24, ln 18-35);
wherein the second adjustment mechanism includes a linear slide coupled to and moveable along at least a portion of a rail (Figure 8 and Col 16, ln 48- 63),
wherein the second direction is substantially perpendicular to the first direction (Figure 8 and 17).
Regarding claim 12, Sano teaches the arrangement as applied to claim 8, wherein the tube clamp arrangement includes a frame, and the first adjustment mechanism and second adjustment mechanism are capable of being fixed to the frame (Figure 3-4 and 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (US 7,657,996), as applied to claim 3 and 9, in further view of Spencer (US 4,369,779).
Regarding claim 4, Sano teaches the arrangement as applied to claim 3, wherein the tube-holding assemblies are engaged with a rail.
Sano does not explicitly teach the tube clamp arrangement includes a track configured to receive the rail, the track extending in the first direction.
Spencer taches an apparatus for forming a sterile connection comprising tube-holding assemblies comprising blocks that are slidably mounted and transporting within guides disposed on the frame (Col 4, ln 38-56 and Col 5, ln 6-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the apparatus of Sano with tracks of Spencer within the frame of the apparatus for engaging with the rail of Sano for the benefit of guiding the movement of the tube-holding assemblies.
Regarding claim 10, Sano teaches the arrangement as applied to claim 9, wherein the tube-holding assemblies are engaged with a rail.
Sano does not explicitly teach the tube clamp arrangement includes a track configured to receive the rail, the track extending in the first direction.
Spencer taches an apparatus for forming a sterile connection comprising tube-holding assemblies comprising blocks that are slidably mounted and transporting within guides disposed on the frame (Col 4, ln 38-56 and Col 5, ln 6-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the apparatus of Sano with tracks of Spencer within the frame of the apparatus for engaging with the rail of Sano for the benefit of guiding the movement of the tube-holding assemblies.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 5-7 and 13-15 are 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.
Claims 16-20 are allowable.
Sano (PG-PUB 2006/0144525) teaches an apparatus comprising clamps and supporting tables supporting the clamps for rotation and translation (Figures 7-11 and [0069]-[0071]).
Kullmann (PG-PUB 2025/0073806) teaches a welding machine, comprising clamping an aligning elements on a slide, wherein the clamping elements are movable for engaging and disengaging the elements (Figures 2-4 and [0128], [0133]). Kullman teaches guide bearings 36 are fastened to the fixation area 24, while the guide rail 35 is fastened to a vertically oriented supporting plate 37 fastened to the bridge part 22. Kullman teaches if the attachment assembly group 23 is fastened to the foundation 2 via the fastening area 24, the movement guided by the transverse guide device 25 in the transverse direction 19 can be used to bring about the adjustment 20 of the bridge part 22 with the alignment elements 4, 10 as a unit (Figure 6 and [0142]).
Kullmann teaches it is necessary to provide adjustments 20 a, 20 b for the alignments of the aligning elements 4, 10, and the adjustments 20 must be provided in particular to ensure that aligning surfaces 21 a, 21 b (here vertical surfaces) of the alignment elements 4, 10 are arranged in one plane and in the correct position in the transverse direction 19, which depends on the type of the at least one band forming the band ends 3, 11 [0130]. Kullmann teaches the adjusted alignment of the alignment elements 4, 10 is fixed by means of screw connections to the foundation 2 or the slide 8 [0131].
The prior art does not teach the combination of limitations of claims 5 and 13, respectively, including the first adjustment mechanism includes a first adjustment screw that extends through the first mounting plate and contacts a first end of a first level arm, wherein movement of the first adjustment screw adjusts a pressure as applied to the first level arm and the second adjustment mechanism includes a second adjustment screw that extends through the second mounting plate and contacts a first end of the second level arm, wherein movement of the second adjustment screw adjusts a pressure as applied to the second level arm.
The prior art does not teach the combination of limitations of claim 16, in particularly, a first level arm movably coupled to the first mounting plate, a first adjustment screw that extends through the first mounting plate and contacting a first end of the first level arm, wherein movement of the first adjustment screw adjusts a pressure as applied to the first level arm and a position of the first mounting plate; and
a second level arm movable coupled to the second mounting plate, and
a second adjustment screw that extends through the second mounting plate and contacting a first end of the second level arm, wherein movement of the second adjustment screw adjusts a pressure as applied to the second level arm and a position of the second mounting plate.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
HANA C. PAGE
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights