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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “Limit seat, 103” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, lines 1 and 2 are objected to because it requires connection between the first workpiece and the movement member, which is contact with the element of the claimed invention. Consider instead --wherein the first workpiece is configured to be connected to a moving member through a second direction spring, and the end of the second inner support member away from the first inner support member is provided with a guiding slope for contacting the moving member when supporting the first workpiece internally to tilt the moving member and reduce its height in the first direction—to accurately describe the claimed invention.
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.
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 “first driving mechanism” and a “second driving mechanism”, both stated in claim 1, a “third driving mechanism” stated in claim 2, and a “clamping mechanism” stated in claim 4.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is not in the form of a single sentence. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(m) which reads in part: "Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations.” (See Fressola V. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i)).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains the following subject matter:
Claim 1 recites “first driving mechanism” in line 8.
Claim 2 recites “third driving mechanism” in lines 22 and 23.
Claim 4 recites “clamping mechanism” in line 2.
Claim 5 recites “the limit seat (103) can move forward and backward on the body (1)” in line 8, when it is unclear how it is able to move forward and backwards when the specifications state “the limit seat 103 is provided with a second directional guide groove 1031 for guiding the first workpiece 101 in the second direction to enter the second workpiece 102 from the second direction (para. 20)”.
The claimed subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected accordingly since under 35 USC 112(a) since they are dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second direction" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the body is driven by a first driving mechanism” in line 8. It is unclear how the body is driven by the first driving mechanism as it does not appear to be connected. Figure 1 shows the body (1) as two different parts, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation the examiner has construed the claims as best understood until proper clarification is provided. In addition, the scope of “first driving mechanism” is unclear, it is not precisely known what structure is intended. For purposes of this Office action, the term will be given its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first direction" in lines 9 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first movable seat” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the driving connection” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-5 are rejected accordingly since under 35 USC 112(b) since they are dependent on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “third driving mechanism” in lines 22 and 23. The scope is unclear; it is not precisely known what structure is intended. For purposes of this Office action, the term will be given its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 3 is rejected accordingly since under 35 USC 112(b) since they are dependent on claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “clamping mechanism” in line 2. The scope is unclear; it is not precisely known what structure is intended. For purposes of this Office action, the term will be given its broadest reasonable interpretation.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1)(2) as being anticipated by Abe (US 4771535).
Regarding claim 1, Abe discloses a workpiece assembly device (2; fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 42-53), for pressing a first workpiece (Wb; fig. 4; col. 3, ll. 36-45) into a second workpiece (Wa; fig. 4; col. 3, ll. 36-45), comprising a body (as annotated in fig. 2 below; col. 2, ll. 40-48), wherein the body is provided with a limit seat (26 and 27, portion 26 is provided within 10a and 27 is connected via intermediate components; fig. 4; col. 2, ll. 54-67) for limiting the placement of the first workpiece and the second workpiece on it (the length of 26 and 27 determines how deeply inserted Wb is into Wa; fig. 4; col. 3, 15- 35), and the limit seat is provided with a second direction guide groove (hollow bearing tubes, see annotated fig. 4 below; col. 2, ll. 54- 67 and col. 3, ll. 15 -35) for guiding the first workpiece in the second direction to enter the second workpiece from the second direction (the second direction guide groove guides the limit seat in the second direction, vertically, resulting in the insertion of Wb into Wa; fig. 4; col. 3, ll. 15-35)
the body is driven by a first driving mechanism (11a; fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 7-14, as best understood by Examiner) and connected with a second direction guide groove (see annotated fig. 4, element of the body 10a houses the second direction guide groove; col. 2, ll. 58- 67) that can move back and forth in a first direction (element of the body 10a is moveable left and right; fig.2; col. 3, ll. 7-14 ) to facilitate entry from the first direction (first direction movement allows the body to align with the second workpiece; fig. 2; col. 4, ll. 35- 50),
approaching a first movable seat (see annotated fig. 4 below, movable via second direction displacement of 14a; col. 2, ll. 61- 68 and col. 3, ll. 1-6) away from the first workpiece (when the movable seat moves it displaces the first workpiece away from the body; fig. 4; col. 3, ll. 15- 35), the first movable seat is driven by a second driving mechanism (14a and 12a; fig. 4; col. 2, ll. 60-68 and col. 3, ll. 1- 35; examiner is interpreting the second driving mechanism as a linear actuator, as drawn) a driving connection ( interpreted as connection between moving mechanisms; fig. 4; col. 3, ll. 15- 35) has a second movable seat (as annotated in fig. 4 below; col. 3, ll. 15- 35) that can move back and forth in the second direction (fig. 4; col. 3, ll. 15- 35);
the second movable seat is equipped with an inner support component (13a, 13b, 13c; fig. 4; col. 3, ll. 36- 45) for penetrating the first workpiece (fig. 4; col. 3, ll. 36- 45 and col. 4, ll. 34-50) from the first direction (second moveable seat moves in the first direction to collect and penetrate the first workpiece; fig. 2; col. 4, ll. 34-50) and then supporting the first workpiece at both ends of the second direction (fig. 4; col. 4, ll. 34-50), the first workpiece is held throughout the second direction drive into the second workpiece; fig. 4; col. 4, ll. 34-50), so as to drive the first workpiece to move and press the first workpiece into the second workpiece (fig. 4; col. 4, ll. 34-50) along the second direction guide groove (as shown in annotated fig. 4 below; col. 2, lines 41-68, col. 3, lines 1-68 and col. 4, lines 1-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
673
557
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Abe discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the inner support component comprises a first inner support member (13a; fig. 4; col. 3,ll. 35- 45) set on the second movable seat (fig. 4; col. 3, ll. 35- 45) for limiting one end of the first workpiece in the second direction after penetrating the first workpiece (first inner support member prevents the top portion of the first workpiece upwards, since it pushes it into the second workpiece; fig. 4; col. 3, ll. 35- 45) from the first direction (fig. 2; col. 4, ll. 34-50), and a second inner support member (13b; fig. 4; col. 3, ll. 35- 45) driven and connected to the second movable seat (connected via intermediate components, fig. 4; col. 3, ll. 35- 45) in the second direction (moves axially with respect to 13a; fig. 4; fig. 4; col. 3, ll. 35- 45) through a third driving mechanism (13c; fig. 4; col. 3,ll. 35- 45, as best understood by Examiner) to move back and forth in the second direction for inner support (13c resists the reaction force in the second direction when pressing force occurs; fig. 4; col. 3, ll. 35- 45) of the other end of the second direction of the first workpiece (13c resists the reaction force in the second direction when pressing force occurs; fig. 4; col. 3, ll. 35- 45).
Regarding claim 4, Abe discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the body is further equipped with a clamping mechanism (21a, 22a, 22b; fig. 2; col. 4, ll. 28- 43, as best understood by Examiner) for removing the workpiece after the first workpiece is pressed into the second workpiece and in place (fig. 2; col. 4, ll. 50-60, “transfer mechanisms including rack and pinion mechanisms transfer the rim element with the disk”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Abe (US 4771535) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Abe discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses wherein the first direction is left and right (fig.2; col. 3, ll. 7-14), the second direction is up and down (fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 15- 35), the body drives the first movable seat left and right through the first driving mechanism (limit seat 26 is able to move in the left right direction, and the first moveable seat is connected to the limit seat; fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 7-25), the first movable seat drives the second movable seat up and down through the second driving mechanism (fig. 4; col. 2, ll. 60-68 and col. 3, ll. 1- 35), the inner support component is used to support the first workpiece left and right inward (as shown below in fig. 4, the inner support piece supports both the inner left and right portions of the first work piece; col. 3, ll. 36- 45), and the limit seat can move forward and backward on the body (interpreted, based on claim 1, as second directional movement; fig. 4; col. 3, ll. 15 -35).
PNG
media_image3.png
247
355
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Abe does not explicitly disclose wherein the first direction is up and down, the second direction is left and right, the body drives the first movable seat up and down through the first driving mechanism, the first movable seat drives the second movable seat left and right through the second driving mechanism, and the limit seat can move forward and backward on the body.
Though, it can be observed that if fig. 2 was rotated counterclockwise 90 degrees, it would meet the limitations of claim 5 and the assembly device would yield equivalent results. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rotate the assembly 90 degrees counterclockwise, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 (II-A/B) In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184).
PNG
media_image4.png
602
490
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter:
Abe (US 4771535) discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, however does not teach wherein the first workpiece is [configured to be] connected to a moving member through a second direction spring, and the end of the second inner support member away from the first inner support member is provided with a guiding slope for contacting the moving member when supporting the first workpiece internally to tilt the moving member and reduce its height in the first direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T. FARRELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0401. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MICHAEL THADDUES FARRELL JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights