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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Background
The Applicant’s Reply to Restriction Requirement, filed on 02/10/26, has been entered.
According to the Reply, the Applicant elects claims 1-13 for examination.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under § 112(f), 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 fastening protrusion” in claim 1, “a fastening member” in claim 8, and “a reaction member” in claim 11.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under § 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If the Applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under § 112(f), the Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under § 112(f) (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 § 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-13, the claim limitation “a fastening protrusion”, in claim 1 line 8 invokes § 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Unlike the “fastening member” and “reaction member,” the “fastening protrusion” lacks concrete examples of the corresponding structure in the written description for fastening itself to another surface or retracting from the upper surface of the smart pod as recited in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under § 112(b).
The Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If the Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, the Applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Additionally, claim 1 is further indefinite under § 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Where the Applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “retract from the upper surface” in claim 1 is seemingly used by the claim to mean that the fastening protrusion disposed at the upper surface is configured to extend into the upper surface of the smart pod while the accepted meaning of the term “retract” is “to pull something back or physically draw that something inward.” In any event, the term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term or clearly convey as recited how the fastening protrusion disposed at the upper surface is retracted from the upper surface. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite as well as claims 2-7 and 13 which depend therefrom.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under § 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 1 is on a smart pod for transporting cargo and recites, in part, “a pair of first sidewalls that connect the upper surface and the lower surface to each other, each of the pair of first sidewalls having a hexagonal shape; and a fastening protrusion disposed at the upper surface and configured to retract from the upper surface.” The combination of these limitations were not found in the prior art when considering the claim as a whole.
US Pub. No. 2009/0014507 to D’Amato discloses a container for storing and removing food. The container comprises a first and a second container half which are connected to each other by means of a pivotable connection in order to pivot between an open position and a closed position. Each container half comprises an upper and lower polygonal container wall, when seen from above, and a lateral wall which connects the walls at a distance in relation to each other, wherein the pivotable connection is embodied by a pivotable line embodied between facing first ends of the lateral walls, and the second ends of the lateral walls are in the closed position detachably connected to each other, wherein the pivotable axis associated to the pivotable line extends essentially perpendicular to the upper and lower container walls.
US Pub. No. 2004/0041706 to Stratmoen et al. discloses a smart container configured for transporting cargo on a transportation vehicle. The smart container includes a container housing that has an opening for loading and unloading cargo. The opening can be sealed and unsealed. Disposed within the container housing is at least one detector for detecting deviations that could be indicative of possible security concerns. A communications link is also disposed within the container housing and is capable of transmitting information to a central cargo data collection location.
Neither D’Amato nor Stratmoen et al. teaches a smart pod for transporting cargo comprising a fastening protrusion configured to retract from the upper surface as claimed. Therefore, claim 1 is allowable as well as claims 2-13 depending therefrom.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE LOGAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7769. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, JACOB SCOTT can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/KYLE O LOGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
