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:
Claims 1, 10, 11 and 13:
a feeding unit configured to feed the wire wound;
a guide unit configured to guide the wire around rebars;
a twisting unit configured to twist the wire around the rebars; and
a detection unit configured to detect a type of the reel,
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.
Claims 1-6, 9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okamura (US 2023/0158649).
With regards to claim 1, Okamura discloses a rebar tying machine (2), comprising:
a reel (33) including a bobbin (160) and a wire (W) wound on the bobbin;
a reel attachment unit (208) to which the reel is attached [paragraph 0198];
a feeding unit (38) configured to feed the wire wound on the bobbin;
a guide unit (40) configured to guide the wire around rebars;
a twisting unit (46) configured to twist the wire around the rebars; and
a detection unit (158) configured to detect a type of the reel,
wherein the bobbin includes:
a body portion (170/162) on which the wire is wound, the body portion having a first internal space (172) into which the reel attachment unit is inserted [paragraph 0198]; and
an information portion (projections 180, 182) that has type information indicating the type of the reel [at least paragraph 0211], and the detection unit (158 including elements 230) is positioned in the first internal space when the reel is attached on the reel attachment unit [paragraph 0219].
With regards to claim 2, Okamura discloses wherein the information portion includes a protrusion (projections 180, 182) protruding from the body portion, a protruding length of the protrusion varies depending on the type of the reel, and the protruding length is the type information [at least paragraph 0211].
With regards to claim 3, Okamura discloses wherein the protrusion is positioned in the first internal space, as seen in at least Figure 19.
With regards to claim 4, Okamura discloses wherein the body portion (170/162) includes: a tubular main body having an internal space; and a partition that divides the internal space of the main body into the first internal space and a second internal space different from the first internal space, and the protrusion protrudes from the partition, as seen in at least Figure 19.
With regards to claim 5, Okamura discloses wherein the reel (33) is configured to rotatable about a central axis when attached on the reel attachment unit, and the protrusion is positioned on the central axis and extends along the central axis, as seen in at least Figures 19-20.
With regards to claims 6 and 20, Okamura discloses wherein the detection unit (158) includes: a movable member, wherein the movable member (230) is positioned in an initial position when the reel attachment unit is not in the first internal space and is moved from the initial position by being pressed by the protrusion when the reel attachment unit is inserted into the first internal space; and a detector (158) configured to detect a position of the movable member [at least paragraph 0217].
With regards to claims 9 and 20, Okamura discloses further comprising a control unit (36) configured to control the feeding unit and the twisting unit to execute a tying process for tying the rebars using the wire [paragraph 0149], wherein the control unit is configured to acquire the type of the reel from the detection unit during the tying process [paragraph 0212].
With regards to claim 11, Okamura discloses reel (33) comprising:
a bobbin (160); and a wire (W)wound on the bobbin,
the bobbin includes: an information portion (180, 182) that has type information indicating the type of the reel; and a body portion (170/162) on which the wire is wound, the body portion has a first internal space into which the reel attachment unit is inserted, as seen in at least Figure 19.
The following limitation is considered intended use: “for use in a rebar tying machine…wherein the rebar tying machine includes: a reel attachment unit to which the reel is attached; a feeding unit configured to feed the wire wound on the bobbin; a guide unit configured to guide the wire around rebars; a twisting unit configured to twist the wire around the rebars; and a detection unit configured to detect a type of the reel…and the detection unit is positioned in the first internal space when the reel attachment unit is in the first internal space.” A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
With regards to claim 12, Okamura discloses wherein the information portion is positioned in the first internal space, as seen in at least Figure 19.
With regards to claim 13, Okamura discloses a reel comprising: a bobbin (160); and a wire (W) wound on the bobbin,
the bobbin includes a protrusion (180, 182) having a protruding length, the protruding length varies depending on the type of the reel [paragraph 0198], and
The following limitation is considered intended use: “wherein the rebar tying machine includes: a reel attachment unit to which the reel is attached; a feeding unit configured to feed the wire wound on the bobbin; a guide unit configured to guide the wire around rebars; a twisting unit configured to twist the wire around the rebars; and a detection unit configured to detect a type of the reel... the detection unit is configured to detect the type of the reel based on the protruding length.” A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
With regards to claim 14, Okamura discloses wherein the bobbin further (160) includes a first member and a second member different from the first member, the information portion is included in the first member (180, 182), and the body portion is included in the second member, as seen in Figure 19.
With regards to claim 15, Okamura discloses wherein the reel is configured to rotatable about a central axis when attached on the reel attachment unit, the information portion includes a protrusion positioned on the central axis in the first internal space and extending along the central axis, the protrusion has a protruding length, the protruding length varies depending on the type of the reel, and the protruding length is the type information [at least paragraph 0211].
With regards to claim 16, Okamura discloses wherein the first member is fixed to the second member in a retaining manner, as seen in Figure 19.
With regards to claim 17, Okamura discloses wherein a through hole is formed in the second member, and the first member extends through the through hole, as seen in Figure 19.
With regards to claim 18, Okamura discloses wherein the first member is insertable into and removable from the through hole from an opposite side to the first internal space, as seen in Figure 19.
With regards to claim 19, Okamura discloses wherein the bobbin includes a first member (180, 182) and a second member different from the first member, the information portion is included in the first member, and the body portion is included in the second member, as seen in Figure 19.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7, 8, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamura.
Okamura discloses the machine as described above and the reel attachment unit (208) includes an insertion tube configured to be inserted into the first internal space, the detector (158) is positioned in the insertion tube, the insertion tube includes: a wall configured to face the reel when the insertion tube is in the first internal space; and a through hole penetrating the wall, the protrusion extends through the through hole and presses the movable member toward inside of the insertion tube when the insertion tube is in the first internal space, the detection unit further includes a biasing member (31) configured to bias the movable member toward the initial position [paragraphs 0196-0198 and Figure 19-23.]
Okamura discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a hardness of the reel attachment unit is higher than a hardness of the bobbin and a hardness of the contact portion is higher than the hardness of the bobbin. 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 claimed hardness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is noted that Applicant has not disclosed that having this particular angle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem and since it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentable distinguish over Okamura.
With regards to claim 10, Okamura discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for a second reel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second reel, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and further show the state of the art: 2005/0061389.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM 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, Christopher 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.
/TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
