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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 7-14-2026 Amendment was received. Claims 1, 4-5, and 11 were amended. Claims 2-3 and 14 were cancelled. Claims 1 and 4-13 are pending and examined in this action.
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 first thrust element in Claim 4; a second thrust element in Claim 4.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3,237,136 B1 in view of DE 3735537.
In re Claim 1, EP 3,237,136 B1 teaches a drum cutting device (see Fig. 1C, #2) for shears adapted to cut flat metal products (see Fig. 1C, #1) advancing along a direction substantially parallel to their longitudinal direction of extension (see Figs. 1-C, #3), said device being adapted to cut said flat metal products transversely relative to their direction of advancement (see Figs. 1A-C), wherein said device comprises
at least one drum (see Fig. 2A, #2) adapted to be rotated and diametrically delimited by a cylindrical surface and containing a blade or knife (see Fig. 1-2, #5) partially protruding from said cylindrical surface (see Figs. 1-2B), wherein said blade or knife is partially housed in a seat of said drum and extends longitudinally along a direction substantially parallel to a rotation axis of said drum (see Figs. 1-2B), wherein said device comprises an adjustment wedge (see Figs. 2A-3, wedge #9)the first one results in the peripheral tangential translation of said blade or knife in a second direction of peripheral tangential translation (TP2) opposite to the first one, said device comprising translation means for the translation of said adjustment wedge in said two opposite directions of translation (see translation, Pg. 2, second and third full paragraphs; see also translation, Pg. 4, second full paragraph), wherein said translation means are arranged on said drum (see Figs. 2A-3), wherein said translation means are of a hydraulically actuated type (see Claim 9, which states “Device according to one of Claims 6 to 8, characterized in that the adjusting device (36) has a hydraulic actuator (18) for moving the adjusting rod (11) in the axial direction.”)
EP 3,237,136 B1 does not teach the hydraulic actuator adapter to subject opposite end of said adjustment wedge to a hydraulic fluid pressure; wherein said translation means comprise a first chamber and a second chamber respectively positioned inside the drum at a first end and a second end of said adjustment wedge, and wherein an introduction of pressurized hydraulic fluid into said first chamber or in said second chamber results in the translation of said adjustment wedge in said first direction of translation or in said second direction of translation, respectively.
However, DE 3735537 teaches that it is known in the hydraulic system art to provide a hydraulic linear drive with fluid on either side (see DE 3735537, Fig. 2).
In the same field of invention, hydraulic systems for linearly moving a structure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to replace the single fluid side system of EP 3,237,136 B1 with the double fluid system of DE 3735537. Doing so is the substation of one known hydraulic system for another known hydraulic system to achieve the result of linearly moving a structure (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
The combination of EP 3,237,136 B1 and DE 3735537 reads wherein said translation means comprise a first chamber and a second chamber (see DE 3735537, Fig. 2 each fluid chamber on opposite side of #4 in view of EP 3237,136 B1, Figs. 2A-3) respectively positioned inside the drum at a first end and a second end of said adjustment wedge (see EP 3,237,136 B1, FI. 2A-C in view of DE 3735537 Fig. 2 – the examiner notes that EP 3,237,136 teaches “5. The adjusting rod 11 has in the embodiment according to the invention an axial bore 16 through which the hydraulic fluid for actuating the actuators 8 is passed.” In other words, providing hydraulic passages in the drum is known in the art), and wherein an introduction of pressurized hydraulic fluid into said first chamber or in said second chamber results in the translation of said adjustment wedge in said first direction of translation or in said second direction of translation, respectively (see DE 3735537, Fig. 2, arrow in view of EP 3,2137,136 B1, Figs. 2A-3) respectively.
In re Claim 4, modified EP 3,237,136 B1, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein there are provided a first thrust element (one side of #4 in DE 3735537, Fig. 2) and a second thrust element (the other side of #4 in DE 3735537, Fig. 2) housed respectively in said first chamber and said second chamber (see DE 3735537, Fig. 2) so that the introduction of said pressurized hydraulic fluid into said first chamber or said second chamber results respectively in the translation of said first thrust element
In re Claim 5, modified EP 3,237,136 B1, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein said first and second chambers
In re Claim 10, modified EP 3,237,136 B1, in re Claim 1, teaches a method for cutting flat metal products advancing along a direction substantially parallel to their direction of longitudinal extension (see EP 3,237,136 B1, Figs. 1-3), said method being performed by a device by means of which said flat metal products (see EP 3,237,136 B1, Figs. 1-3, #1) are cut transversely relative to their direction of advancement, characterized in that said device is a device according to claim 1, thus wherein the rotation of said at least one drum
In re Claim 11, modified EP 3,237,136 B1, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein said translation means comprise a first chamber (see chamber on one side of #4 in DE 3735537, Fig. 2) and a second chamber (see another chamber on the other side of #4 in DE 3735537, Fig. 2) respectively positioned inside the drum at a first end (1050) and a second end of said adjustment wedge (see EP 3,237,136 B1, Figs. 2-3 in view of DE 3735537, Fig. 2), and wherein the translation of said adjustment wedge in said first direction of translation or in said second direction of translation is achieved by introducing a pressurized hydraulic fluid into said first chamber or into said second chamber (see DE 3735537, Fig. 2, Arrows in view of Figs. 2-3 of EP 3,237,136 B1).
In re Claim 12, modified EP 3,237,136 B1, in re Claim 1, teaches a drum shear
In re Claim 13, modified EP 3,237,136 B1, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein at least one of said first cutting device and second cutting device is translatable along a direction of translation (Y) perpendicular to the rotation axis (X) of the respective first drum away from or towards said second cutting device (See EP 3,237,136 B1, Fig. 1A-C, #4/33/34).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3,237,136 B1 in view of DE 3735537, and further in view of US 3,057,239 to Alfred.
In re Claim 6, modified EP 3,237,136 B1, does not teach said first hydraulic port
However, Alfred teaches that it is known in the art of hydraulics and rotating cylinders to provide a hydraulic system with first hydraulic port and second hydraulic port (see Alfred, Fig. 2, #74 has two ports) are positioned on a rotating joint adapted to support rotating parts of said device (the hydraulic system is attached to a joint that allows the rotating parts of the roller).
It the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to provide the hydraulic connections to Alfred to the device of modified EP 3,237,136 B21. Doing so is the use of a known connection to achieve the result of providing hydraulic fluid to the device of modified EP 3,237,136 B1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3,237,136 B1 in view of DE 3735537, and further in view of US 3,038,449 to Murphy.
In re Claim 7, modified EP 3,237,136 B1, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein said first chamber and said second chambers are placed in communication with the outside of said device also respectively by means of a third hydraulic duct and a fourth hydraulic duct (see Fig. 2, the “right side line” #2 is the third hydraulic duct and the “left side line” #2 is the fourth hydraulic duct) obtained at least partially inside said drum; however, modified EP 3,237,136 B1does not teach and wherein said third hydraulic duct and said fourth hydraulic duct lead respectively into a third hydraulic port and a fourth hydraulic port accessible from the outside of said drum for the introduction of a pressurized hydraulic fluid respectively into said first chamber and said second chamber and for the discharge of said pressurized hydraulic fluid respectively from said first chamber and said second chamber.
However, Murphy teaches that it is known in the art of hydraulic systems (see Murphy, Figs.1-2, showing three different systems with three different valves), having multiple hydraulic lines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that the earliest effective filing date to provide additional lines on either side of the roller of modified EP 3,237,136 B1, in re Claim 1, in order to provide different position valves systems in the device. Doing so allows the user to have a variable flow rate to facilitate rapid and slow positioning of a driven member (see Murphy, Col. 3, ll. 21-58). Dong so allows the user to have a hydraulic system with three different positioning speeds without having to have three different rollers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3,237,136 B1 in view of DE 3735537, and US 3,038,449 to Murphy, and further in view of US 3,057,239 to Alfred and US 2007/0239830 to Adami.
In re Claim 8, modified EP 3,237,136 B1, in re Claim 7, does not teach wherein said first hydraulic port and second hydraulic port are positioned on a rotating joint adapted to support rotating parts of said device; and wherein said third hydraulic port
However, Alfred teaches that it is known in the art of hydraulics and rotating cylinders to provide a hydraulic system with first hydraulic port and second hydraulic port (see Alfred, Fig. 2, #74 has two ports) are positioned on a rotating joint adapted to support rotating parts of said device (the hydraulic system is attached to a joint that allows the rotating parts of the roller).
It the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to provide the hydraulic connections to Alfred to the device of modified EP 3,237,136 B21. Doing so is the use of a known connection to achieve the result of providing hydraulic fluid to the device of modified EP 3,237,136 B1.
Further, Adami teaches that it is known in the art of hydraulic connections to provide hydraulic ports positioned on a rotating part of a hub of said device different from said rotating joint (see Adami, Fig. 2, #59/61). In the same field of invention, hydraulic connections for rotating structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to connect hydraulic ports to a rotating part of a hub, as taught by Adami). Doing so is the substitution of one known connection structure for another known connection structure to achieve the results of connecting a hydraulic system for operation (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3,237,136 B1 in view of DE 3735537, and further in view CN 203863754 U.
In re Claim 9, modified EP 3,237,136 B1, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein there is provided an indicator of position of said adjustment wedge positioned at least partially within the drum
However, CN 203863754 U teaches that it is known to measure the movement of a hydraulic system with a ruler (see CN 203863754 U, Fig. 1, #9). In the same field of invention, hydraulic systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a ruler that measures the movement of the hydraulic system to provide a user of a visual indicator of where the system is at any given present time. Doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way (see MPEP 2143, I, C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s drawing amendments have cured the drawing objections.
Applicant’s claim amendments have overcome the prior 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Applicant argues that EP 3,237,136 B1 teaches a mechanical architecture for the transmission of the adjustment wedge. As such, according to Applicant, “[t]he presently claimed invention uses a different force-application scheme and a different structural organization. Instead of transmitting force to the wedge through an externally actuated mechanical rod arrangement, amended claim 1 requires first and second hydraulic chambers positioned inside the drum at opposite ends of the adjustment wedge, so that hydraulic pressure is selectively applied to opposite ends of the wedge to translate the wedge in opposite directions.” The Examiner notes that the mechanical rod in EP 3,237,136 B1 was envisioned as being moved by a hydraulic arrangement. The Examiner notes that all hydraulic systems that move structures require some “mechanical architecture.” While the Examiner agrees the EP 3,237,136 B1 does not teach a duel ended hydraulic arrangement, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
EP 3,237,136 B1 teaches a hydraulic system to move the wedge in opposing directions. DE 3735537 teaches a different hydraulic system to move a structure in opposing directions. Substitution one known hydraulic system for another known hydraulic system in order to move structures in two opposing directions was within the level of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Applicant argues that DE 3735537 is not directed to an adjustment of a knife-positioning wedge within a rotating drum shear. The Examiner agrees but points out that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, one of ordinary skill in the hydraulic art to replace a single side hydraulic system with a dual side hydraulic system.
The Examiner notes that the function of both systems is the same. Both systems cause a component to move in a first direction and are also capable of moving that component in the opposite second direction. EP 3,237,136 B1 teaches a single side mechanical transmission architecture. DE 3735537 teaches that the same movement is accomplished by hydraulic pressure on either side of the component that moves. Further, DE 3735537, states “The invention is used in all linear drives, where small dimensions, freedom from play, a big one Rigidity and high efficiency with simple Structure are important.” Here, EP 3,237,136 B1 is a linear drive and the invention of DE 3735537 was anticipated to be used in all linear drives. As such, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in art, at the earliest effective filing date.
No further independent arguments were presented and therefore no additional arguments were responded to.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no case, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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