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: transfer unit and extraction unit in claim 1. As per specification, transfer unit is being interpreted as the transfer unit 400 includes a body 410, a first slider 420, a second slider 430, the needles 440, and a support plate 450 [0051] and extraction unit as rotatably coupled around the gantry as depicted in figure 8 [0060].
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
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by KR20210073926A, herein referred to as ‘926.
Regarding claim 1, ‘926 discloses a system for injection molding an airbag box with an anti-scattering mesh member insert, the system (100) comprising: a mold for injection molding an airbag box (111) ; a seating base (see AD in figures 3 and 5) on which the anti-scattering mesh member is seated; a transfer unit (200) configured to be movable by the gantry and to transfer the anti-scattering mesh member, seated on the seating base, into the mold; and an extraction unit (300) configured to be movable by the gantry and to extract the injection molded airbag box from the mold.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20210073926A, herein referred to as ‘926 in view of Seebacher (US2020/0290256 A1).
Regarding claim 2, ‘926 teaches wherein the transfer unit comprises: a body rotatably coupled to the gantry (401); but doesn’t explicitly disclose a first slider provided in a pair on a first side of the body, wherein the first sliders move in a diagonal direction away from each other; a second slider provided in a pair on a second side of the body, wherein the second sliders move in a diagonal direction away from each other; a needle provided at each end of the first and second sliders; and a support plate positioned below the needle and configured to have a slit formed through which the needle passes.
Analogous art, Seebacher, discloses a first slider (6) provided in a pair on a first side of the body, wherein the first sliders move in a diagonal direction away from each other; a second slider (7) provided in a pair on a second side of the body, wherein the second sliders move in a diagonal direction away from each other; a needle (21) provided at each end of the first and second sliders; and a support plate (10) positioned below the needle and configured to have a slit formed through which the needle passes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated disclose a first slider provided in a pair on a first side of the body, wherein the first sliders move in a diagonal direction away from each other; a second slider provided in a pair on a second side of the body, wherein the second sliders move in a diagonal direction away from each other; a needle provided at each end of the first and second sliders; and a support plate positioned below the needle and configured to have a slit formed through which the needle passes for the benefit of allowing molds to slide past each other easily [0021] as taught by Seebacher into the art taught by ‘926.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20210073926A, herein referred to as ‘926 in view of Seebacher (US2020/0290256 A1), as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Zettel et al (US 2002/0174907 A1).
Regarding claim 3, ‘926 does not explicitly disclose a damper coupled to the body and positioned near the support plate. However, analogous art, Zettel, discloses using a dampers as an energy absorbers [0006]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated dampers in order to absorb energy from a crash as taught by Zettel into system taught by ‘926.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20210073926A, herein referred to as ‘926 in view of Seebacher (US2020/0290256 A1), as applied to claim 2 and further in view of CN113211714A, herein referred to as ‘714.
Regarding claim 4, ‘926 discloses a through hole (111) formed on the top plate (AD) and through which the needle passes (112).
‘926 does not explicitly disclose wherein the seating base comprises: a top plate supported by legs and on which the anti-scattering mesh member is fixed; scattering mesh member to guide the anti-scattering mesh member; a through hole formed on the top plate and through which the needle passes; and a sensor provided on the top plate and configured to detect whether the anti-scattering mesh member is secured to the top plate. Analogous art, ‘714, discloses a top plate (65) supported by legs (see figure 1) and on which the anti-scattering mesh member is fixed (pg. 4 paragraph 6); scattering mesh member to guide the anti-scattering mesh member and a sensor (62) provided on the top plate and configured to detect whether the anti-scattering mesh member is secured to the top plate (figure 12). Further, MPEP 2144.04 states Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a top plate supported by legs and on which the anti-scattering mesh member is fixed; scattering mesh member to guide the anti-scattering mesh member; a through hole formed on the top plate and through which the needle passes; and a sensor provided on the top plate and configured to detect whether the anti-scattering mesh member is secured to the top plate as taught by ‘714 into the system taught by ‘926 for the benefit of ensuring the system is always running and production efficiency improves (pg.4 paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 5, ‘926 does not explicitly disclose wherein the guide pin is pushed downward by the support plate when the guide pin comes into contact with the support plate. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights