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:
“first control unit for controlling the workpiece drive” in claim 8 [corresponding structure is measuring device, comparison unit and adjustment unit; see paragraph 0034];
“second control unit for controlling the feeding drive” in claim 8 [corresponding structure is measuring device, comparison unit and adjustment unit; see paragraph 0035];
“measuring device is configured to measure at least one actual value” in claims 10 & 11 [no corresponding structure is provided];
“comparison unit is configured to compare the momentary actual value” in claims 10 & 11 [no corresponding structure is provided]; and
“adjustment unit is configured to adjust the advancement speed” in claims 10 & 11 [no corresponding structure is provided].
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 § 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 1-12 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.
With regards to claims 1 & 8, the claim states “wherein the forming element forms a workpiece drive of the straightening device” (claim 1) or “wherein the forming element forms a workpiece drive configured for driving the workpiece” (claim 8), this renders the claim indefinite since the claims previously set forth that the forming element deforms the workpiece from the initial shape into the intended shape thus, it is unclear how a workpiece drive is able to deform the workpiece. Clarification and/or correction is required.
The claims state “wherein the advancement speed is adjusted such that, the intermediate length of the workpiece is shorter than or equal to a maximum intermediate length of the workpiece” and “such that the intermediate length of the workpiece arranged between the workpiece drive and the feeding drive is shorter than or equal to the maximum intermediate length of the workpiece”, this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the maximum intermediate length of the workpiece is a physical element or if it is a value, in which case it is unclear what the boundaries of this value are i.e. is it just an arbitrary value, predetermined, or are there specific limits to being the maximum length. Clarification and/or correction is required. For examination purposes the limitation is being read as an arbitrary value.
With regards to claims 2 & 9, the claims state “the intermediate length of the workpiece is equal to or greater than a minimum intermediate length of the workpiece”, this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the minimum intermediate length of the workpiece is a physical element or if it is a value, in which case it is unclear what the boundaries of this value are i.e. is it just an arbitrary value, predetermined, or are there specific limits to being the minimum length. Clarification and/or correction is required.
With regards to claims 8, 10 & 11, the claim limitation “first control unit for controlling the workpiece drive”, the limitation “second control unit for controlling the feeding drive” of claim 8, and the limitations “the measuring device is configured to measure”, “the comparison unit is configured to compare” and “the adjustment unit is configured to adjust” of claims 10 & 11 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification and drawings fail to disclose any structural elements that encompass these units or devices. Specifically, the drawings illustrate the units and devices with boxes and the specification is silent to what they are comprised of, i.e. sensors, processors, etc.. It is further noted that while the specification states that the first and second control units are comprised of the measuring device, comparison unit and adjustment unit given that the specification fails to elaborate on the structure of them it is unclear what the structure of the first and second control units are also. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
With regards to claim 8, the claim states “a feeding drive configured for driving the workpiece in the workpiece advancement direction”, it is unclear if this feeding drive is in addition to the feeding drive previously recited in the limitation “thereby moving the workpiece to a feeding drive arranged downstream of the workpiece drive”. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as having a single feeding drive.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (EP 1413371A2).
In reference to claim 1, Kato discloses a method for processing a plastically deformable workpiece (11), wherein in an initial state, the workpiece has an initial shape that differs from an intended shape for processing, the method comprising
plastically deforming the workpiece using at least one forming element of a straightening device (22), thereby changing the workpiece into the intended shape for processing, wherein the forming element (18) forms a workpiece drive of the straightening device [see paragraph 0025],
driving the workpiece using the workpiece drive with an advancement movement in a workpiece advancement direction so that the workpiece is moved to a feeding drive (28) arranged downstream of the workpiece drive [see paragraph 0024],
driving the workpiece using the feeding drive in the workpiece advancement direction so that a partial length of the workpiece is conveyed to a working region of a processing device (27) at a feeding speed [see paragraph 0024],
while the feeding drive has been stopped and the partial length of the workpiece is stationary in the working region, processing the partial length of the workpiece in the working region using the processing device (27) [see paragraph 0024; intermittent feeding occurs],
while the partial length of the workpiece is being processed in the working region, driving the workpiece using the workpiece drive in the workpiece advancement direction with an advancement speed, so that an intermediate length of the workpiece is arranged between the workpiece drive and the feeding drive, wherein the advancement speed is adjusted such that, the intermediate length of the workpiece is shorter than or equal to a maximum intermediate length of the workpiece [see paragraph 0032],
wherein while the workpiece is being conveyed into the working region, the feeding speed of the workpiece generated by the feeding drive and the advancement speed of the workpiece generated by the workpiece drive are adjusted such that the intermediate length of the workpiece arranged between the workpiece drive nad the feeding drive is shorter than or equal to the maximum intermediate length of the workpiece [see paragraph 0032; figures 1 & 3].
In reference to claim 2, Kato further discloses while the workpiece is being conveyed into the working region, the feeding speed of the workpiece generated by the feeding drive and the advancement speed of the workpiece generated by the workpiece drive are adjusted such that the intermediate length of the workpiece is equal to or greater than a minimum intermediate length of the workpiece, wherein at the minimum intermediate length of the workpiece, the intermediate length of the workpiece is free from tensile stress that results from the workpiece being conveyed by the feeding drive [see paragraph 0032].
In reference to claim 3, the workpiece comprises a piece of sheet metal (11), wherein in the initial state, the workpiece forms a coil as the initial shape, and the intended shape for processing is flat [see paragraph 0024; figure 1].
In reference to claim 4, the advancement speed of the workpiece generated by the workpiece drive is adjusted to a higher value while the workpiece is being conveyed into the working region than while the partial length of the workpiece is being processed in the workpiece region [see paragraph 0032, driving, i.e. speed, of workpiece drive is controlled to maintain the loop within the min and max parameters].
In reference to claim 5, the advancement speed of the workpiece generated by the workpiece drive is adjusted depending on a processing status in the working region.
In reference to claim 6, Kato further discloses while the partial length of the workpiece is being processed in the working region,
measuring at least one actual value for the intermediate length of the workpiece as a momentary actual value, and comparing the momentary actual value for the intermediate length of the workpiece with a momentary target value of the intermediate length of the workpiece in an actual value-target value comparison, wherein the advancement speed of the workpiece generated by the workpiece drive is adjusted depending on a result of the actual value-target value comparison [see paragraph 0032].
In reference to claim 7, Kato further discloses while the workpiece is being conveyed into the working region, measuring at least one actual value for the intermediate length of the workpiece as a momentary actual value for the intermediate length of the workpiece, and comparing the momentary actual value for the intermediate length of the workpiece with a momentary target value of the intermediate length of the workpiece in an actual value-target comparison, wherein the advancement speed of the workpiece generated by the workpiece drive is adjusted depending on the results of the actual value target value comparison [see paragraph 0032].
In reference to claim 8, Kato discloses a mechanical arrangement for processing a plastically deformable workpiece, wherein in an initial state, the workpiece has an initial shape that differs from an intended shape for processing, the mechanical arrangement comprising
a straightening device (22) having at least one forming element (14, 15, 18) for deforming the workpiece from the initial shape into the intended shape for processing, wherein the forming element forms a workpiece drive (18) configured for driving the workpiece with an advancement movement in a workpiece advancement direction, thereby moving the workpiece to a feeding drive (28) arranged downstream of the workpiece drive [see paragraph 0024],
a feeding drive (28) configured for driving the workpiece in the workpiece advancement direction, thereby a partial length of the workpiece is conveyable to a working region of a processing device (27) at a feeding speed, wherein the partial length of the workpiece in the working region is processable by processing device as the feeding drive has been stopped and the partial length of the workpiece is stationary [see paragraph 0024; intermittent feeding occurs],
an arrangement controller (26) comprising a first control unit for controlling the workpiece drive and a second control unit for controlling the feeding drive, wherein the first control unit is configured to, while the partial length of the workpiece is being processed in the working region, adjust the advancement speed of the workpiece generated by the workpiece drive such that an intermediate length of the workpiece arranged between the workpiece drive and the feeding drive is shorter than or equal to a maximum intermediate length of the workpiece, and wherein the first control unit for controlling the workpiece drive and the second control unit for controlling the feeding drive are configured to, while the workpiece is being conveyed into the working region, adjusting the feeding speed of the workpiece generated by the feeding drive and the advancement speed of the workpiece generated by the workpiece drive such that the intermediate length of the workpiece arranged between the workpiece drive and the feeding drive is shorter than or equal to the maximum intermediate length of the workpiece [see paragraph 0032].
In reference to claim 9, while the workpiece is being conveyed into the working region, the feeding speed of the workpiece generated by the feeding drive and the advancement speed of the workpiece generated by the workpiece drive are adjusted such that the intermediate length of the workpiece arranged between the workpiece drive nad the feeding drive is equal to or greater than a minimum intermediate length of the workpiece, wherein at the minimum intermediate length of the workpiece, the intermediate length of the workpiece is free from tensile stress that results from the workpiece being conveyed by the feeding drive [see paragraph 0032; figures 1 & 3].
In reference to claim 10, Kato further discloses the first control unit for controlling the workpiece drive comprises a measuring device (23, 24), a comparison unit and an adjustment unit, wherein while the partial length of the workpiece is being processed in the working region, the measuring device is configured to measure at least one actual value for the intermediate length of the workpiece as a momentary actual value for the intermediate length of the workpiece, the comparison unit is configured to compare the momentary actual value for the intermediate length of the workpiece with a momentary target value of the intermediate length of the workpiece in an actual value target value comparison, and the adjustment unit is configured to adjust the advancement speed of the workpiece generated by the workpiece drive depending on the result of the actual value target value comparison [see paragraph 0032].
In reference to claim 11, Kato further discloses the second control unit for controlling the feeding drive comprising a measuring device (23, 24), a comparison units and an adjustment unit, wherein while the workpiece is being conveyed into the working region, the measuring device
is configured to measure at least one actual value for the intermediate length of the workpiece as a momentary actual value for the intermediate length of the workpiece, the comparison unit is configured to compare the momentary actual value for the intermediate length of the workpiece with a momentary target value for the intermediate length of the workpiece in an actual value target value comparison, and the adjustment unit is configured to adjust the feeding speed of the workpiece generated by the feeding drive depending on a result of the actual value target value comparison [see paragraph 0032].
In reference to claim 12, Kato discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (26) having a computer programed stored thereon, the computer program, when executed by a computer processor, causing performance of a method according to claim 1 [see paragraph 0032-0033].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Debra Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)272-1904. 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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Debra M Sullivan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights