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:
“feeding unit” in claim 1. The specification provides corresponding structure as comprising “a feeding motor 88 , a fixed base 90 , a feeding guide 92 , a transmission roller 94 , a first roller 96 , a second roller 98 , a link member 100 , and a biasing member 102” with an additional embodiment comprising “a slide member 300 , a support member 302 , a biasing member 304 , and an actuation member 306” ([0107]).
“guide unit” in claim 1. The specification provides corresponding structure as comprising “a first guide member 110 , a second guide member 112 , a first pin 114 , a second pin 115 , and a wire guide 116” ([0121])
“bending member” in claim 1. The specification provides corresponding structure as comprising “a plate shape” and “a contact surface 194. The contact surface 194 is a part of the upper surface of the bending member 192” ([0148-0149]).
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
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) 1-4, 6-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Danholt et al. (WO 9418419), hereinafter Danholt.
Re Claim 1, Danholt discloses a rebar tying machine comprising:
a feeding unit configured to feed a wire (clip-supplying arrangement 40 comprising clip passage 24, clip-supplying member 42, pneumatic cylinder 48, piston rod 49, U-shaped profiles 51 and 52, and cut 55, as described in “Clip-Supplying Arrangement” section of the specification, Pg. 12, Line 21 – Pg. 13, Line 33 );
a guide unit configured to guide the wire around rebars (“The means for bending the leg parts is in this preferred embodiment of the apparatus 1 a member 6 having concavely curved guiding surfaces 10 and 11 in the form of two grooves 12 and 13 into which each of the free ends of the leg parts is forced.” Pg. 9, Lines 10-14);
a cutter (knife member 81 and 82) configured to cut the wire (Fig. 4);
a clamp (holding hooks 76 and 77) configured to be rotatable about a center axis and hold the wire (“The purpose of the holding hooks is to grasp the wire ends and hold them under the twining process” Pg. 15, Lines 25-26);
a main body housing (outer casing 2) supporting the feeding unit (“The clip-supplying member 42 is moved by means of a pneumatic cylinder 48 mounted within the outer casing 2” Pg. 9, Lines 35-36); and
a bending member (flange 78) configured to bend an end portion of the wire toward the rebars (“Secondly, the ends of the leg parts 106 and 107 are bent around edges 91 and 92 of the holding hooks 76 and 77 when the flange 78 passes by the holding hooks” Pg. 16, Line 6-8), wherein the end portion of the wire is formed by the cutter cutting the wire (“Firstly, the flange 78 of the stationary part 62 acts as a counterpart to the knife members 81 and 82 so that they together with the knives form two pairs of shears” Pg. 16, Line 3-5), wherein the bending member is configured to bend the end portion of the wire toward the rebars while the wire is twisted by rotation of the clamp (“The pneumatic motor 70 is then activated, resulting in a rotation of the pinion 72, the toothed wheel 68 and the thereto attached holding hooks 76 and 77 and knife members 81 and 82 relative to the stationary part 62.” Pg. 15, Line 34 – Pg. 16, Line 3).
Re Claim 2, Danholt discloses the rebar tying machine according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the bending member is immovable relative to the main body housing (“the flange 78 of the stationary part 62” Pg. 16, Lines 3-4).
Re Claim 3, Danholt discloses the rebar tying machine according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the center axis extends in a front-rear direction (see Fig. 4, illustrated below), the clamp is located rearward of the rebars (see Fig. 4, illustrated below), the bending member includes a contact surface inclined to the center axis in the front-rear direction (see Fig. 4, illustrated below), wherein the contact surface contacts the end portion of the wire while the wire is twisted by the rotation of the clamp (Pg 15, Line 34 – Pg. 16, Line 8), and a front end of the contact surface is farther away from the center axis than a rear end of the contact surface is (see Fig. 4, illustrated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Danholt, illustrated
Re Claim 4, Danholt discloses the rebar tying machine according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the contact surface is gradually farther away from the center axis from the rear end toward the front end of the contact surface (Fig. 4 shows the contact surface is at an incline).
Re Claim 6, Danholt discloses the rebar tying machine according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above),wherein the contact surface is located forward of the cutter (Fig. 4).
Re Claim 7, Danholt discloses the rebar tying machine according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the contact surface is located closer to the center axis than the cutter is (the portion of the flange, with its contact surface as defined in Fig. 4, that touches the part of central part that defines hole 79 is closer to the central axis than the portion of the knife that touches first rotatable part 64; see Fig. 3, illustrated below; “The central part 69, which as mentioned above is stationary relative to the rotatable toothed wheel 68 and the metal sheets 57 and 58 attached thereto, defines a flange 78 extending radially from the central part 69 and in between the metal sheets 57 and 58 and forming a counterpart to the knife members 81 and 82.” Pg. 15, Line 19-24).
PNG
media_image2.png
511
429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Danholt, illustrated
Re Claim 8, Danholt discloses the rebar tying machine according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the bending member is fixed to the guide unit (“The member 6 is fastened to the lower part of the outer casing 2.” Pg. 9, Lines 16-17, Fig. 1 shows outer casing 2 connected to bottom cover plate 67 and bottom cover plate connected to stationary part 62 which comprises central part 69 which forms flange 78).
Re Claim 9, Danholt discloses the rebar tying machine according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the bending member defines a part of a wire passage through which the wire passes, between the bending member and the guide unit (see Fig. 4, illustrated above).
Re Claim 10, Danholt a discloses method for tying rebars with a wire, comprising:
winding the wire around the rebars “a U-shaped wire length of the above-mentioned type is supplied and arranged so that the leg parts of the wire length embrace the first and second reinforcement rods 101 and 102, and the connecting part is arranged adjacent to the first reinforcement rod 101 so that the free ends of the leg parts extend in a first general direction,while the U-shaped wire length is arranged around the reinforcement rods 101 and 102, the leg parts of the wire length are, from the moment they reach the grooves 12 and 13, simultaneously bent in opposite directions in the grooves 12 and 13 and around the second reinforcement rod 102 so that the free ends of the U-shaped wire length are directed in a second general direction (towards the upper part of the apparatus) in such a way that the free ends are gripped and subsequently cut to the right length and intertwined by the binding assembly” Pg. 17, Lines 19-34;
holding a leading end of the wire (“The purpose of the holding hooks is to grasp the wire ends and hold them under the twining process.” Pg. 15, Lines 25-26);
cutting the wire (“Firstly, the flange 78 of the stationary part 62 acts as a counterpart to the knife members 81 and 82 so that they together with the knives form two pairs of shears” Pg. 16, Line 3-5);
twisting the wire around the rebars (“The leg parts 106 and 107 are then intertwined” Pg. 16, Lines 8-9); and
bending an end portion of the wire towards the rebars, wherein the end portion of the wire is formed by cutting the wire (“Secondly, the ends of the leg parts 106 and 107 are bent around edges 91 and 92 of the holding hooks 76 and 77 when the flange 78 passes by the holding hooks” Pg. 16, Line 6-8),
wherein the bending of the end portion of the wire is executed during the twisting of the wire (the ends of leg parts 106 and 107 are bent during the first twist/rotation of the twisting of the wire).
Re Claim 11, Danholt discloses a rebar tying machine comprising:
a feeding unit configured to feed a wire (clip-supplying arrangement 40 comprising clip passage 24, clip-supplying member 42, pneumatic cylinder 48, piston rod 49, U-shaped profiles 51 and 52, and cut 55, as described in “Clip-Supplying Arrangement” section of the specification, Pg. 12, Line 21 – Pg. 13, Line 33);
a guide unit configured to guide the wire around rebars (“The means for bending the leg parts is in this preferred embodiment of the apparatus 1 a member 6 having concavely curved guiding surfaces 10 and 11 in the form of two grooves 12 and 13 into which each of the free ends of the leg parts is forced.” Pg. 9, Lines 10-14);
a cutter (knife member 81 and 82) configured to cut the wire (Fig. 4);
a twisting unit (holding hooks 76 and 77) configured to hold and twist the wire (“The purpose of the holding hooks is to grasp the wire ends and hold them under the twining process” Pg. 15, Lines 25-26);
a main body housing (outer casing 2) supporting the feeding unit (“The clip-supplying member 42 is moved by means of a pneumatic cylinder 48 mounted within the outer casing 2” Pg. 9, Lines 35-36); and
a bending member (flange 78) separate from the twisting unit (Fig. 4), wherein the bending member is fixed in position relative to the main body housing (“the flange 78 of the stationary part 62” Pg. 16, Lines 3-4) and configured to bend an end portion of the wire toward the rebars (“Secondly, the ends of the leg parts 106 and 107 are bent around edges 91 and 92 of the holding hooks 76 and 77 when the flange 78 passes by the holding hooks” Pg. 16, Line 6-8), and the end portion of the wire is formed by the cutter cutting the wire (“Firstly, the flange 78 of the stationary part 62 acts as a counterpart to the knife members 81 and 82 so that they together with the knives form two pairs of shears” Pg. 16, Line 3-5),
wherein the bending member is configured to bend the end portion of the wire toward the rebars after the cutter has cut the wire (Fig. 4 shows the wire at the beginning of the cutting process before it has been twisted) and before the twisting unit finishes twisting the wire (“The leg parts 106 and 107 are then intertwined until the tension in the wire overcomes the fixing performed by the bend 90, after which the ends of the leg parts 106 and 107 will slide out of the holding hooks 76 and 77 and the joining will be accomplished” Pg. 16, Lines 8-12).
`Re Claim 12, Danholt discloses the rebar tying machine according to claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), wherein a center axis of the twisting unit extends in a front-rear direction (see Figs. 3 or 4, illustrated above), the twisting unit is located rearward of the rebars (see Figs. 3 or 4, illustrated above), the bending member includes a contact surface inclined to the center axis in the front-rear direction (see Figs. 3 or 4, illustrated above), wherein the contact surface contacts the end portion of the wire while the wire is twisted by the twisting unit (Pg 15, Line 34 – Pg. 16, Line 8), and a front end of the contact surface is farther away from the center axis than a rear end of the contact surface is (see Fig. 4, illustrated above)
Re Claim 13, Danholt discloses the rebar tying machine according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the contact surface is gradually farther away from the center axis from the rear end toward the front end of the contact surface (Fig. 4 shows the contact surface is at an incline).
Re Claim 15, Danholt discloses the rebar tying machine according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the contact surface is located forward of the cutter (Fig. 4).
Re Claim 16, Danholt discloses the rebar tying machine according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the contact surface is located closer to the center axis than the cutter is (the portion of the flange, with its contact surface as defined in Fig. 4, that touches the part of central part that defines hole 79 is closer to the central axis than the portion of the knife that touches first rotatable part 64; see Fig. 3, illustrated above; “The central part 69, which as mentioned above is stationary relative to the rotatable toothed wheel 68 and the metal sheets 57 and 58 attached thereto, defines a flange 78 extending radially from the central part 69 and in between the metal sheets 57 and 58 and forming a counterpart to the knife members 81 and 82.” Pg. 15, Line 19-24).
Re Claim 17, Danholt discloses the rebar tying machine according to claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), wherein the bending member is fixed to the guide unit (“The member 6 is fastened to the lower part of the outer casing 2.” Pg. 9, Lines 16-17, Fig. 1 shows outer casing 2 connected to bottom cover plate 67 and bottom cover plate connected to stationary part 62 which comprises central part 69 which forms flange 78).
Re Claim 18, Danholt discloses the rebar tying machine according to claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above), wherein the bending member defines a part of a wire passage through which the wire passes, between the bending member and the guide unit (see Fig. 4, illustrated above).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danholt.
Re Claim 5, Danholt discloses the rebar tying machine according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), but fails to disclose that the contact surface is curved.
Danholt discloses a contact surface, but does not explicitly disclose that the contact surface is curved. However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Danholt in the claimed manner, since it has been held that merely changing the shape of features taught in the prior art is an obvious matter of design and/or engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection IV.B).
Re Claim 14, Danholt discloses the rebar tying machine according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), but fails to disclose that the contact surface is curved.
Danholt discloses a contact surface, but does not explicitly disclose that the contact surface is curved. However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Danholt in the claimed manner, since it has been held that merely changing the shape of features taught in the prior art is an obvious matter of design and/or engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection IV.B).
Re Claim 19, Danholt discloses the rebar tying machine according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the center axis extends in a front-rear direction (see Fig. 4, illustrated below), the clamp is located rearward of the rebars (see Fig. 4, illustrated below), the bending member includes a contact surface inclined to the center axis in the front-rear direction (see Fig. 4, illustrated below), the contact surface contacts the end portion of the wire while the wire is twisted by the rotation of the clamp (Pg 15, Line 34 – Pg. 16, Line 8), a front end of the contact surface is farther away from the center axis than a rear end of the contact surface is (see Fig. 4, illustrated above), the contact surface is gradually farther away from the center axis from the rear end toward the front end of the contact surface (Fig. 4 shows the contact surface is at an incline), the contact surface is located forward of the cutter (Fig. 4), the contact surface is located closer to the center axis than the cutter is (the portion of the flange, with its contact surface as defined in Fig. 4, that touches the part of central part that defines hole 79 is closer to the central axis than the portion of the knife that touches first rotatable part 64; see Fig. 3, illustrated below; “The central part 69, which as mentioned above is stationary relative to the rotatable toothed wheel 68 and the metal sheets 57 and 58 attached thereto, defines a flange 78 extending radially from the central part 69 and in between the metal sheets 57 and 58 and forming a counterpart to the knife members 81 and 82.” Pg. 15, Line 19-24), the bending member is fixed to the guide unit (“The member 6 is fastened to the lower part of the outer casing 2.” Pg. 9, Lines 16-17, Fig. 1 shows outer casing 2 connected to bottom cover plate 67 and bottom cover plate connected to stationary part 62 which comprises central part 69 which forms flange 78), and the bending member defines a part of a wire passage through which the wire passes, between the bending member and the guide unit (see Fig. 4, illustrated above).
Danholt does not disclose that the contact surface is curved.
Danholt discloses a contact surface, but does not explicitly disclose that the contact surface is curved. However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Danholt in the claimed manner, since it has been held that merely changing the shape of features taught in the prior art is an obvious matter of design and/or engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection IV.B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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 5712701477. 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.
/W.D.D./
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights