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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended the drawings to now include the reference number 200 which has been added into Fig. 7. The applicant pointed to Fig. 6 as having the reference element – 115. The objections to the drawings are withdrawn.
Applicant amended independent claim 1 to add the narrower limitation of the linear expansion means configured “to apply a force substantially parallel to the first flange and the second flange to the first arcuate side and to the second arcuate side to bias the first arcuate side away from the second arcuate side” where the underlined portion is added. Additionally, new claim 15 dependent on claim 1 is added.
Applicant argues that the combination of prior art reference used in the rejection independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.§ 103 over the primary reference Liu (CN114310703A) with machine translation in view of the secondary references Li (CN116045095A) with machine translation and Fang (CN110616732A) with machine translation would not result in the claimed configuration.
The applicant argues that the office action appears to be silent as to motivation from Liu for one skilled in the art to look beyond the field of endeavor to Li for a slide that Liu fails to disclose. The circular clamp of Liu utilizes rotational movement of half rings to expand and contract and there is no reason given by the office action as to this apparatus of Liu is intended to be modified with the slide of Li as the combination would appear to be inoperable since the half rings would not fail to rotate because they would be constrained by the slide of Li.
As to Fang, which discloses an anchor cage designed for large offshore large megawatt wind turbines where the diameter can be more than 6 meters, the applicant argues that the office action appears to be silent as to motivation from Fang for one skilled in the art to look beyond the field of endeavor to Fang for a linear expansion means that Liu/Li fails to disclose. Here, the diagonal force along the diagonal support rods of Fang would necessarily include a portion of the pushing for to be angle relative to the plan of the upper and lower plates. Even if the water pipeline joint sealing device with slides of Li and the anchor cage of Fang are combined with the clamp of Liu, this combination fails to provide a rationale, reasoning, justification, or motivation for one skilled in the art to look beyond the field of endeavor to arrive at how a person of ordinary skill int eh art would modify Liu to arrive at the claimed core corrector of claim 1. (Applicant arguments/remarks 04/14/2026 pp. 7-9).
The examiner counter-argues in response that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Here the applicant is applying the limitations of claim 1 in a narrow feature-by-feature basis, however, under the principle of broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim is not so limited. Liu does recite a first and second arcuate side coupled to a first and second collar and it would be obvious to modify this configuration with at least one slide coupled to an end of the this first and second arcuate side which the claim as recited appears to encompass in a manner in which the first flange and the second flange are approximately parallel and the first collar and the second collar are approximately parallel in about the same plane, One with ordinary skill would seek this feature to provide a compact structure and greater stability of the connection of the arcuate sides as taught by Li (paragraphs [0035] [n0024]).
This same reasoning applies to the combination of Fang with Li and Liu where inclusion of the linear expansion means initially fixed the internal structure of the core (anchor cage) to prevent it from deforming. This extension addresses the limitations of claim 1 in applying a force to the first and second arcuate side of the Liu/Li configuration in order to bias the first acuate side away from the second arcuate side (Fang, paragraphs [0064] [0065] each inclined support connected both to upper and lower anchor plate so as to apply a pushing force to the upper and the lower anchor plate). This appears to the examiner to meet the linear expansion means limitations of the last paragraph of claim 1 under the principle of broadest reasonable interpretation.
The applicant submits that the combination of Liu, Li and Fang is improper because the office action relies on information gleaned solely from applicant’s specification and constitutes impermissible hindsight which must be avoided. According to MPEP § 2145 (X)(A) the legal conclusion must be reached on facts gleaned from the prior art and that this does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure. The applicant maintains that the combination of a coupled slide to an end of each arcuate side and a linear expansion means operatively coupled to the first arcuate side are features that are only present on record in the applicant’s specification. Therefore, it logically follows that the examiner has improperly gleaned such teachings from the applicant’s own specification and that the combination of Liu, Li, and Fang is an exercise of impermissible hindsight where the examiner is using the claimed invention as a guide, where looking at the references alone would not come up with the forced reason for making the combination. (Applicant arguments/remarks 04/14/2026 pp.9-10).
The examiner counter argues that the applicant is conflating claim 1 and the specification which reads into it. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s statement as to hindsight reasoning is not applicable because the examiner took into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and did not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case, the examiner never considered nor are there any limitations found in the specification that are not recited in claim 1 that the examiner used to improperly meet the recited limitations of claim 1. The limitations of Liu’s flange and collar configuration. Li’s slide and Fang’s linear expansion means are all references that directly meet the current limitations of claim 1 without using additional specification limitations.
New grounds of rejection are provided as necessitated by these amendments.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "a linear expansion means" in claim 1 - last paragraph, first line.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN114310703A) with machine translation in view of Li (CN116045095A) with machine translation and further in view of Fang (CN110616732A) with machine translation. Evidence provided for claims 3 and 4 from Cambridge Dictionary https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/wing-nut and from Essentra Components https://www.essentracomponents.com/en-gb/news/solutions/access-hardware/a-guide-to-threaded-knobs. Note: all references are of record.
Regarding Claim 1, Liu discloses tool structure for clamping a round paper core while maintaining the roundness of the paper core and thus preventing deformation (paragraphs [n0002], [n0003]) comprising:
a first arcuate side including a first flange coupled substantially perpendicularly to a first collar;
a second arcuate side including a second flange coupled substantially perpendicularly to a second collar (Figs 1, 4 paragraphs [0036] [n0019] limiting plate – 30 and support ring – 20 circular limiting groove – 34 defining flange with two symmetrical support semi-rings – 21 with each support semi-ring – 21 composed of an L-shaped connecting plate – 211 and semi -ring – 212); See Fig 1 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
770
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Liu does not disclose a slide coupled to an end of the first arcuate side and an end of the second arcuate side.
Li teaches in a joint sealing device (abs) that a sealing ring comprises an inner ring concentrically fixed on the inner ring surface of the sealing ring and a widening ring concentrically fixed on the inner ring surface of the inner ring (Fig. 9 paragraph [n0016] sealing ring – 1 inner ring – 11 widening ring – 12). Li further teaches at least one slide coupled to an end of the first arcuate side and an end of the second arcuate side (Figs. 2, 6 paragraphs [0055] a pair of concentrically fixed annular slide rails – 3 are fitted on the outer ring surface of the sealing ring – 1), wherein the at least one slide is movably coupled to one or both of the first arcuate side and the second arcuate side (Figs 1, 2 paragraphs [0010] [0055] each annular slide rail – 3 has a slidably connected annular rotating ring – 31 engaged on its outer ring surface,) wherein the first arcuate side couples to the second arcuate side via the at least one slide in a manner in which the first flange and the second flange are approximately parallel and the first collar and the second collar are approximately parallel in about a same plane (Figs 3, 9 paragraphs [n0016] [0055] where an inner ring – 11and a widening ring – 12 are concentrically fixed with the concentrically fixed annular slide rails – 3 fitted on the outer ring surface of the sealing ring – 1). See Fig. 2 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
629
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Liu with the teachings of Li whereby a strapping core corrector comprising first and second flanges coupled substantially perpendicularly to a first and second collar, respectively, as disclosed in Liu would further include that at least one slide is coupled to an end of a first and second arcuate side, respectively, such that the at least one side is movably coupled to one or both of the first and second arcuate sides and in a manner whereby the first and second flanges and the first and second collars are approximately parallel in about a same plane.
One with ordinary skill in this art would be motivated to provide this feature of at least one slide movably coupled to or both of the first arcuate and second arcuate sides because the coupled slides seal and fit the arcuate sides on their surfaces in a compact structure and enhance the stability of the connection of the arcuate sides (paragraphs [0035] [n0024]).
However, neither Liu or Li disclose a linear expansion means to operatively couple the first and second arcuate sides.
Fang discloses a linear expansion means (operatively coupled to the first arcuate side and the second arcuate side (abs, paragraph [0005] anchor cages for foundation of wind turbines with longitudinal supporting rods with inner tensioning components where the first arcuate side and second arcuate side have a first and second flange coupled substantially perpendicular to them (Fig. 2, paragraph [0055] both the upper anchor plate – 10 and the lower anchor plate – 20 are arc segments that are joined together by a connecting plate – 61 correlating to first and second arcuate sides with coupled first and second flanges) wherein the linear expansion means (Figs. 1, 2 abs. paragraphs [0056] [0064] inner tensioning component – 40 with diagonal support rods – 41 supported between the upper anchor plate – 10 and the lower anchor plate – 20; each inclined support rod – 41 is a length-adjustable structure) is configured to apply a force substantially parallel to the first flange and the second flange to the first arcuate side and to the second arcuate side to bias the first arcuate side away from the second arcuate side (Figs. 2 4 paragraphs [0064] [0065] each inclined support rod – 41 connected at both ends to the upper anchor plate – 10 and the lower anchor plate – 20, respectively so as to apply a pushing force to the upper and the lower anchor plate of the anchor cage; first support rod – 4131 second support rod – 4132 opposite to each other and spaced apart with length adjustment connected between the two whereby the arc segments have a force applied to them substantially parallel to them). See Fig. 2 below:
PNG
media_image3.png
980
1092
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the combination of Liu/Li with the disclosure of Fang whereby a strapping core with a first and second arcuate side with a slide coupled to an end of each first and second arcuate side would have included a linear expansion means operative coupled to the first acuate side and the second arcuate side with this linear expansion means such that a force is applied to the first and second arcuate sides, that is substantially parallel to the first flange and second flange, to bias the first arcuate side away from the second arcuate side.
The skilled artisan would consider this an important and advantageous feature because this linear expansion means initially fixes the internal structure of the core (anchor cage) and prevents it from deforming (paragraph [0059]).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Liu, Li and Fang disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Fang further discloses a quick expansion member configured to temporarily disengage a shaft of the linear expansion means to allow manual movement of the first arcuate side away from the second arcuate side (paragraph [0010] inner tensioning component with two symmetrically arranged diagonal support rods detachably connected between the upper and lower anchor plates)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Liu, Li and Fang disclose all the limitations of claim 2 and Fang further discloses the quick expansion member comprises a wing nut and a pin including threads disposed on one side of the pin (Figs. 2, 4 paragraph [0066] length adjustment threaded rod – 4202 with first adjusting nut – 4201 and a second adjusting nut – 4203 screwed onto the threaded rod – 4202).
However, the adjusting nut is not described as a “wing nut” in Fang. But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a wing nut as the adjustment nut since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of a wing nut for the purpose of being able to hold the nut with one fingers while tightening it. Cambridge Dictionary definition/wing nut: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/wing-nut
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Liu, Li and Fang disclose all the limitations of claim 2 and Fang further discloses the quick expansion member comprises a threaded knob and a pin including threads disposed on one side of the pin (Figs. 2, 4 paragraph [0066] length adjustment threaded rod – 4202 with first adjusting nut – 4201 and a second adjusting nut – 4203 screwed onto the threaded rod – 4202).
However, the adjusting nut is not described as a “threaded knob” in Fang. But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a threaded knob as the adjustment nut since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of a threaded knob for the purpose of easily attaching or detach a threaded bolt, rod or other similar fixture. Essentra Components/Knowledge Centre: https://www.essentracomponents.com/en-gb/news/solutions/access-hardware/a-guide-to-threaded-knobs.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Liu, Li and Fang disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Fang further discloses in at least one embodiment that the linear expansion means comprises at least one threaded shaft having a first threaded shaft end rotatably connected to one of the first arcuate side or the second arcuate side and a second threaded shaft end connected (Fig. 3 paragraph [0081] first longitudinal rod – 511 and a second longitudinal rod – 512 respectively connected to the upper anchor plate – 10 and the lower anchor plate – 20 to a spline such that rotation of the spline in a first direction biases the first arcuate side away from the second arcuate side (Fig. 3 paragraph [0081] upper threaded rod – 5113, lower threaded rod – 5111 and treaded bracket – 5116 threadedly connected to the upper threaded rod – 5113 and the lower threaded rod – 5111 the threads on the upper and lower threaded rods have opposite directions of rotation which by rotating the threaded bracket – 5116 the lengths of the upper threaded rod – 5113 and the lower threaded rod – 5111 extending into the threaded bracket – 5116 which adjusts the length of the longitudinal support rod – 51) .
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Liu, Li and Fang disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Li further discloses that the at least one slide is fixedly coupled to one of the first arcuate side or the second arcuate side (Figs. 2, 6 paragraphs [0055] a pair of concentrically fixed annular slide rails – 3 are fitted on the outer ring surface of the sealing ring – 1.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Liu, Li and Fang disclose all the limitations of claim 7 and Li further discloses that the at least one slide is slidably coupled to another of the one of the first arcuate side or the second arcuate side. (Figs 1, 2 paragraphs [0010] [0055] each annular slide rail – 3 has a slidably connected annular rotating ring – 31 engaged on its outer ring surface,).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Liu, Li and Fang disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Liu further disclose that the first arcuate side and the second arcuate side are connected to be substantially circular (Fig. 1 circular limiting groove – 34 defining flange with two symmetrical support semi-rings – 21 with each support semi-ring – 21 composed of an L-shaped connecting plate – 211 and semi -ring – 2120. See Fig. 1 above.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Liu (CN114310703A) with machine translation, Li (CN116045095A) with machine translation and Fang (CN110616732A) with machine translation as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Son (KR20040063186A) with machine translation. Note: all references of record.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Liu, Li and Fang disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the linear expansion means comprises a rack and pinion.
Son discloses a height-adjustable desk which is which has a handle which is rotated whereby pinion gears are rotated to move a rack (Fig. 3, 4 abs, paragraph [16] pinions – 25, rack – 26 movable leg part – 22).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the combination of Liu, Li and Fang with Son whereby a strapping core corrector with a linear expansion means configured to apply a force to the first and second arcuate side to bias the first arcuate side away from the second arcuate side, as disclosed by Liu/Li/Fang would further include the rack and pinion means of Son.
One with ordinary skill in this field would consider this an advantageous feature because a rack and pinion would provide a finer adjustment to an optimal length of the linear expansion means simply by turning a handle (paragraph [13]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 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:
The prior art does not disclose, teach or suggest the limitation/feature of “the linear expansion means is disposed between the first collar and the second collar to apply the force to the first collar and the second collar.” Independent claim 1 of which claim 15 is dependent upon, recites that a first and a second arcuate side includes a first flange and second flange, respectively, which is coupled substantially perpendicularly to a first and second collar, respectively. The prior art references as combined, especially Liu and Fang where Liu discloses a collar with a first and second arcuate side having a first and second flange and first and second collar cannot be combined with Fang which discloses a linear expansion means because the presence of the first and second collar in Liu changes the principle of operation of the linear expansion means of Fang. See MPEP § 2143.01 (V) the proposed modification cannot render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. See Fig. 1 Liu compared to Fig. 2 Fang below:
PNG
media_image1.png
770
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1005
1039
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Here the linear expansion means (first and second support rods) of Fang are directly connected to the upper and lower anchor plates corresponding to the first and second arcuate side with first and second flanges, but this configuration does not have perpendicular first and second collars as in the Liu Fig. 1 configuration above and therefore, there is no ability to apply force to the first and second collars of Liu. While these are coupled perpendicular to the first and second flanges, it would be unlikely and nonobvious to modify Liu with Fang and would render Liu unsatisfactory for its intended purpose which is as a tool for clamping a circular paper core without causing deformation due to uneven handling and stress (Liu, paragraph [n0002]). This is in contrast to the instant invention configuration where the linear expansion means is disposed between the first and second collar and is in direct contact with the collars to apply force:
PNG
media_image5.png
923
1172
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Additional prior art references included Wu (CN110202428A) with machine translation, Shi (CN110901182A) with machine translation, Liu (CN115366487A) with machine translation, An (CN116423815A) with machine translation, Li (CN201338415Y) with machine translation, Cheng (CN219293192U) with machine translation, Isozaki (JP2014190530A) with machine translation and Shinga (US 6,361,229 B1), but none of these prior art references disclosed, taught or suggested a strapping core corrector with a linear expansion means disposed between the first collar and the second collar to apply a force to the first collar and the second collar where the first and second arcuate sides include a first flange and a second flange are coupled substantially perpendicularly to the first and second collar.
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 WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights