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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/1`0/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 welding torch of claim 13 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “14” has been used to designate both “the lower circumferential groove” and “straight segments of the driving belts”. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “12” has been used to designate both “a bundle of wire” and “two opposing driving belts”. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “50” has been used to designate both “the upper lid wall” and “wire straightening group”. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 2’, α. 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. 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan, Foreign Patent Document, CN115283793.
Regarding independent claim 1, Pan discloses a storage and feeding assembly for a wire to be fed to an apparatus (Paragraph [0005], lines 1-2), comprising: a drum suitable for storing the wire wound in coils (130, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0002], line 5), the drum extending about a drum axis (A-A, B-B, Fig. 3) between a resting base and an open upper end (bottom of 130 to open end of 130, Fig. 3); a wire handling device suitable for extracting the wire from the drum to feed the wire to the apparatus (251, 252, Fig. 6); a lid placed above the drum (110, Fig. 3) and comprising an upper lid wall in which an outlet passage for the wire is provided (110, 120, Fig. 3) and a lid side wall (110, Fig. 3), said upper lid wall and said lid side wall defining a lid volume (volume contained beneath 110, Figs. 1-3), wherein the wire handling device extends in the lid volume substantially coaxially to the drum axis (II shows 251, 252 extends coaxial to drum axis and located within lid volume, Fig. 5, 6), and wherein the lid side wall is at least partially made of a transparent material so as to allow a visual inspection of the wire handling device through said lid side wall (Paragraph [0014], lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 2, Pan discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and wherein the wire handling device (251, 252, Fig. 6) is firmly fastened to the upper lid wall inside the lid volume (shown fastened to upper portion of lid wall, Fig. 5; Paragraph [0028], line 1).
Regarding claim 3, Pan discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and wherein the wire handling device (251, 252, Fig. 5) comprises a support base (244, Fig. 6) suitable for supportingly engaging and being fastened to the upper lid wall (244 is fastened to upper lid wall 110, Fig. 6; Paragraph [0028], line 1).
Regarding claim 4, Pan discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and wherein at least one lid opening (140, Fig. 1) is provided in the lid side wall (110, Fig. 1) to access the lid volume (operator can access the lid volume via 140, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Pan discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and wherein the lid (110, Fig. 1) is releasably positioned at the upper end of the drum (Paragraph [0027], lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 10, Pan discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and wherein the wire handling device (251, 252, Fig. 6) comprises a wire straightening group (Paragraph [0028], lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Pan discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and wherein the wire is a welding wire to be fed to a welding torch (Paragraph [0040], lines 2-3).
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(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan, Foreign Patent Document, CN115283793 in view of Bae, Foreign Patent Document, KR100463375.
Regarding claim 6, Pan discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 5, and fastening means (313, Fig. 4) for releasably fastening the lid to the drum (Paragraph [0027], lines 3-6).
Pan does not disclose wherein said fastening means comprise a releasable clamping ring that couples adjacent end portions of the drum and of the lid side wall.
Bae teaches a fastening means for a drum, wherein said fastening means comprise a releasable clamping ring (160, Fig. 2b) that couples adjacent end portions of the drum and of the lid side wall (couples drum and lid, Fig. 2b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fastening means of Pan to use a releasable clamping ring as taught by Bae, so that the drum and lid can be "easily joined and disassembled" (Paragraph [27], lines 3-4). One would have been motivated to make this modification to simplify assembly and disassembly of the drum and lid.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan, Foreign Patent Document, CN115283793 in view of Hoover, US20230294955.
Regarding claim 7, Pan discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and a storage and feeding assembly. However, Pan does not disclose a spacer suitable for being releasably positioned between the upper end of the drum and the lid, wherein said spacer comprises a spacer body defining a spacer housing delimited by an annular side wall so as to act as an extension for the drum.
Hoover, teaches a storage and feeding assembly for elongated material stored in a drum, further comprising a spacer (30, Fig. 2) suitable for being releasably positioned between the upper end of the drum(15A, Fig. 2) and the lid (49, Fig. 2), wherein said spacer comprises a spacer body defining a spacer housing delimited by an annular side wall so as to act as an extension for the drum (30 has annular side wall acting as an extension for the drum, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the storage and feeding assembly of Pan to have the spacer as taught by Hoover, to ensure space for straightening mechanism inside the lid. Further, the spacer as claimed simply provides for adjustability of the overall drum height, such a provision of adjustability involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 8, Pan modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 7, and at least one wire unwinding accessory (211, 220, Fig. 3) positioned at least partially in the spacer housing (between drum 130 and lid 110, thus partially in spacer housing, Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan, Foreign Patent Document, CN115283793 and Hoover, US20230294955 as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Bae, Foreign Patent Document, KR100463375.
Regarding claim 9, Pan modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 7, and first coupling means (313, Fig. 4) for releasably fastening the drum and the lid (Paragraph [0027], lines 3-6).
Pan does not disclose first coupling means for releasably fastening the spacer to the drum, wherein said first coupling means comprise a first releasable clamping ring that couples adjacent end portions of the drum and of the annular side wall, and second coupling means for releasably fastening the lid to the spacer, wherein said second coupling means comprise a second releasable clamping ring that couples adjacent end portions of the annular side wall and of the lid.
Hoover teaches a storage and feeding assembly for elongated material stored in a drum, further comprising a spacer (30, Fig. 2) suitable for being releasably positioned between the upper end of the drum(15A, Fig. 2) and the lid (49, Fig. 2) that couples adjacent end portions of the drum and of the annular side wall (26 couples end portion of 30 to end portion of 15, 15a, Fig. 2) and second coupling means (45, Fig. 3) for releasably fastening the lid (49, Fig. 3) to the spacer (30, Fig. 3) that couples adjacent end portions of the annular side wall and of the lid (45 couples side wall of lid 49 and spacer 30, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the storage and feeding assembly of Pan to have the spacer with releasable fastening mechanisms as taught by Hoover, to ensure space for straightening mechanism inside the lid. Further, the spacer as claimed with releasable fastening mechanism simply provides for adjustability of the overall drum height, such a provision of adjustability involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Bae teaches a drum having a lid with fastening means wherein said fastening means comprise a releasable clamping ring (160, Fig. 2b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fastening means of Pan to use a releasable clamping ring as taught by Bae, so that the drum and lid can be "easily joined and disassembled" (Paragraph [27], lines 3-4). One would have been motivated to make this modification to simplify assembly and disassembly of the drum and lid. Additionally, although Bae teaches a single clamping ring for clamping of the lid and drum, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have two clamping rings to secure the spacer to the lid and drum, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan, Foreign Patent Document, CN115283793 in view of Lombardi, Foreign Patent Document, WO2018167806.
Regarding claim 11, Pan discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 10, and a wire straightening group.
However, Pan does not disclose the straightening group comprises at least two roller straightening units placed in series with each other along a feeding direction of the wire.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least two roller units instead of just one, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Alternatively, if applicant does not agree that such a modification is considered duplication of parts, it is noted that Lombardi teaches the wire straightening group (50, Fig. 3) comprises at least two roller straightening units placed in series with each other along a feeding direction of the wire (Paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wire straightening group of Pan to have at least two roller straightening units as taught by Lombardi because "an arrangement of the straightening rollers, it has been experienced that the memory of the welding wire 1 exiting drum 2 is completely eliminated" (Paragraph [0038])
Regarding claim 12, Pan discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 10, and the storage and feeding assembly.
Pan does not disclose wherein the wire pulling group comprises two opposed driving belts forming two respective straight belt segments facing each other to receive therebetween and move the wire exiting from the drum, or wherein the wire pulling group comprises a plurality of motorized wire pulling rollers facing one another to receive therebetween and move the wire exiting from the drum.
However, Lombardi discloses a wire storage and feeding assembly wherein the wire pulling group (10, Fig. 2a) comprises two opposed driving belts (12, 12', Fig. 3a) forming two respective straight belt segments facing each other to receive therebetween and move the wire (14, 14', Fig. 3a) exiting from the drum (2, Fig. 2; Paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the storage and feeding assembly of Pan to have the pulling group of Lombardi, because "welding wire is therefore not deformed by passing between the conveying belts 12; 12' and even the possible sediment of dust or other external agents on the belts has no effect on the wire surface" (Paragraph [0032], Paragraph [0031]; Lombardi).
Double Patenting
Claims 1-13 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-9, 12-14, and 16 of Application No. 18828283. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 12-14, and 16 of copending Application No. 18828283 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences amount to minor-rewording of claim limitations and the claims of Application No. 18828283 are narrower in scope than the instant claims. Therefore, the claims of Application No. 18828283 encompass the instant claims and render the instant claims unpatentable under anticipatory obvious type double patenting.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:00pm EST.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/K.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights