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 .
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.
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) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 20190051812A) in view of Voges (US2004/0194804A1) and Haas (US5264036A).
Jung discloses the claimed invention as follows (refer to Fig. 3):
Claim 16. An apparatus for manufacturing a laminated core of a motor, comprising:
a lower die comprising a plurality of piercing dies (Fig. 4: 211, 212, 213, 214, 215), a blanking die (24, Fig. 4) installed in front of the plurality of piercing dies, and a squeeze ring (27, Fig. 4) installed below the blanking die;
an upper die comprising a piercing punch (Fig. 4: 11, 12, 13, 14 15) installed above the piercing dies and a blanking punch (16, Fig. 4) installed in front of the piercing punch;
a lamination unit (300, Figs. 3 and 4) configured to continuously laminate lamina members (200-1, Fig. 6), formed by pressing a continuously supplied base material (200, Fig. 4) using the piercing punch and the blanking punch, in the squeeze ring to form a laminated core (200’, Figs. 6 and 7); and
a pre-treatment unit (70 with 80 and 90) comprising a main body (portion of the pre-treatment unit except 71, Fig. 3) installed at a rear side (70, 80 and 90 are upstream of 100; see Fig. 3) of the lower die (located in unit 100; see Fig. 4) and a sprayer (71; see [0046]) installed on an upper portion of the main body (see Fig. 3) to apply an activator1 on a front surface (“the surface” in [0046], i.e., front surface) of the base material before the base material is press-formed in the lamination unit,
wherein the base material has an adhesive coating layer formed on a front surface and a back surface of an electrical steel sheet2,
Claim 17. The apparatus of claim 16, further comprising a back pressure mechanism including:
a backing plate (501, Fig. 7) for supporting a lower part of the laminated core;
an elevation drive means (402, Fig. 7) for vertically driving the backing plate; and
an elevation rod (see smaller diameter portion between 401 and 402, Fig. 7) connected to a lower portion of the backing plate and vertically movable by the elevation drive means.
Jung discloses element 71 can be a spray[er], but does not disclose the structure thereof. Voges teaches a spraying device, for spraying a liquid onto a base material (46, Fig. 4 and 5). The sprayer includes a nozzle rod (80, Figs. 4 and 5) having a plurality of spraying holes (of nozzles 72, Fig. 5) arranged in a straight line in a lateral direction to define a spraying line (evident from Fig. 5) extending across the base material, to spray a liquid onto a front (upper) surface of the base material. See [0027].
Haas is another reference which shows sprayers of the claimed type are known, for spraying a liquid onto a moving web of material. Haas mentions “spray bars which are arranged transversely to the web of material and are equipped with specially designed spray nozzles for distributing the … liquid. The number and shape of the spray nozzles per unit width depends here on the magnitude of the spray volume stream to be applied, the spray liquid being atomized by the nozzle pressure for fine distribution and/or being fanned out across the width of the web of material by a special design of the nozzles.” See col. 1, lns. 40-50.
Whereas the use of the sprayers disclosed by Voges and Haas is not specifically the same as that of Jung, Voges and Haas are pertinent for their teaching of spraying a liquid onto a moving strip/web by means of a nozzle rod disposed across the strip/web, as claimed. In view of the teachings of Voges and Haas, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to implement the sprayer 71 of Jung as a spray bar with nozzles, having holes arranged in a straight line, as a choice among conventional sprayer constructions, with predictable results.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Voges and Haas, further in view of Horii (US2017/0072448A1).
Jung further discloses the claimed invention as follows:
Claim 18. The apparatus of claim 17,
Horii discloses a back pressure device for a progressive die apparatus, including:
a backing plate (31) for supporting a lower part of a laminated core (3), wherein a load cell (55; see [0066]) is installed in the backing plate;
an elevation drive means (33 with 42) for vertically driving the backing plate; and
an elevation rod (41) connected to a lower portion of the backing plate and vertically movable by the elevation drive means.
The load cell (force sensor 55) is used to detect contact of the backing plate (31) with the lower surface of the iron core laminates. This can be used as part of setting the initial position of the backing plate. See [0066].
In view of Horii, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide the backing plate 401 of modified Jung with a load cell (force sensor) as taught by Horii, in order to allow detection of contact with lamina members to set an initial position of the backing plate, as taught by Horii.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Voges and Haas, further in view of Shirai (JP2019041474A).
Jung, as modified above, does not disclose the limitations of claims 19 and 20.
Shirai discloses a manufacturing line including a press machine 11, which is an apparatus for manufacturing a laminated core (see core in Fig. 6). As shown in Fig. 1, the line includes, upstream of the press machine 11, a loop controller 13 is provided, which “the strip-shaped workpiece W conveyed from the uncoiler 12 into a loop and automatically adjust the vertical movement of the looped strip-shaped workpiece W so as not to apply excessive tension to the strip-shaped workpiece W conveyed to the press machine 11.” See [0030]. A “plate thickness measuring device 18 measures the plate thickness of the portion of the strip-shaped workpiece W that is to be punched out as the laminated steel plate 3.” See [0033].
In view of the teachings of Shirai, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide, after the uncoil unit 51, a loop controller, for the same purpose as taught by Shirai. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide a thickness measurement device, for the same purpose as disclosed by Shirai. Regarding the location of such a sensor, since the purpose of the sensor is to measure the thickness of the base material to be punched out, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to dispose the sensor as part of the pre-treatment unit, such as downstream of the sprayer, to determine the thickness of the base material after spraying.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-20 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose a pre-treatment unit comprising a main body installed at a back of the lower die. Applicant argues Jung’s pre-treatment unit is integrated within the press die apparatus itself.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in Fig. 4, the lower die is part of the laminated core manufacturing unit 100. Referring to Fig. 3, the unit 100 is downstream of elements 70, 80 and 90.
Applicant further argues the prior art fails to disclose the sprayer installed on an upper portion of the main body to apply the activator on a front surface of the base material.
The examiner respectfully submits Jung discloses the coating device 71 applies adhesive to “the surface, backside or both surfaces of the steel sheet in the form of a roller or spray.” See [0046]. It is clear from this sentence that “the surface” refers to the front surface. Regarding the further structural details added in the last amendment, please refer to the new art rejection.
Applicant further argues the prior art fails to disclose the newly added limitation regarding planar coating of the activator.
Respectfully, the claims as amended to not actually mention any planar coating. Nevertheless, please refer to the newly-cited references, which teach sprayers having the claimed structure. It is readily apparent that as a liquid is sprayed across the moving strip of material, the coating is planar coating.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm ET.
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.
/LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
1 The spray[er] 71 is capable of spraying adhesive. It is readily apparent that it is also capable of spraying activator.
2 This limitation merely indicated the apparatus is intended to be used with such a base material. The structure of the base material is not part of the apparatus.