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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the cutting device is not clearly associated with the claimed feeding system. Examiner suggests amending the 12th line of claim 1 to recite “characterized in that a cutting device separates rod-shaped”.
Claim 2 is objected to because the second line of the claim claims “the measuring unit has a cutting device” such that the feeding system of claim 2 may be interpreted as having two cutting devices. Examiner suggests amending the second line of the claim to recite “the measuring unit has [[a]] the cutting device for separating rod-shaped portions”.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "specific to the straightening plane" at the end of the 18th line and the beginning of the 19th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending this portion of the claim to recite “specific to [[the]] a straightening plane of the differently orientated straightening planes”. Claim 1 will be interpreted in this manner during examination to promote compact prosecution.
Claims 2-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent upon rejected base claim 1.
Claim 2, 7-8, 10, 12 and 13 are separately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the phrase “wherein preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase is/are part of the claimed invention. The claims will be interpreted as though the word “preferably” has been deleted for examination purposes.
Claims 4, 6 and 14 are separately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the word “preferably” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the word are part of the claimed invention. The claims will be interpreted as though the word “preferably” has been deleted for examination purposes.
Claim 5 is separately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase “clamped in a horizontal direction” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The latter portion of the sixth line and the first portion of the seventh line of claim 5 will be interpreted as reciting “secured to prevent rotationby being clamped in a horizontal direction” for examination purposes.
Claim 6 is separately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the word “particularly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation “perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction” is part of the claimed invention. The sixth line of the claim will be interpreted as reciting “oriented transverselyperpendicular to the longitudinal direction” for examination purposes.
Claim 6 is still further separately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the limitation “the clamping apparatuses” in the eighth line of the claim lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Claim 6 will be interpreted as depending from claim 5 to provide sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 8 is further separately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation “perpendicularly to each other” is part of the claimed invention. The seventh line of the claim will be interpreted as reciting “oriented transverselyperpendicular to each other” for examination purposes.
Claim 8 is still further separately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the limitation “the clamping apparatus” in the fourth line of the claim lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 11 is separately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the limitation “the receiving apparatus” in the second line of the claim lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Claim 11 will be interpreted as depending upon claim 10 to provide the claim with sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Publication No. JPH05-337582 A by Hama, hereinafter “Hama”.
Regarding claim 1, Hama discloses a feeding system comprising:
a feeding apparatus for feeding an elongate, wire-shaped or tubular workpiece to a forming machine (feeding apparatus of Figs. 1(a) and 1(b); ¶[0012]), wherein the feeding apparatus has a receiving device for receiving a workpiece supply in the form of a coil (coil basket cage 2 in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b); ¶[0015]) and a straightening system which is downstream of the receiving device and which has two adjustable rolling/straightening apparatuses which are connected one behind the other and which have differently orientated straightening planes for straightening the workpiece before introduction into the forming machine (adjustable horizontal axis roll unit 5 is connected behind vertical axis roll unit 4 in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b); ¶[0015]-[0018]);
a measurement unit for measuring residual curvatures on straightened wire- shaped or tubular straightening material which has passed through the straightening system of the feeding apparatus, and for establishing measurement data which represent a residual curvature of the straightened straightening material (measurement unit device 19 in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b); ¶[0091]-[0025]);
characterized in that a cutting device separates rod-shaped portions of a predeterminable length from the straightening material which has passed through the straightening system (cutting device machine 12 in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b); ¶[0019]);
the measurement unit has a measurement apparatus for receiving a rod- shaped portion, which is separated from the straightening material, of the straightening material which has passed through the straightening system in a measurement position (measurement unit device 19 measures after linear body 1 is cut by cutting device machine 12); and
the measurement unit is configured for a measurement which is specific to a straightening plane of the differently oriented straightening planes and which allows association of the curvature portions which represent the measurement data with the different straightening planes of the rolling/straightening apparatuses (Fig. 3 and ¶[0022]-[0025] disclose measurements are taken by measurement unit device 19 in each of the horizontal X direction straightening plane and the vertical Y direction straightening plane).
Regarding claim 3, Hama anticipates the feeding system as claimed in claim 1 as explained above. Hama further discloses the measurement unit (unit device 19 in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)) is configured in such a manner that the straightening material can be measured in the rotational position in which it passed through the straightening system (linear body 1 passes directly to device 19 from straightening machine 3 such that the rotational position of linear body 1 may be measured by device 19 in the rotational position it passed through machine 3).
Regarding claim 9, Hama anticipates the feeding system as claimed in claim 1 as explained above. Hama further discloses the workpiece supply is wound on a replaceable reel (workpiece linear body 1 is shown wound on replaceable reel basket cage 2 in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)) and the receiving device is configured so that the reel can be received by the receiving apparatus and is supported rotatably about a horizontal rotation axis in the received state (Fig. 1(a) shows reel basket cage 2 is supported to rotate about a horizontal axis).
Regarding claim 14, Hama anticipates the feeding system as claimed in claim 1 as explained above. Hama further discloses the straightening system has two rolling/straightening apparatuses which are connected one behind the other (vertical roll unit4 and horizontal roll unit 5 in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b) are connected one behind the other) and which are adjustable independently of each other (¶[0023] discloses units 4 and 5 are adjustable independently of each other), wherein rotation axes of straightening rollers of the straightening apparatuses are orientated orthogonally relative to each other (units 4 and 5 are oriented orthogonally to each other), in such a manner that a first straightening apparatus defines a vertical straightening plane (vertical unit 4) and a subsequent second straightening apparatus defines a horizontal straightening plane (horizontal unit 5).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hama.
Regarding claim 2, Hama anticipates the feeding system as claimed in claim 1 as explained above. Hama shows cutting device 12 in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b) arranged next to measurement unit device 19 but does not expressly disclose they are mounted on or at a common frame. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a matter of obvious design choice to mount Hama’s cutting device machine 12 and measurement unit device 19 on a common frame.
Claim 4, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hama in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2024/0207921 A1 by Muehlenfeld et al., hereinafter “Muehlenfeld”.
Regarding claim 4, Hama anticipates the feeding system as claimed in claim 1 as explained above. Hama further discloses a control unit circuit 22 in Fig. 2. See paragraph [0021]. However, Hama is silent regarding rotation prevention devices which are configured in such a manner that a rotational position of a separated rod-shaped portion which is provided for measurement about the longitudinal axis thereof remains unchanged between the straightening and the measurement so that the straightening material can be measured in the rotational position in which it passed through the straightening system, wherein there are provided actuatable rotation prevention devices which can be switched in response to control signals of a control unit between a neutral configuration without any engagement with the straightening material and an engagement configuration with contact with the straightening material.
In the same field of wire straightening device, Muehlenfeld teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provided clamps at either end of a wire that is to be measured. See the abstract and paragraphs [0021] through [0024].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to clamp the ends of linear body 1 of Hama in clamps during measurement by measurement unit device 19 in the same way Muehlenfeld teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Muehlenfeld to the feeding system of Hama would achieve the predictable result of adding rotation prevention devices to Hama’s feeding system where Hama’s control circuit 22 actuates clamps to engage linear body 1 during measurement.
Regarding claim 5, Hama anticipates the feeding system as claimed in claim 1 as explained above. Hama further discloses a control unit (circuit 22 in Fig. 2; ¶[0021]) configured in an operating mode so that the cutting device (12 in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)) and the measurement apparatus (19 in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)) are controlled in such a coordinated manner that a front end portion of the straightened straightening material is conveyed by means of a controlled advance to a measurement position in the measurement apparatus (controller 22 controls the feeding system to advance a front end portion of linear body 1 from cutting machine 12 to measurement device 19). However, Hama is silent regarding afterwards the straightening material is secured to prevent rotation, clamped in a horizontal direction, by means of rotation prevention devices of the measurement unit, and afterwards the cutting device is controlled in order to separate the rod-shaped portion which is intended to be measured from the remainder of the straightening material.
In the same field of wire straightening device, Muehlenfeld teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provided actuatable rotation prevention devices which can be switched in response to control signals of a control unit between a neutral configuration without any engagement with the straightening material and an engagement configuration with contact with the straightening material. See the abstract and paragraphs [0021] through [0024].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to clamp the ends of linear body 1 of Hama in rotation prevention device clamps during measurement by measurement unit device 19 in the same way Muehlenfeld teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Muehlenfeld to the feeding system of Hama would achieve the predictable result of adding rotation prevention devices to Hama’s feeding system where Hama’s control circuit 22 is capable of operating the clamps to engage linear body 1 prior to separation of the material.
Regarding claim 8, Hama anticipates the feeding system as claimed in claim 1 as explained above. Hama further discloses the measurement system of the measurement apparatus (measurement unit 19 in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)) is an optical measurement system for determining the position of the rod-shaped portion in a measurement plane (¶[0022] discloses measuring device 19 uses scanning lasers), wherein preferably the measurement system has a first laser unit and a second laser unit which generate a laser light curtain which extends in the measurement plane in measurement directions which are orientated transversely, in particular perpendicularly to each other, wherein a sensor unit with photo-sensitive sensors for detecting a shadow projection of the part, which extends through the measurement plane, of the rod-shaped portion is arranged opposite a laser unit (¶[0022] discloses horizontal laser 20 and vertical laser 21 are positioned perpendicularly to each other to measure the X and Y coordinates in the respective measurement planes).
Hama is silent regarding a clamping apparatus as part of the measurement system as claimed in claim 8.
In the same field of wire straightening device, Muehlenfeld teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provided clamps at either end of a wire that is to be measured. See the abstract and paragraphs [0021] through [0024].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to clamp the ends of linear body 1 of Hama in clamps during measurement by measurement unit device 19 in the same way Muehlenfeld teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Muehlenfeld to the feeding system of Hama would achieve the predictable result of adding clamps to Hama’s feeding system to engage linear body 1 during measurement.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hama in view of Muehlenfeld and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0069035 A1 by Bourgon et al., hereinafter “Bourgon”.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art reference combination of Hama in view of Muehlenfeld renders the feeding system as claimed in claim 5 unpatentable as explained above. Muehlenfeld is silent regarding the structure of the clamps taught in paragraphs [0021] through [0023].
In the same field of straightening apparatus, Bourgon teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use rollers as clamping elements when measuring curvature. See the abstract. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use clamping rollers as the type of clamping structure used to clamp the wire in Muehlenfeld in the same way Bourgon teaches
Claims 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hama in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2024/0091845 A1 by Bauer et al., hereinafter “Bauer”.
Regarding claim 10, Hama anticipates the feeding system as claimed in claim 9 as explained above. However, Hama is silent regarding details of the receiving apparatus supporting basket cage 2 in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b).
In the same field of straightening device feeding systems, Bauer teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a receiving apparatus (330-1 in Fig. 2; ¶[0062]) having two axially parallel carrier rollers with horizontal rotation axes (332-1 and 333-1 in Fig. 2), on which a reel (335-1 in Fig. 2) can be positioned in such a manner that the circumference of lateral elements of the reel is positioned on the two carrier rollers and the position of the rotation axis is fixed in space, wherein a drive which can be controlled via a control unit and which is in engagement with one of the carrier rollers and can drive them under the control of the control unit is provided (¶[0062] discloses a dedicated drive).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the receiving apparatus taught by Bauer as the receiving apparatus in Hama’s feeding system. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Bauer to the feeding system of Hama would yield the predictable result of Hama’s feeding system which uses a receiving apparatus as taught by Bauer.
Regarding claim 11, Hama anticipates the feeding system as claimed in claim 10 as explained above. Bauer further teaches the receiving apparatus (330-1 in Fig. 2) has a redirecting device (340 in Fig. 2) having an upper redirecting roller (340-1 in Fig. 2) for receiving the workpiece which is unwound from the workpiece supply and a device which is arranged under the upper redirecting roller for receiving a workpiece loop before introduction into the straightening system (lower deflecting pulley 340-2 in Fig. 2; ¶[0063]).
Regarding claim 13, Hama anticipates the feeding system as claimed in claim 11 as explained above. Bauer further teaches the device which is arranged under the upper redirecting roller (340-1 in Fig. 2) for receiving a workpiece loop has a lower redirecting roller (340-2 in Fig. 2), the upper redirecting roller and the lower redirecting roller are rotatably supported in an axially parallel manner on a vertical carrier (341 in Fig. 2), wherein preferably the upper redirecting roller is in the form of a vertically displaceable dancer roller with resilient restoring and interrogation of the position of this redirecting roller is used to control a drive motor (334) for reel rotation and/or wherein the lower redirecting roller is wrapped around over approximately three-quarters of the circumference thereof and has at the upper side thereof an outlet which is at the height of an inlet-side through- opening of the straightening system so that the workpiece material can run from the lower redirecting roller directly in a horizontal direction into the straightening system (¶[0063]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not appear to disclose nor teach the feeding system of claim 6 with the further specificities of claim 7. Citing further prior art teaching concepts of claim 7 not disclose nor taught by the three-reference prior art reference combination used to reject claim 6 above would, in the Examiner’s opinion, require impressible hindsight.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not appear to disclose nor teach the feeding system of claim 11 with the further specificities of claim 12. Citing further prior art teaching concepts of claim 12 not disclose nor taught by the prior art reference combination used to reject claim 11 above would, in the Examiner’s opinion, require impressible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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, Christopher 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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights