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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 10-20) in the reply filed on 7-10-2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7-10-2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “A device for flattening, conveying and cutting metal wires into granules, comprising” should be “A device for flattening, conveying and cutting metal wires into granules, the device comprising.” Appropriate correction 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 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 flattening and feeding mechanism in claim 1 (“mechanism” is a generic place holder for “means”; “flattening and feeding” are functional language modifying the generic place holder; and the generic place holder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
A conveying and cutting mechanism in claim 1 (“mechanism” is a generic place holder for “means”; “conveying and cutting” are functional language modifying the generic place holder; and the generic place holder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
a pressing wheel assembly in claim 1 (“assembly” is a generic place holder for “means”; “pressing” is functional language modifying the generic place holder; and the generic place holder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – in other words, a wheel is not enough to perform the function);
a swinging member in claim 1(“member” is a generic place holder for “means”; “swinging” is functional language modifying the generic place holder; and the generic place holder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
a fetching device in claim 10 (“device” is a generic place holder for “means”; “fetching” is functional language modifying the generic place holder; and the generic place holder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
a conveyor device in claim 10 (“device” is a generic place holder for “means”; “conveyor” is functional language modifying the generic place holder; and the generic place holder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
a positioning and cutting device in Claim 10 (“device” is a generic place holder for “means”; “positioning and cutting” are functional language modifying the generic place holder; and the generic place holder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
a driving device in Claim 13 (“device” is a generic place holder for “means”; “driving” is functional language modifying the generic place holder; and the generic place holder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
a driven member in Claim 15 (“member” is a generic place holder for “means”; “driven” is functional language modifying the generic place holder; and the generic place holder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
a lower clamping member in Claim 15 (“member” is a generic place holder for “means”; “clamping” is functional language modifying the generic place holder; and the generic place holder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
a connecting structure in Claim 16(“structure” is a generic place holder for “means”; “connecting” is functional language modifying the generic place holder; and the generic place holder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
an upper clamping member in Claim 18 (“member” is a generic place holder for “means”; “clamping” are functional language modifying the generic place holder; and the generic place holder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
a sliding member in Claim 18 (“member” is a generic place holder for “means”; “sliding” are functional language modifying the generic place holder; and the generic place holder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function); and
a spring member in Claim 18(“member” is a generic place holder for “means”; “spring” is functional language modifying the generic place holder; and the generic place holder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function).
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
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.
Claims 10-20 are 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.
In re Claim 10, a fetching device that removes metal granules after they are cut fails 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. Applicant has not provided a structure that performs this function and it is unclear how this occurs. Applicant’s specification does not provide detail as to how the fetching device removes a granule, as it does not discuss or illustrate gripping means or grippers or discuss the material of the fetching device, such as it being magnetic. As such, it is unclear what structure of the fetching device removes the granules after they are cut.
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.
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 10-20 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.
In re Claim 10, a fetching device that removes metal granules after they are cut is indefinite. It is unclear how this occurs. Applicant’s specification does not provide detail as to how the fetching device removes a granule, as it does not discuss or illustrate gripping means or grippers or discuss the material of the fetching device, such as it being magnetic. As such, it is unclear what structure of the fetching device removes the granules after they are cut.
In re Claim 10, “a photoelectric sensor;” is indefinite. Claim 1 requires a photoelectric sensor. Is the photo electric sensor introduced in Claim 10 the same photoelectric sensor of Claim 1 or a second photoelectric sensor. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,235,241 to Martin in view of US 2018/0009054 to Forseth.
In re Claim 1, Martin teaches a device for flattening, conveying and cutting metal wires into granules, (see Figs. 1-8) comprising a flattening and feeding mechanism (see Figs. 1-2, #10/12) at a rear end and a conveying and cutting mechanism at a front end (see Figs. 7-8, #18), wherein the flattening and feeding mechanism is configured to horizontally feed a metal wire after flattened to the conveying and cutting mechanism (see Figs. 1-2, “W”), and the conveying and cutting mechanism is configured to advance the metal wire and cut into granules;
the flattening and feeding mechanism comprises a pressing wheel assembly (see Fig. 1, #46), a swinging member (see Figs. 1-2, assembly in which #20 are secured) and an output guide wheel (see Figs. 1-2, #34) arranged sequentially from rear to front; the swinging member is rotatably arranged, and a first end of the swinging member is close to the pressing wheel assembly and equipped with an input guide wheel (see Figs. 1-2, #20) the metal wire outputted from the pressing wheel assembly passes through the input guide wheel and the output guide wheel successively before entering the conveying and cutting mechanism (see Figs. 1-2, showing the workpieces passing through rollers #20 before #34), the swinging member is pressed and rotated as the metal wire is driven towards the conveying and cutting mechanism (the wheels #20 rotate and press on the workpiece), thereby actuating the pressing wheel assembly to flatten and output the metal wire.
Martin does not teach a photoelectric sensor; the photoelectric sensor is aligned with a second end of the swinging member; and the second end of the swinging member deviates from the photoelectric sensor so as to trigger the photoelectric sensor. However, Foreseth teaches that it is known in the art of wire movement to provide a photoelectric sensor (see Foreseth, Para. 0019 and 0015). In the same field of invention, wire moving structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide a sensor with the device of Martin. Doing so detects a position of the wire in the system in order to shut down the system if there is a problem (see Foreseth, Para. 0024).
Providing a sensor would provide for the photoelectric sensor is aligned with a second end of the swinging member; and the second end of the swinging member deviates from the photoelectric sensor so as to trigger the photoelectric sensor.
It is to be noted that claims 10-20 have not been rejected over prior art. It may or may not be readable over the prior art but allowability cannot be determined at this time in view of the issues under 35 USC § 112 (a) and (b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Boyer Ashley 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights