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 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.
Claim 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 25-27 recite "at least one moving away position from said second profiled element and at least one moving close position to said second profiled element". It is unclear how the two recited positions can be defined in terms of whether there is movement away or movement close to the second profiled element. Furthermore, the term “close position” is a subjective and relative term which further renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Dependent claims fall herewith.
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 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 functional claim limitations that use the word “means” or 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 limitations are:
First and second retaining means
Movement assembly
Movement unit
Synchronization mechanism
Guiding means
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach, suggest, or render obvious a machine for the welding of profiled elements made of plastic material, with at least one welding device comprising:
first retaining means associated with said base frame and adapted to retain one of the profiled elements with said areas to be welded facing each other;
at least one movement assembly for said first retaining means;
at least one movement unit associated with said base frame and adapted to move said heating plate along said direction of work (W) between said first operating position and said second operating position;
at least one synchronization mechanism positioned between said movement assembly and said movement unit and adapted to move said first retaining means at the same time as said heating plate along said direction of work;
in combination with the other limitations in the claim.
Quinn (US Patent 4,909,892), Soenen (EP 3403809A1), Ganzberger (US Patent 5,125,495), and Hollinger (DE 10033225A1) are the closest prior art of record.
Quinn teaches a machine for the welding (Figs. 1-13) with a supporting base (Figs. 12-13) and a welding device comprising:
a base frame (100, 106 in Fig. 12) associated with the base;
first and second retaining means (30H, 30H’ in Figs. 2-3);
at least one heating plate (40 in Fig. 5).
Soenen teaches a machine for welding with a welding device (Fig. 1) comprising:
first retaining means for the first profiled element and second retaining means for the second profiled element (retaining means 16 and 18) and adapted to retain said profiled elements with said areas to be welded facing each other (as shown in Fig. 1);
at least one heating plate associated with said base frame and adapted to heat said areas to be welded (22), movable between at least one home position, wherein it is moved away from said profiled elements, a first operating position, wherein it is positioned between said areas to be welded, and a second operating position, wherein it is in contact with said areas to be welded (as shown by upper arrow H in Fig. 1);
at least one movement assembly for said first retaining means (39) and adapted to displace said first profiled element along at least one direction of work (W) substantially parallel to the longitudinal direction of said second profiled element (as shown by arrows R in Fig. 1)
at least one movement unit (24) and adapted to move said heating plate along a horizontal direction, not along said work direction, between said first operating position and said second operating position (as shown by lower arrow H in Fig. 1);
wherein said movement assembly or said movement unit comprises at least one motorized actuator (39 and 24 are motors per para. 0050).
Furthermore, Soenen does not teach or suggest at least one synchronization mechanism positioned between said movement assembly and said movement unit and adapted to move said first retaining means at the same time as said heating plate along said direction of work.
Ganzberger teaches a feeding device for a post-welding corner finishing machine comprising a synchronization mechanism with piston/cylinder units, support arms, and a connecting rod or other alternative structures (col. 2, lines 61-68) for effecting movement of the support arms between said horizontal and angled position (claims 1) in order to rotate welded profile elements of a frame article (abstract, claim 1), but does not teach or suggest the synchronization mechanism is positioned between said movement assembly and said movement unit and adapted to move said first retaining means at the same time as said heating plate along said direction of work.
Hollinger teaches a machine for welding with a welding device (Figs. 1-3) comprising a pair of synchronization mechanisms (Fig. 3) for moving, pivoting, and aligning first and second retaining means at a welding point (claims 2-12 and 16), but does not teach or suggest the synchronization mechanism is positioned between said movement assembly and said movement unit and adapted to move said first retaining means at the same time as said heating plate along said direction of work.
The closest prior art references do not teach or render obvious, alone or in combination, the features listed above for claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 571-272-1095. 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.
/JIMMY R SMITH JR./Examiner, Art Unit 1745