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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should not exceed 15 lines of text. Abstracts exceeding 15 lines of text or 150 words should be checked to see that they are as concise as the disclosure permits. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 use the word “means” or “step” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means being present for activating the rotation of the spools” in claim 1 wherein the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification is an unwinding motor (page 15, lines 14-17);
“wire processing means”, “ the processing means being configured to unwind the wire and fix a first end of the wire to a strap of the bundle and to engage a second end of the wire to said label”, and “the wire processing means being configured to execute a cutting of the wire” in claim 1 wherein the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification is inlet dragging members of gears (page 14, lines 3-5), a second wire bending device having three castors (page 14, line 24 to page 15, line 2), a first wire bending device of a “fork” element (page 15, line 29 to page 16, line 5), and a wire cutting device (page 15, lines 18-19);
“automated object recognition means comprising identification means of the bundle configured to detect a first section, corresponding to the distance between a strap and an end of the bundle” in claim 1 wherein the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification is an acquisition unit of the camera type or the like and a processing unit of the images acquired by the acquisition unit (page 12, line 31 to page 13, line 2);
“means for gripping/releasing at least one label” in claim 1 wherein the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification is two jaws (page 14, lines 6-9); and
“wire retention means”… …“which retention means pass from a wire retention condition to a wire release condition, in which the wire is free to exit from the application head” in claim 7 wherein the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification is the second wire bending device and/or the first wire bending device is retractable (Page 16, lines 21-29).
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.
Claims 1-11 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the label” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the label” and insert therein - - a label - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the rotation” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the rotation” and insert therein - - rotation - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the processing means” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the processing means” and insert therein - - the wire processing means - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the automated object recognition means comprising identification means of the bundle configured to detect a first section, corresponding to the distance between a strap and an end of the bundle”. It is unclear is the “a strap” the strap to which the first end of the wire is fixed or another strap? The strap appears to be the strap to which the first end of the wire is fixed. It is suggested to delete “corresponding to the distance between a strap and an end of the bundle” and insert therein - - corresponding to the distance between the strap and an end of the bundle - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the processing means” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the processing means” and insert therein - - the wire processing means - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the second bending device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “The system according to claim 1, wherein the second bending device” in line 1 and insert therein - - The system according to claim 3, wherein the second wire bending device - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the strap” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim see “identifying a band”. It is suggested to delete “identifying a band” in line 5 and insert therein - - identifying a strap - - and to delete “cutting the wire so that the length between the two ends is greater than the distance between the band and the end of the bundle” in line 11 and insert therein - - cutting the wire so that the length between the two ends is greater than the distance between the strap and the end of the bundle - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended as suggested above to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Castellani (WO 2009/080059 and see Figures 1-6 and Page 3, line 20 to Page 7, line 21 and Page 11, lines 2-4 and Page 11, line 26 to Page 12, line 5) discloses a labelling system of bundles of rods or bundles of bars, which bundles (7) comprise one or more cords/strips/bands (5) arranged around the bundle, the system comprising a manipulator (4) including arms (as depicted) and holding/releasing structure (as also depicted) for a wire (9) and a label (8) which manipulator is configured for the movement of the holding/releasing structure to hold a wire and a label (Figure 2), to fix a first end of the wire to a cord/strip/band of a bundle with a second end of the wire engaging the label and the wire having a distance between the first end and the second end greater than the distance between the cord/strip/band and an end of the bundle (Figures 1 and 4-6), and to release the wire and label wherein the system further comprises a bender (3) comprising a pulling mechanism (12), a coiler (16), a tail bend shear (14), and a cutter (13) for processing the wire so as to form a length of the wire (9) comprising a bend (10) and fixing hook (11) at ends thereof engaging the label (8) (Figure 4) for fixing to the cord/strip/band by the manipulator. Castellani does not teach or suggest the holding/releasing structure on the arms of the manipulator (4) comprise the bender (3). Castellani does not teach or suggest an automated object recognition means comprising identification means of the bundle configured to detect a first section, corresponding to the distance between a strap and an end of the bundle.
Takao et al. (JP 10-35631 and see Figures 1-3 and Paragraph 0032, pages 6-8 of the machine translation) discloses a tagging system of bundles (Ay) of bars (Bs), which bundles comprise one or more straps (as depicted) arranged around the bundle, the system comprising a vertical moving table (10 and considered to include an arm as depicted), a wire feeding means (16), welding means (17), and a tag connecting means (18) for feeding wire (Wr), fixing a first end of the wire to an end of a bundle, cutting the wire, and engaging at least one tag to a second end of the wire and which arm is configured for movement of at least the wire feeding means wherein the system further comprises an imaging section (4) and a distance detection means (5) configured to detect a distance necessary for feeding the wire and fixing the wire and tag to the bundle. There is no teaching or suggestion in Takao the system comprise an application head comprising wire processing means (see “Claim Interpretation” above) the wire processing means configured to unwind the wire and fix a first end of the wire to a strap of the bundle and to engage a second end of the wire to a label and execute a cutting of the wire whereby the distance between the first end and the second end is greater than a first section corresponding to the distance between the strap and an end of the bundle.
Goji (JP 9-69920 and see also Figure 1 and Paragraph 0022, pages 4-6 of the machine translation) discloses a tagging system of bundles (Ay) of bars (Bs), which bundles comprise one or more straps (as depicted) arranged around the bundle, the system comprising a feeding control means (7 and considered to include an arm), a wire holding member (and considered an application head), cutting means (5), and tag connecting means (6) of a tag for feeding wire (Wr), fixing a first end of the wire to an end of a bundle, cutting the wire, and engaging at least one tag to a second end of the wire, and at least one reel device (10 and considered a spool) of wire and a feeding control device (11) configured to convey the wire inside the wire holding member wherein the feeding control means is configured for the movement of the wire holding member. There is no teaching or suggestion in Goji the system comprise an application head comprising wire processing means (see “Claim Interpretation” above) the wire processing means configured to unwind the wire and fix a first end of the wire to a strap of the bundle and to engage a second end of the wire to the label and execute a cutting of the wire whereby the distance between the first end and the second end is greater than a first section corresponding to the distance between the strap and an end of the bundle. Goji does not teach or suggest an automated object recognition means comprising identification means of the bundle configured to detect a first section, corresponding to the distance between a strap and an end of the bundle.
The prior art of record (alone or in combination) fails to teach or suggest a labelling system of bundles of rods or bundles of bars, which bundles comprise one or more straps arranged around the bundle (and a method for labelling bundles of rods or bundles of bars through the use of the system) as claimed and including the robotic arm is configured for the movement of the application head characterized in that the application head comprises the wire processing means, the automated object recognition means, and the means for gripping/releasing at least one label with the wire processing means and the automated object recognition means configured as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746