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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 drawing of “seat is provided with recesses or ribs (claim 11)” 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.
Specification
The abstract should avoid using specific form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means”, “comprising”, and “said,”. Therefore, the phrase “comprising (line 1)” should be changed to – including --.
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.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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 § 112
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Regarding claim 10, line 2, a broad limitation followed by a linking term, “preferably” is considered indefinite since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (CN-213002131 U).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses an apparatus for straightening a metal wire (copper strip) comprising a support structure (1) on which there are mounted in sequence at least a straightening unit (210), a main drawing unit (300) and an outlet unit (500) which is configured to guide the metal wire along an outlet axis (see the drawing), wherein the apparatus further comprises at least one calibration unit (200) disposed upstream of said straightening unit (210) (fig. 1) and provided with at least two rollers (21) which are configured to receive said metal wire between them, along an inlet axis (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein said calibration unit (200) comprises at least one other roller (21), wherein said rollers (21) define a first group of rollers and are disposed angularly offset from each other by the same offsetting angle (see the annotated drawing #1 below).
Drawing #1:
PNG
media_image1.png
266
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein said calibration unit (200) comprises a second group of rollers (see the annotated drawing #2 below) disposed downstream of the first group of rollers and comprising other rollers disposed angularly offset from each other by said same offsetting angle (see the annotated drawing #2 below), and wherein said second group of rollers is disposed in a rotated configuration with respect to the first group of rollers (see fig. 1).
Drawing #2:
PNG
media_image2.png
266
784
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the apparatus of claim 2, wherein said rollers (21) have a cylindrical peripheral forming surface (see figure 1, which shows each roller (21) (see the enlarged annotated drawing #3 below).
Regarding claim 5, the apparatus as in claim 2, wherein said rollers (21) have a peripheral forming surface that is circumferentially concave (see the enlarged annotated drawing #3 below) toward the center of the roller.
Drawing #3:
PNG
media_image3.png
280
587
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Yang disclose a method for straightening a metal wire (copper strap) comprising at least one step of straightening said metal wire performed by a straightening unit (200, 210), a step of drawing said metal wire performed by a drawing unit (300), and a step of guiding said metal wire performed by a guiding unit (500) along an outlet axis (see the drawing), wherein the method further comprises a calibration step performed by a calibration unit (200) before said straightening step (210) and in which at least two rollers (21) receive said metal wire along an inlet axis and exert a longitudinal flattening action (see “flattening” in claim 1) on the lateral surface of the metal wire in order to regularize its cross-section.
Regarding claim 16, the method of claim 15, Yang discloses wherein said calibration step occurs by means of at least a first group of three rollers (21) disposed around said metal wire (see figure 1), angularly offset from each other by a same offsetting angle (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, the method of claim 15, Yang discloses wherein after said calibration step (i.e. after the preliminary calibration device (200), the cross-section of the metal wire has a uniform profile having at least three calibrated sides interspersed with as many sides that have not been subjected to flattening [that’s why a fine calibration device 210 is needed after the preliminary calibrating device (200) (fig. 1 and para. 15 of the machine translation) to flatten sides that have not been subjected to flattening so that the error is small].
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Canobbio (EP 0 362 055 A1).
Regarding claim 5, in the event that applicant does not agree that Yang discloses each of the rollers have a peripheral forming surface that is circumferentially concave toward the center of the roller.
Canobbio, in a related wire straightening art, discloses rollers (1-4) for guiding a wire each having a peripheral forming surface (81-84) that is circumferentially concave toward the center of the roller (figs. 3-4 and para. 31 of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made each of the rollers of Yang, to include a peripheral forming surface that is circumferentially concave toward the center of the roller, as taught by Canobbio, in order to reduce friction and heat build up.
Regarding claim 6, modified Yang discloses the circumferentially concave peripheral forming surface has a radius of curvature greater than the nominal radius of a metal wire (see figs. 2-4 and para. 31 of Canobbio).
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Chen (CN 105710260 A).
Regarding claim 7, Yang discloses the drawing unit (300) is provided with rollers at upper and lowers ends (see para. 17 of the machine translation); therefore, the rollers are disposed at different heights. Yang does not expressly disclose the arrangement of the rollers defining between them an S-shaped path for said metal wire.
Chen discloses a drawing and straightening mechanism for steel wire having drawing rollers arranged one above another (fig. 1) defining between them an S-shaped path for the wire (fig. 1), and additional presser rollers (13c) disposed peripherally (the ones before and after the drawing rollers, which are also drawing rollers) to the drawing rollers (fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the rollers of Yang, and including additional press rollers, in an arrangement as taught by Chen, to reduce drawing stress and strain.
Regarding claim 12, the apparatus of claim 7, modified Yang with Chen as set forth in claim 7 above discloses presser rollers disposed peripherally (the ones before and after the original drawing rollers) to said drawing rollers.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Chen, in further view of Negishi et al. (hereinafter “Negishi”) (US 2016/0311048 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth above. Yang does not expressly disclose each of the drawing rollers has a peripheral circumferential seat shaped as "V" for the metal wire.
Negishi, in a related wire straightening art, discloses a peripheral circumferential seat shaped for the rollers (12) may having any shape, for example, an arc shape, a U-shape, a V-shape, or the like (see para. 47).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a V-shaped peripheral circumferential seat for the rollers, as taught by Negishi, to guide a wire in a wire straightening apparatus, since such shape for the peripheral circumferential seat is old and well-known in the wire straightening art, and all shapes (i.e. an arc shape, a U-shape, a V-shape) work equally as well, one skilled in the art would make a choice for convenience reason.
Regarding claim 10, modified Yang discloses the seat has a peripheral circumferential seat shaped as "V" as set forth above, and the V shape inherently has a seat angle comprised between 50° and 100°, between 60° and 90° (with respect from a horizontal line running at the bottom of the V).
Regarding claim 11, the apparatus of claim 9, modified Yang discloses the V-shaped seat as set forth above. Therefore, the V-shaped around the roller is considered as having recesses around the roller.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of College et al. (hereinafter “College”) (US 5,676,010).
Regarding claim 13, Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth above. Yang does not disclose the outlet unit comprises two distinct series of rollers.
College discloses a wire straightening device comprising an outlet unit (fig. 10-13) two distinct series of rollers (116, 118) and (94, 96) (figs. 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the outlet unit Yang, two distinct series of rollers, as taught by College, to reduce the surface stresses in the wire prior to exiting from the unit (col. 6, lines 42-44).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang.
Regarding claim 18, the method of claim 15, Yang discloses the calibrating step as set forth above. The final cross-section of the metal wire after the calibrating step is inherently smaller than the initial cross-section of the metal wire.
As to the final cross-section of the metal wire is smaller than a value comprised between 0.5% and 1.5% with respect to the area of the initial cross-section of the metal wire, the Applicant has not set forth any criticality to the selection of having a value comprised between 0.5% and 1.5% with respect to the area of the initial cross-section of the metal wire that results in any unexpected benefit (see page 5, lines 18-21 of the instant specification, which merely discloses the ranges without any unexpected benefit), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calibrate the wire so that that final cross-section of the metal wire is smaller than a value comprised between 0.5% and 1.5% with respect to the area of the initial cross-section of the metal wire, because such selection or determination would be the result of routine optimization and does not itself warrant patentability, as one would arrive at such optimization through routine engineering and design practice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 14 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 8, the claim is allowed because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “wherein said outlet axis is parallel and vertically misaligned with respect to said inlet axis by an amount equal to the sum of the distance between the centers of said drawing rollers and the radiuses of said drawing rollers”, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is allowed because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “wherein said outlet group comprises a first series of outlet rollers with a horizontal axis and a second series of outlet rollers vertical to them”, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 114007778A and WO2020/174505A1 disclose wire straightening apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-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, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
