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:
“elevating portion configured to lower” in claim 4 [corresponding structure is an elevator; see paragraph 0036].
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 1-10 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.
With regards to claim 1, the claim states “a base including a ground plane to a floor”, this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the “plane” is intending to set forth a physical element, in which case this is unclear since a plane is abstract and not a physical structure.
There appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the same height as or above the ground plane”.
With regards to claim 3, the claim states “a steeped portion from a height of the ground plane”, it is unclear if this height is different from the height of the ground plane set forth in claim 1. Clarification and/or correction is required.
With regards to claim 6, the claim states “at least a part of a conveyance path”, this renders the claim indefinite since the conveyance path is not positively recited within the claim. Specifically, the conveyance path is introduced within a wherein clause, however wherein clause are used to further define element previously recited.
With regards to claim 9, the claim states “a laminated body manufacturing method performed using the manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1”, this renders the claim indefinite since it lacks any active steps of how the elements within the apparatus are used to manufacture a laminated body.
With regards to claim 10, the preamble of the claim sets forth the claim is directed to a laminated body manufacturing method, however the only steps provided appear to be directed to a method of conveying a laminated body. It is noted that the limitations “is punched” and “is laminated” in the preamble are not active method steps embodied within the claimed method, it is suggested to amend the claim such that those sets are positively recited within the body of the method.
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) 1-2, 4-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Futamura et al (US 6,682,625).
In reference to claim 1, Futamura et al discloses a laminated body manufacturing apparatus comprising
a die unit configured to perform punching by an upper die (58) and a lower die (56),
a base (51) including a ground plane to a floor and configured to support the lower die, and
a support portion (72) configured to support a workpiece punched by the upper die and the lower die from below, wherein
a lower end portion(79) of the support portion is disposed at the same height as or above the ground plane of the base and below an upper surface of the lower die [see figure 15; col. 5 line 50-col. 6 line 11].
In reference to claim 2, Futamura et al further discloses a scaffold is provided above the ground plane of the base and below the upper surface of the die, as seen in figure 16.
In reference to claim 4, Futamura et al further discloses an elevating portion (86) configured to lower the punched workpiece to a height above the ground plane and below the scaffold, as seen in figure 16 [see col. 10 lines 46-51].
In reference to claim 5, Futamura et al further discloses at least a part of a side surface of the elevating portion is surrounded by the scaffold, as seen in figure 16.
In reference to claim 6, Futamura et al further discloses at least a part of a conveyance path for conveying the workpiece lowered by the elevating portion is provided below the scaffold, as seen in figure 16 [chute is projected downward away from scaffold].
In reference to claim 8, Futamura et al discloses a motor core manufacturing system comprising
the laminated body manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1, and
a post-punching processing apparatus configured to perform post-punching processing on the laminated body [see col. 12 lines 55-65],
wherein the laminated body manufacturing apparatus and the post-punching processing apparatus are installed on a common floor at the same height.
In reference to claim 9, Futamura et al discloses a laminated body manufacturing method performed using the manufacturing apparats according to claim 1.
In reference to claim 10, Futamura et al discloses a laminated body manufacturing method in which a workpiece is punched into a predetermined shape by a die unit disposed in parallel on a scaffold at a predetermined height from a floor, and the punched workpiece is laminated in a lower die of the die unit to form a laminated body, the method comprising
a lamination step of supporting the laminated body from below by a support portion (72) provided between the floor and the lower die (56),
a discharge step of discharging the laminated body from the lower die [see col. 10 lines 46-51; guide pins are lowered],
a first conveyance step of conveying the discharged laminated body via a first conveyance path at a position higher than the scaffold [see col. 10 lines 49-50; discharge device 85 pushes body off support portion],
a second conveyance step of lowering the laminated body via a second conveyance path connected to the first conveyance path, [see figure 16, col. 10 lines 51-53; chute 86 receives body and moves in a downward direction], and
a third conveyance step of conveying the lowered laminated body via a third conveyance path connected to the second conveyance path and located at a position lower than the scaffold [it is inherent that the body will be removed from the end of the chute and moved to storage or further processing].
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futamura et al in view of Komatsu (JP 05-039796; cited by Applicant).
In reference to claim 7, Futamura et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a soundproof wall is provided.
However, Komatsu teaches of providing a soundproof housing around a press wherein the housing provides an opening to allow the entrance of a workpiece for the purpose of minimizing the nose outputted by the operation of the press.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Futamura et al to include a soundproof housing, as taught by Komatsu, in order to minimize nose produced by the press operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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
