DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6,8,9-13,15 and 16 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.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the phrases "optionally" and “further optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 is 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. The claim 16 limitations “wherein the abutment portion has a plurality of bending surface portions each of which has a different radius of curvature” appear to be present in claim 1, yet claim 16 preamble is not written as “The electric power tool of claim 1…”. The claim sets forth a “use” which is indefinite as it is not clear from the claim what abutment of the first, second or third is used and for what purpose.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 sets forth first, second and third abutment portions and claim 5 contains further limitations directed to the blocking portion and the third abutment so it is not clear that “An abutment portion” in claim 16 which depends from claim 5 is limiting any of the first, second and third abutments claimed.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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: “two-part mechanism for rotationally restricting” in claim 2, line 3; “blocking portion for selectively blocking” in claim 4, lines 1 and 2; “conversion mechanism for converting” in claim 8, line 2.
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 § 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) 1-4,8,12,14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witschi et al. (CH 580995) in view of Moquet (FR 2591918). Witschi discloses a portable electric power tool (1, Fig. 1; page 2, paragraph 6) for bending elongate objects (W) comprising an electric motor (page 2, paragraph 8, line 7) having a motor output shaft (9), a bend mechanism (2,4,8,16) having a support portion (2,16) and a bias portion (4,8) wherein first and second abutment portions (16) of the support portion (2,16) are separated by a space between them (Fig. 2) through which a third abutment portion (8) provided by the bias portion (4,8) is moved in use. It is noted that the claim recitation is “can be moved” which does not require actual movement but Witschi discloses that the third abutment is actually moved. Witschi discloses that the bend mechanism (2,4,8,16) is operatively coupled to the motor output shaft (9) via a transmission (10,11,12) of the tool which in use causes linear relative movement between the bias portion and the support portion (page 3, paragraph 2, lines 4-6) for causing force to be applied by the first (16), second (16) and third (8) abutment portions to an elongate object (W) in use at different locations along the length of the elongate object (third abutment is between first and second abutments) for bending the elongate object (W). Witschi (page 3, paragraph 8) discloses that the third abutment (8) is replaceable by an abutment with a different profile but does not disclose that the third abutment has different radii.
Moquet teaches first and second abutments (D) and a third abutment portion (E) configured for bending a tube, the third abutment having a plurality of bending surface portions (three protuberances; Fig. 7) each of which has a different radius of curvature (page 3, paragraph 1, lines 8-10), wherein the third abutment portion is secured in different rotational positions (page 3, paragraph 1, line 12) to enable an operator to select the appropriate radial bending surface portion which engages the elongate object to be bent. It is noted that the claim recitation is “can be secured” which does not require actual securement in different rotational positions but Moquet teaches that the third abutment (E) is actually secured in different rotational positions. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the bending surface of the third abutment of Witschi to include a plurality of bending surfaces having different radii of curvature as taught by Moquet in order to bend different elongate objects by rotating the third abutment to alternative bending surface radii as opposed to having to switch out and replace complete third abutments.
Regarding claim 2, Witschi discloses that the bias portion (4,8) has a finger (4) on which the third abutment (8) is mounted (Fig. 1) the finger has an extent, wherein the left side of the finger (Fig. 1) is a post (sturdy upright piece), the post (Fig. 1) comprising a first part with a screw bolt hole for rotationally restricting movement and the third abutment having a second part comprising a screw bolt (6) for rotationally restricting movement (page 2, paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 3, Witschi discloses that the post is a nut shape (page 2, paragraph 7, line 2) which is shown in Fig. 2 to be non-circular (square or rectangular) in dashed lines, the post having an opening (Fig. 1) for reception of the screw portion of the screw bolt (6) and the third abutment includes an opening which mates with the opening in the post via the screw bolt (6) to prevent rotational movement of the third abutment (8).
Regarding claim 4, Witschi discloses a blocking portion (pins, 7) that cooperates with the post for blocking linear movement between the third abutment and the post wherein when the abutment and post are connected by the pins (7) the third abutment (8) and finger (4) are locked into position for bending.
Regarding claims 8 and 12, Witschi converts torque from a drill motor into linear motion of the bend mechanism, the motor, transmission and bend mechanism which are all along an axis one after the other (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Witschi teaches bending a rebar rod and Moquet teaches bending a tube.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witschi et al. (CH 580995) in view of Moquet (FR 2591918) and further in view of Caporusso et al. (4,055,069). Witschi does not disclose that the blocking portion (pins, 7) has an outer cross-sectional profile to permit and block rotation of the third abutment portion and post. Caparusso teaches a post (support 238) and a blocking portion (242,241,240) comprising a blocking pin (col. 6, lines 17-19) that is structured with an outer cross-sectional profile (spherical, 240) and is configured to block an abutment (236) in position so that it does not rotate (col. 6, lines 15-16) during bending and is configured to allow rotation of the abutment and movement of the abutment within an opening (239) in the abutment when the blocking portion is released. Regarding claim 6, Caporusso teaches that a pin (243) has a gripping surface (232; Fig. 7) which is a knurled projection. Regarding claim 7, Caporusso teaches that the spring (241) of the blocking portion (242,241,240) allows for a linear motion of the abutment (236) along the opening (239). Regarding claim 16, Caparusso teaches an abutment (236) for use in bending an elongate member (T), the abutment having a non-circular opening (239) that extends entirely through the abutment portion (Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the blocking portion of Witschi to have a spherical ball cross-section with spring bias as taught by Caparusso so as to allow and prevent rotation of the third abutment upon actuation and releasing of the blocking pin.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witschi et al. (CH 580995) in view of Moquet (FR 2591918) and further in view of Abele et al. (EP 0561233). Witschi discloses that the electric motor is at least partially in a hand drill (1) with the motor output shaft extending along an axis but does not recite that the transmission includes a bevel gear in a planetary gear transmission. Regarding claims 9 and 10, Abele teaches a bevel gear (18) for redirecting torque flow along a second axis (7) from an electric motor (19) on a first axis (9) having a drive shaft (39) driven through a planetary gear train (38,41,42,40) connecting to the bevel gear (18; Fig. 1) for driving an output shaft (15) along the second axis. The electric motor (19) is constructed in a handle (6) of an electric drill having a housing (13). The first and second axes (7,9) are slightly inclined to a right angle in a pistol grip orientation. Regarding claim 11, Abele teaches that a battery pack (47) includes a housing (48) that extends along a notional line along the first axis (9). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to attach the electric drill as taught by Abele to the bending tool of Witschi so as to drive the bending tool with a pistol type electrical drive including a gear train, electric motor and battery pack as is known in the electric drill art.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witschi et al. (CH 580995) in view of Moquet (FR 2591918) and further in view of Barezzani et al. (2010/0000288). Witschi does not disclose that a battery pack drive is in line with the electric motor. Barezzani teaches that a battery pack (5) and electric motor are located along a same axis as a tool drive and tool head (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to provide the electric drill drive of Witschi with a battery pack as taught by Barrezzani so as to drive the tool with battery power at a remote worksite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 04-134235U teaches a third abutment portion (2) that is movable vertically ([0006], lines 5-7; [0007], lines 13-14) to bend an elongate object (bar) which is positioned on a first abutment (3) and a second abutment (3; Figs. 4 and 5) wherein the third abutment (2) includes a plurality of bending surface portions (8,9,10; Fig. 1) each of which has a different radius of curvature ([0007], lines 3-5) wherein the third abutment portion is secured in different rotational positions ([0005], lines 2-4; [0007], line 8) thereby enabling a user to select the bending surface portion (8,9,10) which engages the elongate object being bent [0009].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Chris 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725