DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
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: a plurality of pressing portions in claim 1; an interlocking mechanism in claim 1; and a movement mechanism in claim 8. The plurality of pressing portion appears to be described in paragraph [0036]. The interlocking mechanism appears to be described in paragraph [0038]. The movement mechanism appears to be described in paragraph [0026].
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.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites “wherein the treatment portion is a brush portion including a brush extending toward the treatment target surface” at lines 1-3. It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would interpret this limitation where the treatment target surface is not present.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 6
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by International Patent Application Publication WO 2013/007260 to Hansen et al. (hereinafter “Hansen”).
Regarding claim 1, Hansen discloses a pressing device (8; see Fig. 2), comprising: a plurality of pressing portions (30) each configured to generate a pressing force (see page 11, lines 28-30) toward a treatment surface (in upward direction to bear on pressing tool; compare Figs. 3a and 3b) facing in a first direction (vertical direction in Figs. 2, 3a, 3b) and arranged in a direction (see Fig. 2; directions along top surface of device) intersecting the first direction (vertical direction of device); and an interlocking mechanism (coupling means 44 and control unit 22; see page 3, lines 23-32) configured to interlock the plurality of pressing portions (30) and control a pressing amount of each of the pressing portions in the first direction (see page 7, line 30 – page 8, line 8).
Regarding claim 6, Hansen discloses a treatment device (1), comprising: the pressing device (see Fig. 2) of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and a treatment portion (upper surface at 66; see Fig. 3a) configured to treat the treatment target surface (pressing tool; see page 7, lines 20-23 and page 7, line 30 – page 8, line 8) by being applied with the pressing force in the first direction (vertical direction) and pressed against the treatment target surface by the pressing portions (top surface 66).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3 and 5
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2002/0062676 to Yashima et al. (hereinafter “Yashima”).
Regarding claim 2, Hansen discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Hansen discloses that each of the pressing portions (30) is a fluid device (page 9, lines 1-6 and page 12, lines 21 - 31) configured to be deformed by a pressure of an internal fluid to generate the pressing force in the first direction (pressurized fluid), and the interlocking mechanism (control unit 22) includes a fluid supply portion (see page 10, lines 15-19) configured to supply a fluid to a plurality of the fluid devices (30). Hansen does not explicitly disclose a plurality of speed control valves.
However, it is known in the art of pressing devices to provide speed control valves. For example, Yashima teaches a press apparatus (1) having a plurality of pressing members (2). The press apparatus is provided with speed control valves (7) which may provide control by opening and closing (see paragraph [0029]). The speed control valves allow fluid flow to a plurality of fluid devices (pressure cylinders 2 are connected to hydraulic pump; see paragraph [0024]) to allow a predetermined pressure to be supplied to the fluid devices (2). Yashima teaches that its pressing device can be adjusted to produce a predetermined desired pressure (see paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Hansen to include a conventional fluid control mechanism, such as the speed control valves taught by Yashima. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting apparatus would predictably allow for control of fluid pressure within the apparatus in a predictable manner while facilitating actuation of the fluid controlled devices within the pressing system in a conventional manner while producing a desired pressure.
Thus, the combination of Hansen and Yashima teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hansen and Yashima teaches the limitations of claim 2, and further Hansen teaches that the fluid device (page 9, lines 1-6 and page 12, lines 21 - 31) is a fluid cylinder configured to expand and contract in the first direction (see Figs. 3a and 3b) by the pressure of the internal fluid to generate the pressing force in the first direction while expanding.
Regarding claim 5, Hansen discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Hansen discloses that each of the pressing portions (30) is an actuator configured to be operated by electric power (see page 8, lines 17-20) to generate the pressing force in the first direction (pressing units 24 may be controlled using the electrical power), and the interlocking mechanism (control unit 22) includes a power supply unit (page 3, lines 19-21) configured to supply electric power to a plurality of the actuators.
Hansen does not explicitly disclose that there is a sensor provided for each of the actuators and configured to detect a separation distance between the actuators and the treatment target surface.
Yashima teaches a pressing device (1) having a plurality of pressing members (2). Yashima teaches that the position of the pressing members may be determined using a position sensor (4) to detect a position between the pressing members (2) and a workpiece to ensure that the press device matches a desired pressing motion during use of the press (see paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Hansen to include a position sensor for each of the actuators configured to detect the position of the pressing members relative to the workpiece, as taught by Yashima. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). Advantageously, the resulting apparatus would allow for improved feedback and predictable forcing of the pressing members during use to output a desired pressing force (see paragraph [0034] of Yashima).
Thus, the combination of Hansen and Yashima teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hansen and Yashima as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0282142 to Toler et al. (hereinafter “Toler”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hansen and Yashima teaches the limitations of claim 2, and further Hansen teaches that the fluid device (page 9, lines 1-6 and page 12, lines 21 – 31) configured to expand and contract by the pressure of the internal fluid to generate the pressing force in the first direction while expanding.
The combination does not explicitly disclose that the fluid device is a bag. However, it is known in the art of pressing devices to provide pressing members which are bags.
For example, Toler teaches a lifting device (103) having a pressing surface (uppermost surface). The pressing surface is shown as a scissor lift, but may be an air bag lift (see paragraph [0020]) for applying a pressing force to a workpiece atop the pressing surface using fluid pressure.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the pressing device taught by the combination of Hansen and Yashima to include another conventional pressing member, such as an air bag pressing member, as taught by Toler. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting apparatus would result in a pressing device having air bag surfaces at the pressing portions for applying a force to a workpiece. The resulting apparatus would be reasonably expected to apply a force to an object positioned at the pressing surface, in a predictable manner.
Thus, the combination of Hansen, Yashima, and Toler teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8-9 are 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:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “wherein the treatment portion is a brush portion including a brush extending toward the treatment target surface and configured to apply a sealing material to the treatment target surface” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. The examiner notes that the treatment target surface is not understood to be positively required as part of the claimed apparatus in claim 1, from which claim 6 depends.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “a pipe coupled to the treatment device from a second direction intersecting the first direction; and a movement mechanism configured to hold an end portion of the pipe on a side opposite to the treatment device in the second direction and move the pipe in the second direction” and further in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Hansen appears to teach a pipe 44, but does not teach the claimed movement mechanism.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent 5,299,906 to Stone teaches a pneumatically powered pressure device on a stabilizing scissor unit (see Fig. 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights