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: “drive wheel assemblies” in claims 1, 3, 11, and 13; “clamping arm assembly” in claims 1, 6, 11, and 13; “cutting and fastening assembly” in claims 1, 7, 8, 11, and 13; “electronics assembly” in claims 1, 11, and 12; “suspension assembly” in claims 4 and 5; “rolled material feed mechanism” in claims 7 and 9; “cutting wheel assembly” in claims 7 and 10.
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.
The claim limitation “drive wheel assemblies” recites the generic placeholder “assemblies” coupled with the functional modifier “drive” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 5, shown in figure 1, and equivalents thereof.
The claim limitation “clamping arm assembly” recites the generic placeholder “assembly” coupled with the functional modifier “clamping” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 27, shown in figure 17, and equivalents thereof.
The claim limitation “cutting and fastening assembly” recites the generic placeholder “assembly” coupled with the functional modifier “cutting and fastening” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 8, shown in figure 17, and equivalents thereof.
The claim limitation “electronics assembly” recites the generic placeholder “assembly” coupled with the functional modifier “provide electric power and control signals” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 24, shown in figure 2, and equivalents thereof.
The claim limitation “suspension assembly” recites the generic placeholder “assembly” coupled with the functional modifier “suspension” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 16, shown in figure 4, and equivalents thereof.
The claim limitation “rolled material feed mechanism” recites the generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with the functional modifier “feed” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 59, shown in figure 11, and equivalents thereof.
The claim limitation “cutting wheel assembly” recites the generic placeholder “assembly” coupled with the functional modifier “cut” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 63, shown in figure 19, and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COTTAM (US 4,322,262) in view of SCHWARTZ et al. (US 2015/0259087) .
Regarding claim 1, COTTAM teaches an apparatus for wrapping rolled material on a cylindrical object comprising a frame 14 supporting a roll of material 89 with upper and lower vertices and an opening therein to receive the object, a plurality of pivoting drive wheel assemblies 44 near vertices, a clamping arm assembly 34, and a fastening assembly 26 and 65 (figs. 1, 4, and 6; col. 4, line 50 – col. 5, line 23). COTTAM does not teach a cutting assembly, but discloses cutting the tape after wrapping (col. 10, lines 3-24), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a cutting assembly in the apparatus in order to perform the cutting function disclosed. COTTOM does not teach an electronics assembly to provide power and control signals to the wheel, clamping arm, and cutting and fastening assemblies. SCHWARTZ teaches another apparatus for wrapping rolled material around an object, wherein the apparatus comprises a controller for actuating apparatus components (paras. 51-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include an electronics assembly to power and control the apparatus components of COTTOM because such was a common means of automating apparatus functions in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 2, COTTOM teaches a roll pole 88 and platform 102 (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, COTTOM teaches the clamping arm assembly comprises an actuator arm 34 attached to the frame 14 that can move between an open and closed position (fig. 2), but does not teach a servo actuator coupled to the actuator arm and frame. SCHWARTZ teaches utilizing electric motors to move apparatus components (para. 47), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a servo actuator to move the actuator arm of COTTOM because such was a common means of automating steps (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 11, SCHWARTZ teaches another apparatus for wrapping rolled material around an object, wherein the apparatus comprises a controller for actuating apparatus components (paras. 51-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include an electronics assembly to power and control the apparatus components of COTTOM because such was a common means of automating apparatus functions in the art (MPEP 2144.04). While SCHWARTZ does not describe the controller as a computer and battery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that any electric controller would require a computer and utilizing a battery was a well-known means of providing power to a hand-held device at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 13, COTTAM teaches an apparatus for wrapping rolled material on a cylindrical object comprising a frame 14 supporting a roll of material 89 with upper and lower vertices and an opening therein to receive the object, a plurality of pivoting drive wheel assemblies 44 near vertices, a clamping arm assembly 34, and a fastening assembly 26 and 65 (figs. 1, 4, and 6; col. 4, line 50 – col. 5, line 23). COTTAM does not teach a cutting assembly, but discloses cutting the tape after wrapping (col. 10, lines 3-24), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a cutting assembly in the apparatus in order to perform the cutting function disclosed. COTTOM does not teach an electronics assembly to provide power and control signals to the wheel, clamping arm, and cutting and fastening assemblies. SCHWARTZ teaches another apparatus for wrapping rolled material around an object, wherein the apparatus comprises a controller for actuating apparatus components (paras. 51-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include an electronics assembly to power and control the apparatus components of COTTOM because such was a common means of automating apparatus functions in the art (MPEP 2144.04). COTTOM teaches closing the clamping arm to retain and engage the object with the plural drive wheel assemblies, loading the roll of material onto the apparatus, rotating the drive wheel assemblies to move along the object axis, moving the apparatus along the object to a predetermined position, rotating the wheels to rotate around the object, moving the fastening assembly toward the object and dispensing an end of the material toward the object, fastening the end of the material to the object, moving the apparatus around the object and dispensing material to wrap the object, and cutting the dispensed roll material (col. 2, lines 34-39; col. 3, lines 31-36; col. 5, lines 11-22; col. 6, lines 51; figs. 1-2 and 8). COTTOM does not teach the cutting assembly is moved with the fastening assembly, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to move the components together because unifying components has been held per se obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-10, and 12 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest an apparatus as claimed wherein each of the plurality of pivoting drive wheel assemblies comprises a suspension assembly coupling the pivoting drive wheel assembly to the frame and a pivot motor coupled to the wheel tire via the wheel pivot axle, wherein operation of the pivot motor enables the tire to rotate about the pivot body; wherein the cutting and fastening assembly comprises a cutting block head that can move along a linear guide, where a fastener gun and cutting wheel assembly are disposed on the cutting block head; or wherein the electronics assembly further comprises a radio modem coupled to the computer capable of functioning as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: DOKMO (US 4,426,834) and DAYKIN et al. (US 2015/0259087).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nickolas R Harm whose telephone number is (571)270-7605. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/NICKOLAS R HARM/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights