DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on September 15, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 11 does not relate to a general method for rolling an annular workpiece, but to a specific method for rolling with the rolling mill of claim 1, and as such the method as claimed cannot be practiced by another and materially different apparatus. This is not found persuasive because the stated argument that the method cannot be practiced by another and materially different apparatus is not the reasoning stated in the rejection (see “apparatus as claimed could be used for rolling of plastic material such as candy”). The Examiner maintains that the reasoning stated in the rejection is valid and not particularly argued. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
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.
While it is noted that claims recite “mechanism” (claim 1, penultimate line), “movement system” (claim 2), and “movement mechanism” (claims 3-5) that appear to require an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), these features are all depicted in the instant drawings and discussed in the specification. These features are unrelated to the reasons for allowance presented below.
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 1-10 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.
As to claim 1, line 11 recites “at least one drive bar” but line 17 recites “the drive bars” which are contrary statements of the number of drive bars. Other claims are rejected by dependence.
As to claims 3, 4, and 5, “said movement mechanism” lacks antecedent basis.
As to claim 8, “the motion transmission members” lacks antecedent basis.
As to claim 10, “said shaping roll” lacks antecedent basis. Please consider that claim 1 already includes a shaping “roller” but also note that the claim is confusing because claim 1 already includes a mandrel and axial stand and this claim 10 introduces another mandrel and axial stand.
While the Examiner has attempted to locate all antecedent basis and indefiniteness issues in the instant claims, Application is strongly encouraged to independently review the claims for other antecedent basis and indefiniteness issues.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The combination of the mandrel “selectively engaged in a lower mandrel holder” and the auxiliary chassis slidably mounted…on the drive bars of the mandrel holders, which pass all the way through it” renders the claim allowable.
The best available prior art references are Vinzant WO 2009125102 (of record) and CN 110434260 (of record).
Vinzant teaches a circular rolling mill for shaping annular workpieces. The Vinzant device includes a main chassis (Fig. 9, item 2) and a radial stand comprising a shaping roller (Fig. 7, item 10) for shaping an outer radial face of a workpiece to be rolled and a mandrel for shaping an inner radial face of the workpiece to be rolled (Fig. 7, item 12). The Vinzant mandrel is supported by an upper mandrel holder (Fig. 2, between items 13 and 12). Vinzant’s “commander” (Fig. 2, item 200) is interpreted to be a controller. Vinzant also teaches upper and lower tapered rollers (Fig. 1, items 22 and 21) for shaping upper and lower faces of the workpiece to be rolled and these upper and lower tapered rollers are mounted on an auxiliary chassis (Fig. 9, item 4) which together form an axial stand.
One difference between Vinzant and the instant invention are that the instant invention includes a lower mandrel holder (see Fig. 6, item 32), whereas Vinzant provides a mandrel (Fig. 2, item 12) that projects through the blank being rolled (Fig. 2, item 103), but is not depicted as “selectively engaged in a lower mandrel holder” as claimed. CN 110434260 does appear to depict a mandrel (Fig. 4, item 3) with an upper mandrel holder (Fig. 4, item 1) and lower mandrel holder (Fig. 4, item 13), and would likely be combinable with Vinzant given the overall similarity between the two references. However, another difference between the claim and Vinzant is that Vinzant is interpreted to disclose a drive bar (Fig. 2, item 14), but the auxiliary chassis (Fig. 2, item 41 and associated parts) is not slidably mounted on the drive bar of the upper mandrel holder. Note the gap in Vinzant’s Fig. 2 between the axial stand/chassis (item 41) and the upper mandrel holder (Fig. 2, above item 12). CN 110434260 does not disclose or render obvious this feature.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
