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 Status
This Office action is in response to the filing of 9/26/2025. Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
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:
the “connecting component” of at least claim 1 and corresponding to protruding cylinder 5;
the “reset driving member” of at least claim 1 and corresponding to hook 6;
the “lifting assembly” of at least claim 2 and corresponding to connecting blocks 3;
the “position-limiting fitting” of at least claim 3 and corresponding to protruding cylinder 73;
the “position-limiting structure” of at least claim 3 and corresponding to recess 201;
the “rotating connection structure” of at least claim 4 and corresponding to the assembly of first rocker 61 and second rocker 62;
the “vibration assembly” of at least claim 8 and corresponding to eccentric shaft arrangement 4;
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. These grammatical and idiomatic errors render the claims indefinite because it is not clear what is actually is being claimed and thus, the scope of the claim is not clear. Specific examples are pointed out below, but it is applicant’s responsibility to correct the large number of errors.
Regarding each of the claims, the claims have inconsistent punctuation. Specifically, sometimes a comma is used when it appears there should be a semi-colon and sometimes there is a semi-colon when it appears there should be comma. For example, line 7 reads “; wherein the drives” and it appear that the semi-colon should be a comma. These kind of errors with the punction create ambiguity which leads to indefiniteness in the claims because it is not clear how the limitations should be grouped or interpreted relative to the other limitations.
Regarding the claims, there are several instances throughout the claims where a method step appears to be recited in an apparatus claim. For example, the last three lines of claim 1, recite a method step and every element of claim 9 is nothing but method steps. In order to further prosecution, each of the limitations recited as a method step have been interpreted to be functional language. The above are only two examples. Applicant is responsible for correcting all instances of method steps recited in the apparatus claims.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a handle” in line 2 is indefinite because it is not clear if applicant is claiming a new handle or the handle already recited in line 1. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to be referring to the handle recited in line 1.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the rotating member matching with a gear through transmission teeth” in lines 6-7 is indefinite because the phrasing is awkward and it is not clear what is actually being claimed. In order to further prosecution, the rotating member has been interpreted to be matching in the sense that it has teeth that interlock with the gear.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the lifting/lowering motion of the movable welding workpiece” in lines 10-11 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to recite “a lifting/lowering motion of the movable welding workpiece.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the driving member” in line 13 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to recite “the reset driving member.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “driving the movable welding workpiece through the downward pressing and lifting motion assembly” is indefinite because it is not clear how the workpiece may be driven “through” the motion assembly. In order to further prosecution, the word “through” has been interpreted to recite “with.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “transmission teeth” in line 21 is indefinite because it is not clear if the limitation is referring to new transmission teeth of the transmission teeth already recited in line 7. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to be referring to the transmission teeth recited in line 7.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the rotation axis of the reset driving member” in line 3 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to recite “a rotation axis of the reset driving member.”
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the rotation axis of the handle” in line 6 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to recite “a rotation axis of the handle.”
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the position of the second sensor corresponds to the position where the position-limiting fitting piece just leaves the position-limiting structure when moving from the position matching with the position-limiting structure in the first direction” is indefinite because the poor grammar makes it unclear what is actually being claimed. In this case, no interpretation is being made to further prosecution, because it is not clear how to interpret this limitation.
Regarding claims 6, 8, and 10, the limitation “position-limiting fitting piece” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to recite “position-limiting fitting.”
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the motion that the corresponding position-limiting firring piece just leaves” is indefinite because it is not clear what it means for motion to “just leaves.” In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to means that the second sensor senses the motion of the position-limiting fitting.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “position matching” is indefinite because it is not clear what it means for a position to match a structure. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to mean that the position-limiting fitting is engaged with the position limiting structure.
Note any identical or similar limitation recited in claims other than those indicated above are also rejected based on the same reasoning.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim recites only method steps but is dependent from an apparatus claim. Hence, there is no further limiting of the parent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, the primary reason for allowance is the inclusion of the limitation “after the welding is finished, the motor starts to rotate reversely according to a signal of the sensor until transmission teeth on the rotating member and a gear on connected to the motor are switched from a disengaged state to an engaged state.”
The closest reference, He (WO 2021/203844 A1), discloses a handeheld baler with handle (6 – Fig. 2), a movable welding workpiece (33 – Fig. 2), a motor (200 – Fig. 2), a pressing/lifting movement assembly (the assembly of 21-27 – Fig. 4 and 31 – Fig. 2), a rotating member (1 – Fig. 2), cooperating transmission teeth (12, 201 – Fig. 2), connecting component (11 – Fig. 2), and a reset driving member (7 – Fig. 3). However, He does not disclose a sensor and this does not disclose reversing the motor based on the sensor signal until the teeth are disengaged.
Another reference, He ‘846 (WO 2021/203846 A1), discloses a similar invention where the motor reverses to disengage transmission teeth (pg. 7, third from bottom paragraph of the attached translation). However, the reverse rotation of the motor is due to a timer. He ‘846 does not expressly disclose a sensor or that the reverse rotation is due to a sensor’s signal.
In order to meet this limitation, He must be modified by He ‘846 which then must be modified with another reference that teaches a sensor. This would clearly amount to hindsight reconstruction of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Neeser (US 2019/0185189 A1) discloses a similar device comprising a handle, a rotating member, and a reset driving member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights