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
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not narrative and is a run-on sentence. 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 Objections
Claim 12 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 7, “and be to be housed” should be --configured to be housed-- or --is housed--, etc.
Claim 21 recites, “it” and should be – the blade--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The limitation “means for holding by magnetism” recited in claim 12 is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because it recited a function without reciting structure for performing the function. It is construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification, including a magnet configured to retain the blade in the notch, and equivalents thereof.
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 12-22 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 12 recites, “a vibrating steel blade.” The term “vibrating steel blade” lacks structural distinction over a conventional steel blade because the claims fail to recite any structure that imparts vibration to the blade. Thus, it is unclear what structural features distinguish the claimed blade.
Claim 12, line 5 recites “the upper of the blade”. It is unclear what is meant by “the upper” as the term lacks antecedent basis and does not clearly correspond to a recognized structural portion of the blade.
Claim 12, line 7 recites, “and able to be housed in a cutout”. The limitation “housed” does not clearly define the structural relationship between the lug and the cutout. In particular, it is unclear whether “housed” requires full enclosure, partial insertion, or mere engagement. As illustrated in Figure 2A, the lug appears only partially received within the cutout rather than being fully enclosed, further contributing to ambiguity in the scope of the claim.
Claim 12, line 8 recites, “to ensure an absorption of the cutting forces”. The phrase defines functional language that fails to set forth any structure or boundaries for achieve the stated result, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unclear. Furthermore, it is unclear what structure or features are required to achieve such absorption, and the degree or manner of “absorption” is not defined.
Claim 19 recites, “wherein the holding of the blade in the notch of the blade holder is devoid of mechanism attachment. It is unclear what structures are encompassed or excluded by this term. It is not evident whether features such as lugs, pins, notches, or other engagement structures constitute “mechanical attachment means”.
Claim 20 recites, “a vibrating steel blade for cutting a machine intended to cooperate with the holding device of claim 12.” However, claim 12, already positively sets forth the “vibrating steel blade” as part of “A device for holding”. Accordingly, it is unclear whether claim 20 is directed to a separate blade distinct from that of claim 12, or to the same blade recited in claim 12. This ambiguity renders the scope of the claims unclear.
Claim 22 recites “an assembly of a vibrating steel blade according to claim 20 on a blade holder of a cutting machine via a holding device.” Although claim 22 depends from claims 20 and 12, and thus incorporates a blade, blade holder, and holding device, the claim fails to clearly define the structural relationship among these elements. In particular, it is unclear how the blade, blade holder, and holding device are arranged relative to one another. Additionally, the recitation “assembly of” does not clearly denote a structural configuration. Further, claim 22 recites, “a blade holder of a cutting device” while claim 12 already sets forth a blade holder and a vibrating steel blade, and it is unclear whether the blade holder and vibrating steel blade recited in claim 22 corresponds to the blade holder and vibrating steel blade of claim 12 or to a different blade holder and vibrating steel blade. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is unclear.
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.
Claims 12-14, 16-17, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schallinox (DE202016102478) in view of Child et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0048121), herein referred to as Child.
In regards to claim 12, as best understood, Schallinox discloses a device for holding a vibrating steel blade on a blade holder of a cutting machine (e.g. 1; Fig. 2b), comprising: a vibrating steel blade (2A; metallic ultrasonic vibrating) for a cutting machine; a blade holder (coupling rod 3) having a notch (either recess 521 or 321; Figs. 3b and 5a) able to receive an upper end of the blade (22; 2a), means for holding by magnetism (magnetic coupling element 322; fig. 5b) the upper of the blade (one of the ends of the blade 2a) in the notch (either 521 or 321) of the blade holder (3) along a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the blade (in the thickness direction of the blade), and at least one lug (one of the protrusions of 521) formed in the notch (321 or 521) and able to be housed in a cutout (one of the waves of 221) made in the upper end of the blade in order to ensure an absorption of the cutting forces.
(“Preferably, the features of the embodiments of Fig. 5a and Fig. 5b are combined, i.e., mechanical molded parts 321 and magnetic coupling elements 322 are provided. The mechanical components 321 subsequently absorb the force acting during the cutting process, while the magnetic coupling elements 322 hold the installed blades in position.The magnetic coupling elements therefore also form a locking device 4, which secures the connection”;
paragraph [0062])
Schallinox sets forth that the blade is made of metal, but does not set forth the type of metal as highlighted above and therefore does not positively disclose that it is made of steel. Child discloses an ultrasonic cutting system having a blade driven by ultrasonic resonation, wherein the blade may be comprised of metal, such as titanium, aluminum or steel. Child further teaches that selection of the blade material is made to reduce sticking of the workpiece to the blade (see paragraph [0056]), thereby indicating that the blade material is a result-effective variable depending upon the workpiece being cut. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the blade of Schallinox from steel for improved structural stability and performance, as suggested by Child.
In regards to claim 13, the modified device of Schallinox discloses wherein the blade holder (3) comprises at least one magnet (322) assembled inside the notch (321) and able to establish a planar bearing with a planar surface of the upper end of the blade (fig. 5b; the magnet is planar) so as to ensure holding by magnetism of the upper end of the blade in the notch (321) of the blade holder (3).
In regards to claim 14, the modified device of Schallinox discloses wherein the notch (321) of the blade holder is magnetized (via magnet 322) so as to ensure holding by magnetism of the upper end of the blade in the notch of the blade holder.
In regards to claim 16, the modified device of Schallinox discloses wherein the notch (321) comprises a bottom (back, 32) having a planar surface and is delimited laterally by two rims (two curved rims on the sides) protruding relative to the bottom.
In regards to claim 17, the modified device of Schallinox discloses wherein the lug (5) extends from a lower end of one of the rims of the notch towards the other rim along a direction substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the blade.
In regards to claim 20 the modified device of Schallinox discloses a vibrating steel blade (2a) for a cutting machine (fig. 1) intended to cooperate with the holding device according to claim 12, comprising an upper end able to house in the notch of the blade holder and to be held therein by the magnetism holding means (322), the upper end of the blade (22) comprising at least one cutout (voids in the wave shape) able to receive the lug (321) formed in the notch.
In regards to claim 21 the modified device of Schallinox discloses wherein it is made of high-speed steel (as modified by Child).
In regards to claim 22 the modified device of Schallinox discloses an assembly of a vibrating steel blade according to claim 20 on a blade holder of a cutting machine via a holding device (fig. 1)
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schallinox (DE202016102478) in view of Child et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0048121), herein referred to as Child. In regards to claim 15, the modified device of Schallinox discloses the claimed invention except wherein the notch of the blade holder comprises a ferromagnetic metal and the upper end of the blade comprises a magnet so as to ensure holding by magnetism of the upper end of the blade in the notch of the blade holder. Schallinox discloses rather a coupling system in which a magnetic element is provided in the adapter to magnetically retain a blade formed of metal. Schallinox therefore teaches magnetic coupling between the blade and the adapter to facilitate positioning and temporary retention of the blade during assembly. . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to instead provide the magnetic element on the blade and form the blade holder (adapter) from a ferromagnetic material, as magnetic attraction between a magnet and a ferromagnetic material is well known to be reciprocal and does not depend on which component carries the magnet. Such a modification represents a predicable use of known magnetic coupling techniques to achieve the same function of retaining and positioning the blade relative to the blade holder. Furthermore, the applicant describes alternative configurations in which the magnetic element may be associated with different components of the coupling system, indicating that the particular placement of the magnet is not critical. Accordingly, selecting whether the magnet is disposed on the blade or the blade holder would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schallinox (DE202016102478) in view of Child et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0048121), herein referred to as Child and in further view of Pascaloff et al. (U.S. Patent 6,638,290), herein referred to as Pascaloff. In regards to claim 18, the modified device of Schallinox discloses the claimed invention except wherein the lug is made by a pin extending from the bottom of the notch along a direction substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the blade. Pascaloff discloses a blade having notches 18b and also an aperture 22 and a connector assembly invluding a transverse fastening element extending through the aperture (see Figure 3), which constitutes a pin type engagement between the blade and the holder. Such a pin provides alignment and retention of the blade relative to the holder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a pin type engagement as taught by Pascaloff into the magnetic coupling system of Schallinox in order to provide improved alignment and resistance to cutting forces, as pins are commonly used to secure and position components in mechanical assemblies.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schallinox (DE202016102478) in view of Child et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0048121), herein referred to as Child
In regards to claim 19, as best understood, the modified device of Schallinox does not discloses wherein the holding of the blade in the notch of the blade holder (3) is devoid of mechanical attachment (per Figure 5b). Rather, as set forth in paragraph [0062] the magnetic parts (322) and the mechanical molded parts (321) are combined. The claimed invention differs in that the holding is devoice of mechanical attachment means. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to omit the mechanical molded parts (321) of Schallinox such that the blade is retained solely by magnetic attraction. The magnetic elements (322) are already configured to retain the blade, and omission of the mechanical molded parts would have resulted in a simplified structure while still permitting retention of the blade by the magnetic elements. The omission of the mechanical molded parts constitutes a known design choice where the remaining elements perform the same function as before, namely retaining the blade, and would have involved only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724