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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, “the surface of the cylindrical body” should be “a surface of the cylindrical body.” 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.
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.
Here, in Claim 1, “coupling means” was not interpreted under 35 USC 112F, as the generic place holder “means” was modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function, such that the third prog of the test, above, is not met. Namely, a plurality of holding assemblies each having a retractable insert configured to protrude from the surface of the cylindrical body.
Here, in Claim 1, “valve means’ to control the fluid was not interpreted under 35 USC 112F, as the term “valve” provides sufficient structure for performing the claimed function, such that the third prong of the test, above, is not met.
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 1-5 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, “its longitudinal axis,” is indefinite. It is unclear what “its” is referring to. The claims were interpreted as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 1, “being operable through a pneumatic system supplied by a pressurized fluid,” is indefinite. It is unclear what is being operable though a pneumatic system the holding assemblies or the retractable insert. The claims were interpreted at “the holding assemblies being operable through a pneumatic system supplied by a pressurized fluid,” The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 1, “characterized in that the pneumatic system comprises a plurality of supply branches provided for pressurized fluid conduction to the retractable inserts,” is indefinite. It is unclear how many supply branches are required by the claims. As best understood, “a supply branch [1st supply branch] acts on a plurality of retractable inserts present in a first zone defined by a radial half of the cylindrical body, while a second and third zones of retractable inserts defined by radial portions present in the other half of the cylindrical body are supplied by supply branches [2nd and 3rd supply branches], “ require 3 supply branches. A first supply branch for the first zone; a second supply branch for the second zone; and a third supply branch for the third zone. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 1, “wherein valve means are provided linked to a control unit to control the fluid flow, such that through the valve means the pressurized fluid supply is selectively sent to one or more supply branches to operate the retractable inserts of the corresponding zones,” is indefinite. As best understood, the claim allows for the valve means (a valve) to send more than one supply branch to a single zone. As best understood, the each zone only has a single supply branch. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 3, “characterized in that the pneumatic system has two pressurized fluid inlet supply branches, one of them being linked to the first zone and the second supply branch linked to the second and third zones,” is indefinite. It is unclear what ‘them” is referring to. Additionally, it is unclear if the first pressurized fluid inlet supply branch is “linked” directly to the first zone separate from the supply branch or is the first pressurized fluid inlet supply branch linked to the supply branch of the first zone. It is unclear of the second pressurized fluid inlet supply branch is liked directly to the second and third zones or if the second pressurized fluid inlet supply branch is connected to the second and third zones by way of the “supply branches.” The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 4, “characterized in that the pneumatic system comprises three pressurized fluid inlet supply branches, each of the supply branches being in fluid communication with a respective zone,” is indefinite. As best understood, Claim 4 requires a pressurized fluid inlet supply branch for each zone. As best understood, Claim 1 requires a supply branch for each zone. It is unclear if the pressurized fluid inlet supply branch for each zone is separate from the supply branch for each zone or if the pressurized fluid inlet supply branch for each zone is part of the supply branch for each zone. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate 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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,171,885 to Obiol in view of US 6,716,017 to Papadopoulas.
In re Claim 1, Obiol teaches a die-holding cylinder (see assembly in Fig. 1,) for a laminate die-cutting machine(see Fig. 2), comprising a cylindrical body (see Figs. 1-2, #2) provided for rotation about its longitudinal axis, and coupling means (see Figs. 1-8, #7/#3) provided for coupling to dies consisting of a plurality of holding assemblies (see e.g., Fig. 2, illustrating a plurality of #3) each having a retractable insert configured to protrude from the surface of the cylindrical body (see Fig. 1, #7/3 in view of Figs. 5-8), being operable through a pneumatic system supplied by a pressurized fluid (see Fig. 1, duct #12 which provides pressurized air – see also Col. 3, ll. 3-12), characterized in that the pneumatic system comprises a plurality of supply branches provided for pressurized fluid conduction to the retractable inserts (each of the pneumatic cylinders #5 have a supply line or supply branch which connects to the duct #12),
As best understood, Obiol does not teach in such a way that a supply branch acts on a plurality of retractable inserts present in a first zone defined by a radial half of the cylindrical body, while a second and third zones of retractable inserts defined by radial portions present in the other half of the cylindrical body are supplied by supply branches, wherein valve means are provided linked to a control unit to control the fluid flow, such that through the valve means the pressurized fluid supply is selectively sent to one or more supply branches to operate the retractable inserts of the corresponding zones.
In other words, Obiol does not teach a system with three different zones with a valves that operate the different zones. The claims were examined as best understood.
However, Papadopoulas teaches that it is known in the art of securing plates to rotating cylinders to provide different zones (see Papadopoulas, Figs. 14-15, showing three different plates each secured by way of different pneumatic zones) with different air pathways with valves (see Papadopoulas, Fig. 15, showing three different supply branches #138 with a valves #137 controlling each “zone”). In the same field of invention, securing plates to rotating cylinders, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide different “zones” to the pneumatic system of Obiol. Doing so allows the user to secure different plates to different areas of the device, thus allowing the user to secure one plate to the device before securing the second plate to the device.
In re Claim 4, modified Obiol, in re Claim 1, teaches characterized in that the pneumatic system comprises three pressurized fluid inlet supply branches (see annotated Fig. 15, below), each of the supply branches being in fluid communication with a respective zone.
PNG
media_image1.png
650
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 5, modified Obiol, in re Claim 1, teaches characterized in that the retractable inserts are distributed on the body surface of the cylinder in a plurality of alignments running parallel to each other (see Obiol, Fig. 2, #3 in view of Fig. 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,171,885 to Obiol in view of US 6,716,017 to Papadopoulas, and further in view of US 4,561,355 to Cuir.
In re Claim 2, modified Obiol, in re Claim 1, is silent as to the valve means comprise at least one non-return valve and a switch operable by means of a manually operated lever.
However, Cuir teaches that it is known in the art to provide a non-return valve in the system for fixing a plate on a cylinder (see Cuir, Fig. 2, #17, and Col. 2, ll. 18-21). In the same field of invention, a system for fixing a plate on a cylinder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add a non-return valve to the system of modified Obiol. Doing so prevents inadvertent entry of air after stopping the vacuum pump, thereby maintaining pressure in the system, even in a power failure situation (see Cuir, Col. 2, ll. 18-21).
Additionally, Cuir teaches that it is known in the art to provide a switch (see Cuir, Fig. 2, common lever #28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to utilize a manual switch or handle in the pneumatic system of modified Obiol. Doing so allows the user to control the device. Manual controls allow the user to visually see if the device is on or off.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,171,885 to Obiol in view of US 6,716,017 to Papadopoulas, and further in view of US 2009/0320705 to Koblinger.
In re Claim 3, modified Obiol, in re Claim 1, teaches the pneumatic system has a pressurized fluid inlet supply branch being linked to the first zone (see Obiol, Fig. 1, #12 and Col. 3, ll. 3-12 teaching a line of pressurized air connected to the duct #12). Modified Obiol, in re Claim 1, does not teach a second supply branch linked to the second and third zones. However, Koblinger teaches that it is known in the art of providing air to cylinders to provide multiple branches to the cylinder (see Koblinger, Fig. 11, #31/31/31). In 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 separate the “zones” of modified Obiol and to provide different air lines to the second and third zone. Doing so would allow the second and third zones to work when the first zone is damaged. In addition, if the second and third zones were damaged the first zone would work. This makes the device more versatile.
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