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 .
Drawings
Figures 1a, 1b, and 1c should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, “a hydraulic circuit comprising said first chamber and second chamber,” of Claim 3-5, 7, and 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefor, “a first hydraulic duct” and “a second hydraulic duct” in Claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “a third hydraulic duct and a fourth hydraulic duct obtained at least partially inside said drum,” in Claim 7, must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new Matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: translation means in Claim 1; means of a hydraulic circuit in Claim 3; a first thrust element in Claim 4; a second thrust element in Claim 4; means of a first hydraulic duct in Claim 5; means of a third hydraulic duct in Claim 7;
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 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 1-14 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 1, “e.g., for shears adapted to cut flat metal products” is indefinite. It is unclear what “e.g.,” means in context of the claims. It is unclear if what follows is part of the claim or simply and example. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required. In re Claim 14, wherein the gap between said first knife and second knife is adjustable so as to be equal to or greater than 0.00 mm,” is indefinite. First, it is unclear if there is a “gap” if the measurement is 0.00mm. Additionally, the claim uses the phrase “greater than 0.00mm” which includes no gap and an infinite gap. It is unclear what is being claimed. Is a gap required? IF not, it is unclear how this further limits the claims. The claims were examined as best understood. Apocopate 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.
Claims 1-5 and 10-14 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)
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)to the rotation axis of said drum and a thickness of said adjustment wedge transversely to its direction of extension continuously varies along said direction of extension from a minimum thickness to a maximum thickness (see translation which states “two wedges arranged in the axial direction, each with a wedge surface, the knife being moved over the first wedge, which can be displaced in the axial direction;” see also Claim 1), wherein said adjustment wedge is positioned relative to said blade or knife so that a translation of said adjustment wedge parallel to its direction of extension in a first direction of translation results in a peripheral tangential translation of said blade or knife (see Figs. 2A-3, #9/#5)
EP 3,237,136 B1 does not teach the translation means are adapted to subject opposite ends of said adjustment wedge to a hydraulic fluid pressure.
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).
In re Claim 2, modified EP 3,237,136 B1, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein said translation means are arranged inside the drum (see EP 3,237,136 B1, FI. 2A-C in view of DE 3735537 Fig. 2).
In re Claim 3, modified EP 3,237,136 B1, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein said translation means comprise a first chamber and a second chamber respectively positioned inside the drum translation (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 of the roller in view of Fig. 2 of DE 3735537) and said second chamber and for a discharge of said pressurized hydraulic fluid respectively from said first chamber
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 drum results in a cutting of said flat metal product by means of a substantially simultaneous action of said first blade and said second blade; wherein at least said first cutting device is a device according to (see EP 3,237,136 B1, Fig. 1-3 in view of DE 3735537, Fig. 2).
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).
In re Claim 14, modified EP 3,237,136 B1, in re Claim 1 teaches wherein the gap between said first knife and second knife is adjustable so as to be equal to or greater than 0.00 mm ( the gap illustrated in EP 3,237,136 B1, is adjustable depending on the thickness of the workpiece, which reads on the claim).
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 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).
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