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.
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: object receiving unit, feed adjusting unit, and feeding unit in claims 9-16 and product receiving unit, send adjusting unit, and product sending port in claims 16-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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) 1-4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sakai et al.(US Patent 6,153,013).
Sakai et al. discloses an apparatus which can be used in battery manufacturing comprising a plurality of processing blocks(102, 103, 104, 105) each including a processing space which is cut off from air, which has a sending port and receiving port.(Figure 1) The blocks are connected by a connection block which cuts the space inside it off from the outside air and which is flexible enough to allow a change in relative positions of the sending and receiving ports since it is a bellows which can expand or contract by as much as 60 mm.(Col. 4, ll. 6-10)
Regarding claim 2, the blocks are set up to allow continuous movement of product from one block to the next.((110)
Regarding claim 3, the connecting block includes an annular flange portion(Figure 2) and can be circular.(Col. 4, ll. 29)
Regarding claim 4, the connecting block can be made of a series of O-rings which can each expand by a small amount, which can therefore change the relative positions of the blocks by moving them apart.(Col. 4, ll. 30-48) This structure has a flange(Figure 3B) and the O-ring is made of nitrile rubber.
Regarding claim 6, the connecting block can be a bellows shape.(Figure 2)
Regarding claim 7, the connecting block and process blocks are joined by an O-ring(22) which is a sealing member that is elastic.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Chemical Composition of Stainless Steel.
Sakai et al. discloses the bellows can be made of stainless steel, but does not disclose the specific composition of that stainless steel.(Col. 4, ll. 22) Chemical Composition of Stainless Steel discloses that many types of stainless steel are made without molybdenum and with 10-30% chromium.(Table) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use any composition stainless steel as the steel in Sakai et al. since these are all well-known and conventional compositions for stainless steel and would have been obvious for that reason.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Vincent et al.(US Patent 10,159,169)
Sakai et al. does not disclose the specifics of how the bellows is joined to the processing blocks though it does show an annular sealing member.(Figure 2). Vincent et al. is directed to a similar type structure joining two elements with an O-ring and discloses the flexible member is connected using a fastening bolt(102F) on the far side of the O-ring(Figure 1C), which would be on an outer circumferential side in Sakai et al.(Figure 2) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to join the bellows and processing blocks of Sakai et al. with a fastening bolt on an outer circumferential side of the annular sealing member since Sakai etal.is silent as to how the bellows and processing block are joined leading one to look to similar structures and Vincent et al. is directed to a similar structure which as a fastening bolt on the outside of the O-ring thus combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest an object receiving unit, feed adjusting unit and feeding unit as described in the disclosure or their equivalents in combination with processing blocks which have sending and receiving ports and are cut off from the outside air. Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest an product receiving unit, send adjusting unit and product sending port as described in the disclosure or their equivalents in combination with processing blocks which have sending and receiving ports and are cut off from the outside air. Regarding claim 19, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the processing blocks including an extruder, a sheet molder, a coater, a press laminator and a cutter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights