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 .
Comment re Proposed Examiner’s Amendment
It is noted that, on September 24, 2026, Examiner provided a proposed Examiner’s Amendment to Applicant’s representative to place the case in condition for allowance, which proposed Examiner’s Amendment has been made of record in an Interview Summary attached to this Office Action. No agreement could be reached at the present time. That said, attention is directed to that proposed Examiner's Amendment for details and suggestions as to how to overcome any issues outlined in this Office Action.
Furthermore, it is noted that the proposed Examiner’s Amendment should be revised re claim 7 as follows:
Claim 7 (Proposed Amendment). The apparatus of claim 6, wherein said at least one recess of said gripping portion comprises a pair of recesses separated by a rib shaped to be held by said gripping member when said gripping member is in said closed configuration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-14), drawn to an “apparatus for bending bars”, in the reply filed on July 2, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 2, 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
There are many instances in which the specification is inconsistent with terminology and reference character usage. For example, the reference character 4 has been referred to as both a “bending unit” and a “bending assembly”, and so has the reference character 41. Additionally, the reference character 5 has been referred to as both a “transfer assembly” and a “transfer unit”. See the aforementioned proposed Examiner’s Amendment for details as to suggestions to harmonize the terminology and to address the consistency with which the reference characters 4, 5, and 41 are utilized.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
80, depicted in at least Figure 1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“bending unit” in at least claims 1, 4;
“gripping member” in at least claims 1, 6-7, 10, and 12;
“gripping portion” in at least claim 1;
“transfer device” in at least claims 1-3; and
“feeding station” in at least claims 4 and 14.
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.
However, it is noted that the term “gripping member” in claim 11 does not invoke 35 USC 112(f), noting that claim 11 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function(s).
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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “for bending bars”, and the claim also recites “in particular, metal bars”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required (intended use) feature of the claims.
In claim 1, lines 1-2, the claim recites “[A]n apparatus for bending bars, in particular metal bars, comprising…”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “comprising” anything, i.e., the apparatus, or the bars.
In claim 1, lines 2-3, the claim recites “at least one bending unit adapted to receive at least one said bar on a work surface (α) according to a longitudinal direction (A)”. However, firstly, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether the work surface is or is not intended to be required to be part of the “at least one bending unit”. Additionally, in the aforequoted limitation, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is meant by “according to a longitudinal direction”, i.e., what action or element is being set forth as occurring or being “according to a longitudinal direction”. For example, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether such is intended to indicate that the work surface has a longitudinal direction, is instead intended to indicate that “at least one said bar” has a longitudinal direction”, that “at least one said bar” is received in a manner that is somehow considered to be “according to a longitudinal direction” (though if so, it is unclear as set forth in the claim how or in what regard the action of receiving is to be considered to be “according to” an unspecified/broadly recited “longitudinal direction”), etc.
There are several positively recited limitations that lack sufficient antecedent bases in the claims. Examples of this are as follows:
“at least one said bar” in at least claim 1, line 2 (noting that plural bars were previously mentioned in the claim such that it is unclear which specific one of the bars is intended to be referenced via the recitation of “said bar”, and also noting that it is unclear as claimed whether such refers to a bar of the plurality of bars mentioned in the limitation “an apparatus for bending bars”, or instead refers to a bar of the plurality of metal bars mentioned in the limitation “in particular metal bars”);
“said bending unit” in at least claim 1, line 4; claim 1, line 14; claim 4, last line; claim 9, lines 2-3 and 5; claim 13, last two lines; and claim 14, lines 2-3 and 3-4 (noting that “at least one bending unit” was previously recited, rendering it unclear which specific bending unit of the range “at least one bending unit” is intended to be referenced);
“said bar” in claim 1, line 6 (noting that plural bars were previously set forth, rendering it unclear which specific bar is intended to be referenced);
“said transfer device” in claim 1, line 12 (noting that no “transfer device” was previously recited in the claim);
“said bending head mounted on said bending unit” in claim 1, lines 14 (noting that no such bending head that is expressly recited as “mounted on said bending unit” was previously recited);
“said containment seat” in claim 2, last line (noting that “at least one containment seat” was previously recited, rendering it unclear which specific bending unit of the range “at least one containment seat” is intended to be referenced);
“said spare bending head” in claim 3 (noting that plural “spare bending heads” were previously recited in the claim);
“said feeding station” in claim 4 (noting that no feeding station was previously recited);
“said bending assembly” in claim 9, line 1 (noting that no bending assembly was previously recited);
“said gripping member in said first position” in claim 10 (noting that no first position that is of the gripping member was previously recited, but rather, the only previously-recited “first position” was set forth in claim 1 as being a position of the transfer device),
“said bars” in claims 13 and 14 (plural pluralities of bars previously set forth);
“said bars in said closed configuration” or “said transfer device…in said closed configuration” in claim 13 (noting that the only “closed configuration” that was previously set forth was of the recited gripping member);
“said retained bars” in claim 13;
“said articulated arm of said transfer device” in claim 14 (noting that the only articulated arm that was previously recited was recited as part of the claimed “conveying device”, rather than as part of the previously-recited “transfer device”);
“the dimensions of said bending unit” in claim 14 (noting that no such dimensions of the bending unit were previously recited, and also noting that it is unclear which dimensions, of a large possible number of dimensions of the bending unit, are intended to be referenced); and
“the dimensions of a feeding station” in claim 14 (noting that no such dimensions of any feeding station were previously recited, and also noting that it is unclear which dimensions, of a large possible number of dimensions of such a feeding station, are intended to be referenced).
This is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of such occurrences. Applicant is required to review the claims and correct any other such occurrences of limitations lacking sufficient antecedent basis.
In claim 1, lines 2-3, in the limitation “at least one bending unit adapted to receive at least one said bar on a work surface (α), it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as being or occurring “on a work surface”, e.g., the at least one bending unit, or the receiving of the at least one said bar.
In claim 1, lines 1-4, the claim recites “[A]n apparatus for bending bars, in particular metal bars, comprising at least one bending unit adapted to receive at least one said bar on a work surface (α) according to a longitudinal direction (A), and a bending head which can be engaged on said bending unit, at a bending axis (B)”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what “and a bending head which can be engaged on said bending unit” is intended to go, e.g., “comprising” (in line 2), or “at least one bending unit adapted to receive…”. Likewise, it is also unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as being or occurring “at a bending axis (B)”, e.g., the engaging of the bending head on the bending unit, or the receipt of the bending head on a work surface.
In claim 1, lines 4-6, the claim recites “said bending head comprising a bending mandrel and an eccentric pin, rotatable on said work surface (α) around said bending axis (B)”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as being “rotatable on said work surface (α) around said bending axis (B)”, e.g., the eccentric pin only; both the bending mandrel and the eccentric pin; etc.
In claim 1, line 6, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what the limitation “and a conveying device…” is intended to go, e.g., “comprising” in line 2; “said bending head comprising…” in line 4; etc.
In claim 1, lines 6-7, the claim sets forth “a conveying device comprising an articulated arm constrained to a height below said work surface (α)”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is meant by “arm constrained to a height below said work surface” (per the literal language of the claim), particularly noting that the disclosed articulated arm 51 is clearly not constrained or restricted to being kept at a height that is below the work surface (α). For example, see Figures 1-2 and 6-8, noting that the arm 51 is shown in these figures as extending to a height that is above the work surface (α).
In claim 1¸ line 8, the claim sets forth “and a gripping member articulated to said articulated arm at an orientation axis”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what “and a gripping member articulated to said articulated arm at an orientation axis” is intended to go, e.g., “conveying device comprising…”, “comprising” from line 2, etc.
In claim 1, line 10, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “characterized in that said bending head comprises a gripping portion…”.
In claim 1, lines 10-12, the claim sets forth “said bending head comprises a gripping portion configured to be held by said gripping member arranged in said closed configuration”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “arranged in said closed configuration”, e.g., the gripping member, or the gripping portion.
In claim 1, line 12, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “in that”, in the limitation “in that said transfer device is movable…”.
In claim 1, line 6, the claim sets forth “a conveying device comprising an articulated arm…” In claim 1, line 12, the claim references “said transfer device”. As noted above, the limitation “said transfer device” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. That said, given that the two limitations (conveying device vs. transfer device) are set forth separately, with different titles, it appears that Applicant is setting forth two different elements. However, as disclosed, the term “conveying device” and “transfer device” both appear to reference the same structure(s), e.g., 50 and 50’. See paragraphs [175], [111], and [113]-[117]. Thus, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “said transfer device” is intended to reference the same element as the previously-recited “conveying device”, or whether “said transfer device” in claim 1 is instead intended to be additional to the previously-recited “conveying device”. Furthermore, such lack of clarity also renders it unclear as claimed whether the term “transfer device” does or does not invoke 35 USC 112(f), noting that regarding the recited “conveying device”, claim 1 recites sufficient structure (“an articulated arm”) to perform the recited function such that the term “conveying device” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f), but noting that regarding the recited “transfer device”, claim 1 does not recite sufficient structure to perform the recited function(s) and thus invokes 35 USC 112(f) (as noted in the “Claim Interpretation” section above).
In claim 1, the last five lines, the claim set forth “and in that said transfer device is movable with a replacement motion between a first position in which said gripping member is arranged in a closed configuration at said bending head mounted on said bending unit, to hold said gripping portion, and a second raised position, in which said bending head held by said gripping member is drawn out from said work surface (α)”. Firstly, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “a closed configuration” in lines 13-14 is intended to be the same “closed configuration” previously set forth in lines 11-12, or whether “a closed configuration” is instead intended to be different than/additional to the closed configuration previously set forth in lines 11-12. Additionally, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “to hold said gripping portion”, e.g., the gripping member, the arrangement of the gripping member in the closed configuration, etc. Furthermore, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what “and a second raised position” is intended to go.
In claim 3, the claim sets forth “said magazine comprises a plurality of containment seats for as many spare bending heads…”. That said, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “a plurality of containment seats” is intended to be a subset of the previously-recited “at least one containment seat” (previously set forth in claim 2), or whether “a plurality of containment seats” is instead intended to be additional to the previously-recited “at least one containment seat”. Note that for the former, the claim would only require a minimum of two containment seats, whereas for the latter, the claim would require a minimum of three containment seats (i.e., “at least one” from claim 2, plus plural additional containment seats from claim 3). Additionally, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is meant by “for as many spare bending heads”, i.e., as many spare bending heads as what? Furthermore, it is unclear as set forth in the claim from or to or with respect to what/where the transfer device is being movable to “take or insert” the recited “said spare bending head”, i.e., take from or insert into what or where?
In claim 4, the claim sets forth “wherein said magazine extends parallel to said longitudinal direction (A), being interposed between said feeding station and said bending unit”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “interposed between said feeding station and said bending unit”, i.e., the magazine, or the longitudinal direction.
In claim 5, the claim set forth “wherein said gripping portion is made by means of a handle projecting transversely from said mandrel”. That said, it is unclear as set forth in the claim (noting the word choice of “is made by means of”) whether the claim is attempting to set forth a product-by-process limitation to indicate how the gripping portion is “made”, or whether the claim is instead intending to structurally limit the gripping portion to being a “handle projecting transversely from said mandrel”. Note that for the former, the term “gripping portion” would still invoke 35 USC 112(f) (for the reasons noted above in the “Claim Interpretation” section), whereas for the latter, the term “gripping portion” would no longer invoke 35 USC 112(f) (since if the limitation “a handle projecting transversely from said mandrel” further structurally limits the “gripping portion”, the claim would recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function).
In claim 7, the claim recites “wherein said gripping portion comprises a pair of recesses separated by a rib shaped to be held by said gripping member in said closed configuration”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “a pair of recesses” is intended to be a subset of the previously-recited “at least one recess”, or whether “a pair of recesses” is instead intended to be additional to the previously-recited “at least one recess”.
In claim 8, the claim sets forth “wherein said gripping portion is obtained at least partially from a portion of said mandrel, opposite to said eccentric pin”. However, firstly, it is unclear as set forth in the claim (noting the use of the language “is obtained from”) whether such is intended to set forth a product-by-process limitation on the gripping portion, or whether such instead intends to be a structural limitation on the gripping portion. Additionally, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “opposite to said eccentric pin”, e.g., a portion of the mandrel (from which mandrel portion the gripping portion is somehow “obtained”), vs. a location of the gripping portion.
In claim 9, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as being “shaped so that said gripping portion is substantially underneath said work surface…”.
In claim 10, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is meant by “according to a collecting orientation”.
In claim 10, in the limitation “at which said gripping portion is oriented to be held by said gripping member in said first position”, firstly, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what “which” is intended to refer.
In claim 11, the claim sets forth “wherein said gripping member is a jaw member”. However, noting that claim 1 previously set forth that the gripping member is “movable between an open configuration for releasing and a closed configuration for holding”, it is unclear as set forth in claim 11 how or in what regard a gripping member that “is” a jaw member (as opposed to a gripping member that comprises/includes a/one jaw member but isn’t limited to being the one jaw member) is to be considered to be movable between the claimed open and closed configurations. It is noted that the disclosed “gripping member” (52) is disclosed as being “preferably of the jaw type (see for example Fig. 6)” per paragraph [146], and is disclosed as “preferably” comprising “a pair of jaws 52a, at least one of which is movable relative to the other in a closing an opening motion, between an open configuration and a closed configuration” per paragraph [147], rather that the gripping member (52) being a (i.e., one) jaw member 52a. Attention is directed to the aforementioned proposed Examiner’s Amendment regarding suggested language.
In claim 11, the claim sets forth “wherein said gripping member is a jaw member, configured to engage said gripping portion”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “configured to engage said gripping portion”, e.g., the jaw member, or the gripping member.
In claim 13, the claim set forth “wherein said transfer device is configured to hold one or more said bars in said closed configuration”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as being in “said closed configuration”, e.g., “said bars in said closed configuration” or “said transfer device…in said closed configuration”.
In claim 13, the claim sets forth “wherein said transfer device is configured to hold one or more said bars in said closed configuration, being also movable with a transfer motion to transfer said retained bars from and/or to said bending unit”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “being also movable” in the limitation “being also movable with a transfer motion to transfer said retained bars from and/or to said bending unit”.
In claim 14, the claim sets forth “wherein said articulated arm of said transfer device…”. However, as noted above, the limitation “said articulated arm of said transfer device” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in claim 14 (noting that the only articulated arm that was previously recited was recited as part of the claimed “conveying device”, rather than as part of the previously-recited “transfer device”). That being said, to the extent that claim 14 recites that the transfer device includes an articulated arm, then it is noted that “said transfer device” in claim 14 would not invoke 35 USC 112(f), given the recitation of sufficient structure to perform the recited function(s).
In claim 14, the claim sets forth “wherein said articulated arm of said transfer device is constrained in a position between the dimensions of said bending unit and the dimensions of a feeding station arranged upstream, serving said bending unit to feed said bars therein”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim how or in what regard the articulated arm is to be considered to be “constrained” in such a position, e.g., while the arm is located in such a position, the arm is in any fashion “constrained”/restricted (such as by being able to be turned off, for example), or the arm is constrained/restricted (in some fashion) to such a position. Regardless of which meaning is intended, note that such constitutes a functional limitation as presently presented, such that if the transfer device is merely capable of being so restricted/constrained (at or to such a position), such as by being turned off when located at such a position, the limitation is met.
In claim 14, the claim sets forth “wherein said articulated arm of said transfer device is constrained in a position between the dimensions of said bending unit and the dimensions of a feeding station arranged upstream, serving said bending unit to feed said bars therein”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim relative to what the feeding station is arranged upstream, i.e., a feeding station that is arranged upstream from or relative to what/where?
In claim 14, the claim sets forth “wherein said articulated arm of said transfer device is constrained in a position between the dimensions of said bending unit and the dimensions of a feeding station arranged upstream, serving said bending unit to feed said bars therein”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “serving said bending unit to feed said bars therein”, e.g., the articulated arm, the feeding station, etc. Additionally, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what/where “therein” is intended to refer in the limitation “serving said bending unit to feed said bars therein”.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, lines 6-7, the claim sets forth “a conveying device comprising an articulated arm constrained to a height below said work surface (α)”. However, as noted in a separate rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth hereinabove, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is meant by “arm constrained to a height below said work surface” (per the literal language of the claim), particularly noting that the disclosed articulated arm 51 is clearly not constrained or restricted to being kept at a height that is below the work surface (α). For example, see Figures 1-2 and 6-8, noting that the arm 51 is shown in these figures as having been moved to a position at which the arm 51 extends to a height that is above the work surface (α). That said, it does not appear that the specification as filed discloses “a conveying device comprising an articulated arm constrained to a height below said work surface (α)” in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof, noting that the specification as filed does not teach that the articulated arm (51) of the conveying device (50 or 50’ per paragraph [175], which elements 50, 50’ are also referenced as “transfer devices” throughout the specification) is “constrained to a height below said work surface” (α) as claimed, as opposed to the articulated arm (51) being constrained to the bending unit (41) (i.e., at an articulated joint located at constraint axis 54, shown in Figure 6) at a height that is below the work surface (α). See Figures 1-2 and 6-8 (particularly Figure 6), for example, as well as at least paragraphs [40], [111], [118], and [129], for example.
Additionally, in claim 8, the claim sets forth “wherein said gripping portion is obtained at least partially from a portion of said mandrel, opposite to said eccentric pin”. However, as noted in a separate rejection of claim 8 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth hereinabove, firstly, it is unclear as set forth in the claim (noting the use of the language “is obtained from”) whether such is intended to set forth a product-by-process limitation on the gripping portion, or whether such instead intends to be a structural limitation on the gripping portion, and additionally, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “opposite to said eccentric pin”, e.g., a portion of the mandrel (from which mandrel portion the gripping portion is somehow “obtained”), vs. a location of the gripping portion. That being said, it regardless of whether the limitation is intended to set forth a product-by-process limitation vs. whether the limitation is instead intended to be a structural limitation on the gripping portion, the specification as originally filed does not appear to disclose (in any manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof) that the gripping portion (47) is “obtained at least partially from” a portion of the mandrel” (42) as set forth in claim 8. See, for example, Figure 9, noting that the gripping portion (47) is not any part of the mandrel (42), as opposed to the mandrel (42) being mounted on a base (48) which base includes the gripping portion (47) (or potentially, which base 48 has the gripping portion 47 projecting therefrom). See also paragraphs [96]-[97], for example. While it is noted that paragraph [95] does teach that the gripping portion (47) can protrude from the mandrel (42), such still does not constitute a gripping portion (47) that is any part of the mandrel (42) itself (as opposed to being an element that extends from/projects from the mandrel (42)) re the limitation “said gripping portion is obtained at least partially from a portion of said mandrel” .
In claim 11, the claim sets forth “wherein said gripping member is a jaw member”. However, noting that claim 1 previously set forth that the gripping member is “movable between an open configuration for releasing and a closed configuration for holding”, (and as noted in a separate rejection of claim 11 hereinabove under 35 USC 112(b)), it is unclear as set forth in claim 11 how or in what regard a gripping member that “is” a jaw member (as opposed to a gripping member that comprises/includes a/one jaw member but isn’t limited to being the one jaw member) is to be considered to be movable between the claimed open and closed configurations. It is noted that the disclosed “gripping member” (52) is disclosed as being “preferably of the jaw type (see for example Fig. 6)” per paragraph [146], and is disclosed as “preferably” comprising “a pair of jaws 52a, at least one of which is movable relative to the other in a closing an opening motion, between an open configuration and a closed configuration” per paragraph [147], rather that the gripping member (52) being a (i.e., one) jaw member 52a.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 11-14, as best understood in view of the above rejection(s) based on 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0405746 to Stuflesser (hereinafter, “Stuflesser”).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Stuflesser teaches an apparatus (3; see Figures 1a-1b and paragraph 0063, for example) for bending bars (Stuflesser teaches that the material 4 can be in wire or rod form, for example, considered “bars”; see at least paragraphs 0001 and 0063, for example), comprising at least one bending unit (including, for example, at least supporting frame 18 and die receiver 13; see Figures 1a-1b, 2a, 3b, 4b, and paragraph 0063, for example) adapted to receive at least one said bar (of 4) on a work surface (such as, for example, the top surface of 13, labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 3b below as “WS”, and on which the bar is at least ultimately received when the bar 4 is fed to the bending element 5 so as to be bent into a stirrup 17; see Figures 1a-3b, as well as at least paragraphs 0063-0065, 0069, 0075-0080, 0082-0086, for example) “according to a longitudinal direction” (as broadly claimed; see particularly Figures 2a-3b, and most particularly Figure 2b, noting that a longitudinal axis of one portion of 4 extends vertically re the plane of Figure 2b and a longitudinal axis of another portion of 4 extends horizontally re the plane of Figure 2b), and a bending head (1) which can be engaged on said (aforedescribed) bending unit, “at” a bending axis (such as the center axis of bending roll 20; see, for example, Figures 2a-4b), said bending head (1) comprising a bending mandrel (20) and an eccentric pin (5) (see Figures 2a-4b, for example; see also at least paragraphs 0078-0080, 0084), rotatable on said work surface around said bending axis (paragraphs 0078-0080, 0084, Figures 2a-4b, for example), to bend said bar (4) around said mandrel (20) (see Figures 2a-4b and especially Figure 2b; see also paragraphs 0078-0080 and 0084, for example), and a conveying device (25) comprising an articulated arm (7 or one of the arm segments thereof; see Figures 1a-1b and paragraphs 0064, 0069-0073, for example) “constrained to a height” below said (aforedescribed) work surface (WS) (see Figures 1a-1b, and particularly 1a, as well as Figures 2a and 3b and 4b, noting that the bottom support mount/frame on which the aforedescribed arm is “constrained” is located at a height that is lower than the work surface WS) and a gripping member (48) articulated (at the joint labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 1a below as “X”) to said articulated arm “at” an orientation axis (as broadly claimed) (see Figures 1a-4b and at least paragraphs 0085-0086; for example, considering the arm segment of the robot 25 that is labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 1a below as AA1 to be the articulated arm, note that the gripping member 48 is articulated at least at ultimately at joint X to the arm AA1 “at” an orientation axis, as broadly claimed, such as “at” any axis extending through the gripping member 48 and the arm AA1, for example), said gripping member (48) being movable between an open configuration (i.e., when the jaws 49 are moved further away from one another) for releasing and a closed configuration (i.e., when the jaws 49 are moved closer together) for holding (see Figures 3b, 4b, and 5a, for example, as well as at least paragraphs 0085-0086, 0091, 0104, for example), characterized in that said bending head (1) comprises a gripping portion (i.e., the portion thereof that is gripped by 48; for example, see the gripping portion labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 3a below as “GP”, which is shown in at least Figures 3b and 4b being gripped by 48/49) configured to be held by said gripping member (48) (when the gripping member is) arranged in said closed configuration and “in that” said transfer device (25) is movable with a replacement motion between a first position in which said gripping member (48) is arranged in a closed configuration at said bending head (1) mounted on said bending unit (18/13), to hold said gripping portion (GP) (see Figure 4b, for example), and a second raised position (see Figure 3b, for example), in which said bending head (1) held by said gripping member (48) is drawn out from said (aforedescribed) work surface (WS) (as shown in Figure 3b; see also at least paragraphs 0085-0088, 0091, 0071, for example).
[AltContent: textbox (WS)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
426
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (X)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (AA1)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
360
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
306
494
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (GP)]
Regarding claim 2¸ Stuflesser teaches a magazine (34; see Figures 1a, 1b, and at least paragraph 0067) having at least one containment seat (the portions/seats of 34 at which the plural bending dies are received; see Figure 1a and paragraphs 0067, 0038, for example) for said bending head (1), said transfer device (25) being movable in said replacement motion from said second position to a third position in which said gripping member (48) is arranged at said magazine (34) to release said bending head in said containment seat (see claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8 of Stuflesser; see also Figures 1a-1b, 3b, and 4b, for example).
Regarding claim 3, said magazine (34) comprises a plurality of containment seats (the plural portions/seats for at which the bending dies are received; see Figure 1a and paragraphs 0067, 0038, for example) for “as many” spare bending heads (see paragraphs 0067, 0038, Figure 1a), said transfer device (25) being movable to take or insert said spare bending head (see claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8 of Stuflesser; see also Figures 1a-1b, 3b, and 4b, as well as paragraphs 0067 and 0038, for example).
Regarding claim 4, said magazine (34) “extends parallel” to said longitudinal direction (as broadly claimed, no particular longitudinal direction has been recited, nor has any particular axis or frame of reference of the magazine that extends parallel to such a longitudinal axis been specifically claimed; that being said, given that the magazine 34 is a three-dimensional object, there are an infinite number of axes that extend through the magazine 34, including ones that are parallel to, for example, a longitudinal axis of the bar 4, regardless of the orientation of the bar 4, and thus, the limitation is met; see Figure 1a, for example), being interposed between said feeding station (such as, for example, 11 and/or 8) and said bending unit (18/13) (see Figures 1a and 1b, noting that in the left/right horizontal direction, at least a portion of the magazine 34 is “between” 11 and a portion of 18/13).
Regarding claim 5, said (aforedescribed) gripping portion (GP) is made by means of a handle projecting transversely from said mandrel (20) (see Figure 3a, for example, noting that GP is a “handle” that projects transversely from/relative to the mandrel 20).
Regarding claim 6, said gripping portion (GP) has at least one recess (such as, for example, the internal corner/recess between projection Q3 and surface Q4, labeled in the annotated enlarged partial reproduction of Figure 5 below, or such as, for example, the inner corner/recess between projection Q1 and surface Q2) configured to be engaged by said gripping member (48). See, for example, Figures 4a, 4b, 5a, 3b.
[AltContent: textbox (E1)]
[AltContent: textbox (L1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (R)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Q4)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Q3)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Q2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Q1)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image4.png
428
390
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, said gripping portion (GP) comprises a pair of recesses (described above re claim 6) separated by a rib (labeled in the above enlarged partial reproduction of Figure 5 as “R”) shaped to be held by said gripping member (49) in said closed configuration. See, for example, Figures 4a, 4b, 5a, 3b.
Regarding claim 8 (as such is best understood in view of the above issues with respect to 35 USC 112), said gripping portion (GP) is “obtained” at least partially from a portion of said mandrel (20) (see Figure 5, noting that GP is adjacent to a portion of 20, and extends from the element labeled above as E1, similarly to how the gripping portion 47 of the present invention extends adjacent to the mandrel 42 from a member 48 that is in contact with the mandrel 42, as shown in present application Figure 9), “opposite to” said eccentric pin (5). See Figure 3a of Stuflesser, noting that the gripping portion (GP) is “opposite” to the eccentric pin (5), at least in that GP is below the line labeled above as L1, whereas the eccentric pin (5) is above the line labeled above as L1, i.e., GP and 5 are on opposite sides of line L1, for example.
Regarding claim 11, said gripping member (48) “is” a jaw member (49), configured to engage said gripping portion (GP). See Figures 3a-4b and paragraphs 0085-0086, for example.
Regarding claim 12, said gripping member (48) and said gripping portion (49) have an at least partially conjugate sectional profile. See Figures 3a-5a.
Regarding claim 13, said transfer device (25) is configured to hold one or more said bars (4) (when the gripping member 48 is) in said closed configuration, being also movable with a transfer motion to transfer said retained bars from and/or to said bending unit (18/13). See, for example, Figures 1a-1b and at least paragraphs 0063-0065, 0069, 0071-0073, as well as claims 1-5 and 7-9 of Stuflesser, for example.
Regarding claim 14, said (aforedescribed) articulated arm of said transfer device (25) is “constrained” in a position between the dimensions of said bending unit (13/18) and the dimensions of a feeding station (such as the reels of 4 shown in Figure 1b) arranged upstream, serving said bending unit (13/18) to feed said bars (4) therein. See at least Figure 1b, as well as paragraphs 0063, 0069, 0071, for example.
Comment Regarding Non-Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
A thorough search has been conducted re the elected invention/claims. That being said, though no art rejections are considered to presently apply to claims 9-10, no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of elected claims 9-10 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 USC 112(a), set forth above, particularly given that is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issues with respect to 35 USC 112(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0010084 teaches a bending device that utilizes tooling having a bending mandrel and eccentric pin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
September 30, 2026
