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 .
1.Claims 34, 39 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 34, line 2, the meaning of “extends along the body” is indefinite as it is not clear what is being specified. Since the subassemblies are located above the body, neither of them would actually “extend along” the body. Also, the guide and the gripper are located at different positions along the axis of the helical geometry of the screw, and hence would be located in different positions with respect to the body into which the screw is being inserted. Applicant needs to clarify exactly what is meant by “extends along the body”. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that any guide or gripper structure located above the body “extends along the body”. Claim 39, line 3, --and—should be inserted after “gripper”, first occurrence. Claim 42 is indefinite in further defining the material worked on, which is not part of the assembly since the assembly does not know what material is being used therein. In essence, claim 42 fails to further limit the assembly in a structural sense. Also, at line 2 of the claim, --hardening— should be inserted after “before”. Finally, it is unclear how the timber element relates to the claimed viscous materials being worked on. Timber is generally not considered to be viscous or pliable. Is the timber incorporated into each of the viscous/pliable materials?
2.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) 26-29, 31-34, 40 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by European Patent Application 3,656,542 (see paragraphs 0017, 0022, 0023, 0030, 0039 and 0041; see 12-14 in Fig. 3).
European -542 (see Fig. 3) discloses the instant assembly for guiding a body (11) having a helical geometry (paragraph 0022, see “screw-like winded structure”) into a viscous, pliable or solidifying material (10), the body clearly having an insertion end and configured to enter into the material at an insertion point, the assembly comprising two roller pair actuators (13, 14) which would be readable on the instant guide subassembly (14) and gripper subassembly (13) which are configured to guide the body (11) along the axis thereof and grip the body. Since the body is screw-like, it would inherently have a pitch and it clearly has an axis along which the helical or screw structure extends. Further, it is submitted that at least one motor would be required to drive the actuators, and hence a motor to translate the body (11) and rotate same as taught in paragraphs 0017 and 0022, respectively, would be inherent in the operation of the actuators. The aspect of the motor being configured to synchronize the translation and rotation as set forth in the last two lines of instant claim 26 is submitted to constitute a functional limitation which the structure of EP -542 is inherently capable of performing. Ie, the motor, which is inherent in the operation of the actuators of EP -542, would inherently be capable of synchronous translation and rotation of the helical body (11) during its insertion into material (10) and hence instant claim 26 is submitted to be anticipated by EP -542. The applied reference teaches 2 roller pairs –4 rollers total—that would be arranged as set forth in instant claim 27. The (inherent) motor of EP -542 meets instant claim 28 and the actuators (13, 14) in Fig. 3 of the reference meet instant claim 29. It is submitted that the “screw-like winded structure” taught at paragraph 0022 of EP -542 meets instant claims 31-33. The actuators—ie, guide and gripper subassembly 13 and 14—are located above the body (10) and hence are submitted to meet instant claim 34—see paragraph 1, supra. Instant claim 40 is shown in Figure 3 of the applied reference, given that actuator 13 constitutes a gripper and actuator 14 constitutes a guide. It is submitted that instant claim 42 constitutes a matter of material worked on by an apparatus. The material is not part of the apparatus and since the apparatus does not “know” how it is being used, it is submitted that the structure of EP -542 is inherently capable of working on the instant material.
3.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) 30, 35-39 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over European Patent Application 3,656,542.
EP -542 discloses the basic claimed assembly as set forth in paragraph 2, supra, the applied reference lacking merely certain aspects that are submitted to be obvious and well within the skill level of the art. The exact distance of the first (guide) position above the material as set forth in instant claim 30 is submitted to have been obvious dependent on the length of the helical body being inserted into the material. The use of two motors as recited in claim 35 would have been an obvious aspect in order to control each actuator individually as would be conventional in the art. Employing a driver as set forth in instant claims 36 and 37 would have been an obvious modification to the structure of the applied reference to facilitate inserting the screw. Powered screwdrivers are nothing but conventional in the art and Official Notice is hereby taken of this. It is submitted that the release of the body from the guide and gripper subassembly as set forth in instant claims 38 and 39 would have been an obvious modification to the operation of the device of EP -542 upon incorporation of a driver for the screw to facilitate the driving thereof. Employing a sliding unit with a guide rail as set forth in instant claim 41 would have been an obvious modification to the structure of EP -542 as such constitutes a conventional mechanical motive device to facilitate motion of a machine part.
4.Claim(s) 26-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over European Patent Application 3,656,542 in view of the article to Hass et al entitled “Binding and Pull-Out Tests on a Novel Screw Type Reinforcement for Extrusion-Based 3D Printed Concrete” as noted at page 2, lines 4-6 of the instant specification.
EP -542 discloses the basic claimed assembly as set forth in paragraphs 2 and 3, supra, the primary reference essentially lacking a teaching of the motor being configured to synchronize the translation and rotation of the body as set forth in instant claim 26 and method claim 43. The article to Hass et al clearly teaches this limitation in the insertion of a screw into a viscous, pliable or solidifying concrete material—see the entire document and in particular the second paragraph of page 4. In the event that the anticipation rejection of instant claim 26 is not agreed with, it clearly would have been obvious to have configured a motor to synchronize the translation and rotation of the inserted helical body in the apparatus of EP -542 as taught by Hass et al to facilitate the insertion and provide for a higher pull-out force of the body as disclosed in Hass et al –see the Abstract. Hass et al also teaches that such an operation would be “robotically controlled” in the last line of the second paragraph at page 4. A robot would conventionally have a motor or some mechanical motive means to operate, and clearly the operation would have been synchronized as set forth in instant claim 26. Method claim 43 would be rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claim 26, in that it sets forth the same structure and mode of operation recited in the instant apparatus. Instant claims 44 and 45 are rejected for reasons of record as set forth in paragraph 2, supra, with respect to claims 27 and 29, respectively.
5.The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Coulas et al discloses induction heating a helical rotor wherein the heating proceeds by synchronizing the translational and rotational speed of the rotor in the instant manner—see the Abstract. British Patent Application teaches a method of setting helical anchoring bolts in concrete.
6.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHIEU D VARGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1211. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9 to 6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina A Johnson, can be reached at telephone number 571 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MATHIEU D VARGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
