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: “a clearance adjusting unit” in claim 1 (interpreted to be a lifting mechanism having a fixing shaft part, see for example Para. 0063 of Applicant’s specification).
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 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, “the leading end”, “the guide”, and “the clearance” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 2, “the guide”, “the position”, and “the guides” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3, “the guides” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 4, “the guides” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 5, “the clearance” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 6, “the leading end”, “the guide”, and “the clearance” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, “the guide”, “the position”, and “the guides” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, “the guides” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 9, “the guides” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Belmann (EP-1251096-A2, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Belmann discloses a folding machine (Fig. 1a) comprising:
a conveyor belt (Fig. 1a, item 7) configured to transport a sheet (Fig. 1a, item 23) (Machine Translation, Para. 0015);
a stopper (Fig. 1a, item 17) configured to abut against the leading end of the sheet to stop the sheet (Machine Translation, Para. 0015);
a knife (Fig. 3, item 22) having an elongated shape (Fig. 3) and configured to move onto a folding position of the sheet stopped by the stopper (Machine Translation, Para. 0025-0026);
at least one guide (Fig. 1a, item 19.1, 19.2) made of a rigid material (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017) and configured to hold the sheet between the conveyor belt and the guide (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017) and press the sheet transported to the stopper (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017); and
a clearance adjusting unit (Fig. 1a, item 19.3) (Machine Translation, Para. 0019, item 19.4, 19.5, 19.6) configured to adjust the clearance (Machine Translation, Para. 0015) between the guide and the conveyor belt (Machine Translation, Para. 0015).
Regarding claim 2, Belmann discloses the folding machine according to claim 1,
wherein the guide has an elongated shape (Fig. 3, guide 19.1, 19.2 has elongated shape) extending in a transport direction of the conveyor belt (Fig. 3), and a plurality of guides (Fig. 1a, item 19.1, 19.2) are provided in an orthogonal direction (Fig. 3) that is orthogonal to the transport direction (Fig. 3) (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017), and wherein the position in the orthogonal direction of each of the guides is variable (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017).
Regarding claim 3, Belmann discloses the folding machine according to claim 2,
wherein the knife is fixed to a body (Fig. 3, item 22) (Machine Translation, Para. 0025-0026), and wherein the guides (Fig. 3, item 19.1, 19.2) are arranged on both sides of the knife, respectively (Fig. 3, guides 19.1 and 19.2 are positioned on either side of knife 22).
Regarding claim 5, Belmann discloses the folding machine according to claim 1 further comprising a control unit (Machine Translation, Para. 0024, control unit) configured to adjust the clearance defined by the clearance adjusting unit (Machine Translation, Para. 0024, control unit).
Regarding claim 6, Belmann discloses an operation method of a folding machine (Fig. 1a), wherein the folding machine comprises a conveyor belt (Fig. 1a, item 7) configured to transport a sheet (Fig. 1a, item 23) (Machine Translation, Para. 0015);
a stopper (Fig. 1a, item 17) configured to abut against the leading end of the sheet to stop the sheet (Machine Translation, Para. 0015);
a knife (Fig. 3, item 22) having an elongated shape (Fig. 3) and configured to move onto a folding position of the sheet stopped by the stopper (Machine Translation, Para. 0025-0026);
at least one guide (Fig. 1a, item 19.1, 19.2) made of a rigid material (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017) and configured to hold the sheet between the conveyor belt and the guide (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017) and press the sheet transported to the stopper (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017),
the operation method comprising a clearance adjusting step (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017) of adjusting the clearance between the guide and the conveyor belt (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017).
Regarding claim 7, Belmann discloses the operation method of the folding machine according to claim 6,
wherein the guide has an elongated shape (Fig. 3, guide 19.1, 19.2 has elongated shape) extending in a transport direction of the conveyor belt (Fig. 3), and a plurality of guides (Fig. 1a, item 19.1, 19.2) are provided in an orthogonal direction (Fig. 3) that is orthogonal to the transport direction (Fig. 3) (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017), and wherein the position in the orthogonal direction of each of the guides is variable (Machine Translation, Para. 0015-0017).
Regarding claim 8, Belmann discloses the operation method of the folding machine according to claim 7, wherein the knife is fixed to a body (Fig. 3, item 22) (Machine Translation, Para. 0025-0026), and wherein the guides (Fig. 3, item 19.1, 19.2) are arranged on both sides of the knife, respectively (Fig. 3, guides 19.1 and 19.2 are positioned on either side of knife 22).
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.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belmann in view of Hiltmann (DE-4215729-A1, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 4, Belmann is silent about the folding machine according to claim 2, wherein each of the guides is expandable in a longitudinal direction along the transport direction.
However, Hiltmann teaches a folding machine (Hiltmann, Fig. 1) having guides (Hiltmann, Fig. 1, item 2) which are expandable in a longitudinal direction along the transport direction (Hiltmann, Machine Translation, claim 1, guides 4 are displaceable along the conveying direction, thus spreading the position of the guides).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Belmann and Hiltmann to modify the folding device of Belmann to include the expandable guides of Hiltmann. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to adjust the position of the guides to prevent inaccurate folding (Hiltmann, Machine Translation, Page 2).
Regarding claim 9, Belmann is silent about the operation method of the folding machine according to claim 7, wherein each of the guides is expandable in a longitudinal direction along the transport direction.
However, Hiltmann teaches a folding machine (Hiltmann, Fig. 1) having guides (Hiltmann, Fig. 1, item 2) which are expandable in a longitudinal direction along the transport direction (Hiltmann, Machine Translation, claim 1, guides 4 are displaceable along the conveying direction, thus spreading the position of the guides).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Belmann and Hiltmann to modify the folding device of Belmann to include the expandable guides of Hiltmann. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to adjust the position of the guides to prevent inaccurate folding (Hiltmann, Machine Translation, Page 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571)270-1926. 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.
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731