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 .
Specification
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to Chinese Patent Application No. 202123269571.X is ineffective because the incorporation by reference was filed after the PCT date of 12/19/2022 which considered the filing date of the US application. As such, the incorporation by reference statement must be removed, as it introduces new matter by being filed after the filing date of the application.
See MPEP §608.01(p) I B: “For the incorporation by reference to be effective as a proper safeguard, the incorporation by reference statement must be filed at the time of filing of the later-filed application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date”;
MPEP 1893.03(b): “An international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. Often the date of entry into the national stage is confused with the filing date. It should be borne in mind that the filing date of the international stage application is also the filing date for the national stage application. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 363 provides that An international application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under Article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office”, and
MPEP 714.01(e): “A preliminary amendment filed with a submission to enter the national stage of an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371 is not part of the original disclosure under 37 CFR 1.115(a) because it was not present on the international filing date accorded to the application under PCT Article 11.” as well as:
PCT Article 11(3) - “...an international filing date shall have the effect of a regular national application in each designated State as of the international filing date, which date shall be considered to be the actual filing date in each designated State.”
The specification amendment filed 06/22/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the incorporation by reference to Chinese Patent Application No. 202123269571.X.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
In claims 2 and 13, consider -- an outer diameter of the rear stop portion gradually increases in [[a]] the front-to-rear direction, and a front end of the rear stop portion extends to a front end of the rear stop sleeve--, as the front-to-rear direction was already recited earlier in the claim.
In claims 5 and 15 consider -- disposed on a[[n]] front end of the front stop sleeve--.
In claims 11 and 20, consider -- at least two support rods, disposed side by side on [[the]] a front end face of the second mounting plate, and disposed below the rotating shaft; wherein the at least two support rods extend along the central line direction of the rotating shaft, and a preset gap exists between any two support rods of the at least two support rods--
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:
“front stop fixing assembly” in claim 5, corresponding to front stop fixing assembly including a screw 331, a stop block 332 and a locking nut 333.
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.
Sufficient structure is recited with respect to the front stop fixing assembly in claims 6, 7, 15, 16, that a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) would apply. Furthermore, despite the term “a cutting device” in claim 12 reciting the nonce term “device” it is recited with sufficient structure (a wire wound on the cutting device) that a 35 USC 112(f) interpretation would not apply.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abe (JP 2000317805 A)
With respect to claim 1, Abe discloses A wire take-up and pay-off device ([0001], for feeding and winding up wire) comprising: a wire take-up and pay-off driver (motor at flange 90 connected with bolts 91, fig. 4, [0005]), a rotating shaft (82, fig. 4; [0004]) a rear end of the rotating shaft is connected with the wire take-up and pay-off driver (motor at flange 90 with bolts 91, fig. 4 [0005]); a front stop sleeve (92,fig. 4; [0006]) fixedly sleeved on a front end of the rotating shaft and rotating synchronously with the rotating shaft (integration as in [0007], as it is and fixed via nut 96 ); a rear stop sleeve (90, fig. 4; [0005]), fixedly sleeved on the rear end of the rotating shaft and rotating synchronously with the rotating shaft (fixed via positioning pin 93, fig. 4; [0005]) and a wire roller, fixedly sleeved outside of the front stop sleeve and the rear stop sleeve (wire roller 86, fig. 4; [0004], it is, as in fig. 4 outside of the front stop sleeve and rear stop sleeve) and rotating synchronously with the front stop sleeve and the rear stop sleeve (because the front and rear stop sleeves are in contact, they can rotate together when shaft 82 is driven).
PNG
media_image1.png
613
1205
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 4 (Abe)
With respect to claim 2, Abe discloses the limitation of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein a front stop portion is disposed on a periphery of the front stop sleeve (inclined bolded part in ann. fig. 4 above); an outer diameter of the front stop portion gradually decreases in a front-to-rear direction (inclined part or front stop portion in ann. fig. 4 above; gradually interpreted to be consistent with instant figures), and a rear end of the front stop portion extends to a rear end of the front stop sleeve (ann. fig. 4, the front stop portion terminates at the right side of the front stop sleeve); and a rear stop portion is disposed on a periphery of the rear stop sleeve (ann. fig. 4, bolded area); and an outer diameter of the rear stop portion gradually increases in a front-to-rear direction (inclined part of rear stop portion in ann. fig. 4 above; gradually interpreted to be consistent with instant figures), and a front end of the rear stop portion extends to a front end of the rear stop sleeve (left side of rear stop sleeve, surface intersects with rear stop portion); an inner wall of a front end of the wire roller is configured with a surface that matches and contacts the front stop portion (see contact in ann. fig. 4 between the front end of the roller and the front stop sleeve, with a matching shape), and an inner wall of a rear end of the wire roller is configured with a surface that matches and contacts the rear stop portion (see contact in ann. fig. 4 between the rear end of the roller and the rear stop sleeve, with a matching shape); and the front end of the wire roller is sleeved outside the front stop portion, and the rear end of the wire roller is sleeved outside the rear stop portion (the roller is sleeved with a greater diameter than the front stop portion and the rear stop portion).
With respect to claim 5, Abe discloses the limitation of claim 2 above and further discloses wherein the wire take-up and pay-off device further comprises: a front stop sleeve fixing assembly, disposed on a front end of the front stop sleeve and used for fixing the front stop sleeve (nut 96, fig. 4 as described in [0006-0007]; 112(f) equivalent as it fixes and attaches the front sleeve 92)
With respect to claim 8, Abe discloses the limitation of claim 2 above and further discloses wherein the wire take-up and pay-off device further comprises: a support sleeve, sleeved on the rotating shaft and disposed between the front stop sleeve and the rear stop sleeve; wherein the support sleeve is in clearance fit with the wire roller (support sleeve 84, fig. 4, [0004], which is fitted around shaft 82, and has a gap [clearance fit] to roller 86, and part of it is between the front stop sleeve 92 and the rear stop sleeve 90).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (JP 2000317805 A), and further in view of Zhang (CN 111441113 A)
With respect to claim 3, Abe teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the wire take-up and pay-off device further comprises: an expansion sleeve, tightly sleeved between the rear stop sleeve and the rotating shaft.
Zhang, reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved of attaching/assembling a sleeve to a rotating shaft ([0007]) teaches of an expansion sleeve (expansion sleeve as tensioning elastic sheet 7, fig. 1, [0017,0019]), tightly sleeved between the rear stop sleeve (analogous sleeve 4, fig. 1, beneath roller 5, fig. 1; [0017]) and the rotating shaft (shaft 2 in hole 12, fig. 1; [0017]). Zhang teaches that the elastic sheet saves time during assembly of the roller with its tight contact ([0010]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abe with the expansion sleeve of Zhang, for the purpose of saving labor during assembly with tight contact.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (JP 2000317805 A), and further in view of Oishi (US 6237585 B1).
With respect to claim 12, Abe discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses a slicing machine, comprising: the wire take-up and pay-off device as claimed in claim 1 (addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a cutting wire is wound on the wire take-up and pay-off device ([0003], the bobbin is used for winding wires) however does not explicitly disclose a cutting device, and a cutting wire is wound on the wire take-up and pay-off device the cutting device (the examiner notes that the embodiment referenced in the rejection of claim 1 is a conventional reel used for a cutting device, and the cutting device disclosed in Abi is with respect to the disclosed improved reel). Oishi, in the same field of endeavor, related to abrasive cutting (abstract), teaches of a cutting device with a cutting wire wound around it (rollers 1, 2, and 3, fig. 2 with wire 5 to cut workpiece 9, pulled out of reel 6, col 1 lines 19-35). Oishi teaches that this accommodates demand for large wafers (col 1 lines 9-16).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Abe, and used the wire take-up and pay-off device together with the cutting device of Oishi, to accommodate demand for large wafers.
With respect to claim 13, Abe, as modified, teaches the limitation of claim 12 above and further teaches wherein a front stop portion is disposed on a periphery of the front stop sleeve (Abe, inclined bolded part in ann. fig. 4 above); an outer diameter of the front stop portion gradually decreases in a front-to-rear direction (Abe, inclined part or front stop portion in ann. fig. 4 above; gradually interpreted to be consistent with instant figures), and a rear end of the front stop portion extends to a rear end of the front stop sleeve (Abe, ann. fig. 4, the front stop portion terminates at the right side of the front stop sleeve); and a rear stop portion is disposed on a periphery of the rear stop sleeve (Abe, ann. fig. 4, bolded area); and an outer diameter of the rear stop portion gradually increases in a front-to-rear direction (Abe, inclined part of rear stop portion in ann. fig. 4 above; gradually interpreted to be consistent with instant figures), and a front end of the rear stop portion extends to a front end of the rear stop sleeve (Abe, left side of rear stop sleeve, surface intersects with rear stop portion); an inner wall of a front end of the wire roller is configured with a surface that matches and contacts the front stop portion (Abe, see contact in ann. fig. 4 between the front end of the roller and the front stop sleeve, with a matching shape), and an inner wall of a rear end of the wire roller is configured with a surface that matches and contacts the rear stop portion (Abe, see contact in ann. fig. 4 between the rear end of the roller and the rear stop sleeve, with a matching shape); and the front end of the wire roller is sleeved outside the front stop portion, and the rear end of the wire roller is sleeved outside the rear stop portion (Abe, the roller is sleeved with a greater diameter than the front stop portion and the rear stop portion).
With respect to claim 17, Abe as modified, teaches the limitation of claim 12 above and further teaches a support sleeve, sleeved on the rotating shaft and disposed between the front stop sleeve and the rear stop sleeve; wherein the support sleeve is in clearance fit with the wire roller (Abe, support sleeve 84, fig. 4, [0004], which is fitted around shaft 82, and has a gap [clearance fit] to roller 86, and part of it is between the front stop sleeve 92 and the rear stop sleeve 90).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4,6-7,9-11,14-16 and 18-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
With respect to claims 4 and 14, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious the claimed arrangement (as a while with all of the limitations of the claim and the intervening claims) with “wherein an inner diameter of the front end of the rear stop sleeve is greater than an inner diameter of a rear end of the rear stop sleeve; the expansion sleeve is disposed between the front end of the rear stop sleeve and the rotating shaft; and the rear end of the rear stop sleeve is in contact with the rotating shaft”. Miyoshi (JP H11198021 A) is representative of the state of the art. Miyoshi provides for an analogous “expansion sleeve” as recited in the claim, however, it can not be said that “the rear end of the rear stop sleeve is in contact with the rotating shaft”, given that a sleeve 16 is not in contact with the rotating shaft, and that the front/rear stop portion does not contact the wire roller. Cai (CN 208265488 U), is also similar, and provides for an arrangement with a bearing (14) in contact with a shaft, where a diameter of an analogous rear stop sleeve (1) decreases, however, the bearing can not be said to be in tightly sleeved as it allows sliding movement, and the rear stop sleeve is not in contact with the rotating shaft.
With respect to claims 6 and 15, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious the claimed arrangement (as a while with all of the limitations of the claim and the intervening claims) for the front stop fixing assembly. Abe, cited above, provides for a front stop fixing assembly with a nut 96 and spacer 94, however lacks a screw, stop block that is sleeved on the screw and limited in a mounting groove by a stop edge, and where the locking nut is disposed on a front end of the stop block and being in threaded fit with the screw. The state of the art includes Jang (KR 101064875 B1), which also lacks all of the limitations of claims 6 and 15, and in particular, lacks both a threaded screw and locking nut. Claims 7 and 16 require all of the limitations of claim 6 and 15 and is, thus also allowable.
With respect to claims 9 and 18, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious the claimed arrangement (as a while with all of the limitations of the claim and the intervening claims) for the motor fixing frame. The current state of the art includes Zhao (CN 103737132 B), which lacks both a first mounting disposed on a side surface of the wire take-up and pay-off driver and the wire take-up and pay-off driver is mounted on the first mounting plate by a fixing base and where the first mounting plate is parallel to a central line direction of the rotating shaft. Wang (CN 106182472 A) provides for two right angle plates holding the roller, however lacks specific definition of the placement of a wire take-up and pay-off driver. The examiner has also considered Gong (CN 112590033 A), which could be overcome if the applicant demonstrates that the 35 USC 102(b)(1) exceptions apply and if foreign priority was perfected, however it also lacks both a first mounting disposed on a side surface of the wire take-up and pay-off driver and the wire take-up and pay-off driver is mounted on the first mounting plate by a fixing base as the driver 51 appears spaced from plate 53, with no fixing base. Claims 10-11 and 19-20 require all of the limitations of claim 9 and 18 and is, thus also allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights