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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be provided on a separate sheet that “may not include other parts of the application or other materials.” MPEP 608.01(b)(quoting 37 C.F.R. 1.72). While the contents of the abstract itself appears to be appropriate, the abstract has been provided on a page including bibliographical information for the related WIPO application. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim may not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim, and claim 15 is a multiple dependent claim that depends from claim 3 which is also a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, claim 15 has not been further treated on the merits.
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 winding stage” and “a feed mechanism” in claim 1; “a bending tool” in claim 8; “a heating stage” in claim 10; and “an output stage” and “a guide element” in claim 11.
Regarding the winding stage, the limitation recites a generic placeholder (i.e., “a winding stage”) modified by functional language (i.e., “for engaging with a wire and deforming the wire to coil windings”) that is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as the winding stage 110 which is described as a series of bending tools (P. 5, Lns. 15-32 and Figs. 1 and 2) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding a feed mechanism, the limitation recites a generic placeholder (i.e., “a feed mechanism”) modified by functional language (i.e., “to feed the wire to the winding stage”) that is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as feeding stage 120 which is described as at least two driven rollers (P. 5, Ln. 34 through P. 6, Ln. 9; Fig. 1) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the bending tool, the limitation recites a generic placeholder (i.e., “bending tool”) modified by functional language (i.e., “engages the wire at positions set according to a geometry of the coil springs to be produced”) that is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as bending tools 115 which are described as any bending tool that may be driven by a mechanism (P. 5, Lns. 15-32; Figs. 1 and 2) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the heating stage, the limitation recites a generic placeholder (i.e., “a heating stage”) modified by functional language (i.e., “heat the wire”) that is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as heating stage 140 which is described as a series of heaters 141 that may be induction or electrical heaters (P. 7, Lns. 24-36 and Fig. 1) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the output stage, the limitation recites a generic placeholder (i.e., “an output stage”) modified by functional language (i.e., “for transferring the coil springs”) that is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as output stage 150 which is described as a transport mechanism that may be a magnetic carrier (P. 8, Lns. 1-9 and Fig. 1) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the guide element, the limitation recites a generic placeholder (i.e., “a guide element”) modified by functional language (i.e., “for guiding movement of the deformed wire”) that is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as guide element 155 which is described as a V-shaped surface (P. 8, Ln. 35 through P. 9, Ln. 4) 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) 1-5, 7-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,978,434 to Huon.
Regarding claim 1, Huon teaches a mechanism for producing coil springs, the mechanism comprising:
a winding stage 5, 6 for engaging with a wire and deforming the wire to coil windings as the wire moves through the winding stage 5, 6 (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Lns. 33-41);
a feed mechanism 1A configured to feed the wire to the winding stage 5, 6 (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Lns. 33-41); and
a rotary cutter 3 configured to cut the deformed wire into portions forming separate coil springs, wherein the rotary cutter 3 comprises a blade which is driven for rotation about a stationary rotation axis (Fig. 1; Col. 4, Lns. 11-16 and 37-42),
wherein the blade comprises a protrusion configured to engage between two coil windings of the deformed wire and separate the two coil windings as the blade rotates (Fig. 1; Col. 4, Lns. 11-16 and 37-42).
Regarding claim 2, Huon teaches the mechanism according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the feed mechanism is configured to maintain a constant speed of feeding the wire while the rotary cutter cuts the deformed wire (Col. 5, Lns. 6-12; the speed of the components may be constant, i.e., the feed mechanism is capable of maintaining a constant speed of feeding the wire).
Regarding claim 3, Huon teaches the mechanism according to claim 1 or 2 (Fig. 1), further comprising: a mandrel 4 for cooperating with the blade to cut the wire (Figs. 1-2 and 5-8; Col. 3, Lns. 47-49 and Col. 4, Lns. 59-60).
Regarding claim 4, Huon teaches the mechanism of claim 3 (Fig. 1) wherein a position of the mandrel 4 relative to the rotation axis is adjustable (Figs. 1-2 and 5-8; Col. 3, Lns. 47-49; as the end of the mandrel 4 is “half-moon shaped,” the position of the end of the mandrel relative to the rotation axis of the blade is adjusted based on the rotation of the mandrel with the moon shaped portion of the mandrel being closer or further from the axis of rotation based on the rotation of the mandrel, and it is noted that Fig. 1 shows the end of the mandrel closer to the disk 2 and Fig. 2 shows the end of the mandrel away from disk 2, i.e., the mandrel has rotated between these two figures).
Regarding claim 5, Huon teaches the mechanism according to claim 1 (Fig. 1) wherein a position of the rotary cutter 3 relative to the winding stage is adjustable (Col. 4, Lns. 28-34; the cutter 3 may be moved to other side of the bending tools to form coils spiraling in the opposite manner).
Regarding claim 7, Huon teaches the mechanism according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the blade 3 is formed on a terminal surface of a shaft portion 3A driven to rotate about the rotation axis (Figs. 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 8, Huon teaches the mechanism according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the winding stage comprises at least one bending tool 5, 6 which engages the wire at positions set according to a geometry of the coil springs being produced (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Lns. 52-56), wherein the winding stage is configured to maintain engagement of the at least one bending tool 5, 6 with the deformed wire while the rotary cutter 3 cuts the deformed wire (Fig. 1; as shown in Fig. 1, the bending tool 6 would still be bending the deformed wire when the blade cuts the wire).
Regarding claim 14, Huon teaches a method of producing coil springs (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
feeding a wire to a winding stage 5, 6 (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Lns. 33-41);
engaging the wire in the winding stage 5, 6 to deform the wire to coil windings as the wire moves through the winding stage (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Lns. 33-41); and
by a blade 3 rotating about a stationary rotation axis, cutting the deformed wire into portions forming separate coil springs (Fig. 1; Col. 4, Lns. 11-16 and 37-42),
wherein the blade comprises a protrusion configured to engage between two coil windings of the deformed wire and separate the two coil windings as the blade rotates (Fig. 1; Col. 4, Lns. 11-16 and 37-42).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huon in view of US 2021/0323047 A1 to Furuse.
Regarding claim 9, Huon teaches the mechanism according to claim 8 (Fig. 1).
Huon fails to explicitly teach wherein the least one bending tool is driven to move the wire to a position in which the rotary cutter cuts the deformed wire.
Furuse teaches a coiling machine including a winding stage having bending tools 13, 14 and wherein the least one bending tool 13, 14 is driven to move the wire to a position in which the rotary cutter 23 cuts the deformed wire (Figs. 1-2 and 4; Paras. [0033] and [0041]-[0042]; the bending tools are driven by the drives 61, 62, and the driving force moves the wire towards the positioned where the cutter 23 cuts the wire).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coiling mechanism of Huon to include the bending tools being driven as taught by Furuse so that the bending tools may exert a force on the wire as it is being bent as well as allowing the bending tools to be moved to different positions depending on the operation of the machine.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huon in view of US 2016/0243607 A1 to Takahashi.
Regarding claim 10, Huon teaches the mechanism according to claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Huon fails to explicitly teach a heating stage configured to heat the wire before feeding into the winding stage.
Takahashi teaches a coil forming mechanism further comprising: a heating stage 20 configured to heat the wire before feeding into the winding stage 30 (Fig. 1; Para. [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coiling mechanism of Huon to include a heating stage as taught by Takahashi so that the wire entering the winding stage is heated to a temperature that makes it easier to form into a desired shape.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huon in view of US 2019/0168287 A1 to Spinks.
Regarding claim 11, Huon teaches the mechanism according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), an output stage for transferring the coil springs from the mechanism, wherein the output stage comprises a guide element 2 (Figs. 3 and 5; Col. 3, Lns. 50-62; the mechanism outputs the wire away from the system via the flat 2A of the disk 2 which directs the coiled wire away, as shown in Figs. 3 and 5 which also show the flat 2A has a V-shape).
Huon fails to explicitly teach for the guide element provides guiding movement of the deformed wire in the winding stage and towards a transport mechanism because Huon fails to teach a transport mechanism.
Spinks teaches a winding system including a transport mechanism to which the coiled wire is output (Fig. 1; Paras. [0003] and [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coiling mechanism of Huon to include a transport mechanism in the output stage as taught by Spinks so that the finished coils may be transported from the system to a location where they may be packaged, used or otherwise finished.
Regarding claim 12, modified Huon teaches the mechanism according to claim 11 (Fig. 1), wherein the transport mechanism comprises at least one magnetic carrier for engaging with the deformed wire and moving the coil spring from the winding stage (Spinks, Fig. 1; Paras. [0003] and [0047]; modified Huon includes the transport mechanism of Spinks, which is a magnetic carrier for engaging with the finished coil and moving it from the system).
Regarding claim 13, modified Huon teaches the mechanism according to claim 12 (Fig. 1), wherein the output stage is configured to cause engagement of the at least one magnetic carrier with the deformed wire before the deformed wire is cut by the rotary cutter to release the coil spring being produced (Spinks, Fig. 1; Paras. [0003] and [0047]; modified Huon includes the transport mechanism of Spinks, which is a magnetic carrier and “engagement” is interpreted as the magnetic carrier is positioned to receive the deformed wire which the magnetic carrier is capable of doing as it is positioned to receive the wire when it is cut).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2002/0011090 A1 (Figs. 3-6) and US 5,454,249 (Figs. 1 and 6-7) each teach systems for feeding, winding and cutting a wire into a coil shape.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725