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.
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.
Claim 24 is 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.
Claim 24 recites “referring to embodiment 3 or 4” without reciting any actual structures. Specification does not specify what will include and won’t include in embodiment 3 or 4.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16, 18, 22, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,521,690 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,521,690 B2 discloses all the limitations of the present Claims 16, 18, 22, and 25.
Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,521,690 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2 and 9 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,521,690 B2 discloses all the limitations of the present Claim 26.
Claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,521,690 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 9 and 13 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,521,690 B2 discloses all the limitations of the present Claim 28.
Claim 29 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,521,690 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 9 and 14 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,521,690 B2 discloses all the limitations of the present Claim 29.
Claim 30 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,521,690 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 9 and 15 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,521,690 B2 discloses all the limitations of the present Claim 30.
Claims 17, 19, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,521,690 B2 except for the structure comprises from 1 to 100 openable and lockable access means. Claim 9 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,521,690 B2 discloses all the limitations of the present Claim 28. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use more than one openable and lockable access means since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 is allowed.
Claims 20 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 20, 23, and 27, the closest prior arts, Hu (CN-106111217A) reference discloses a chemical experiment equipment technology field, claims a chemical experiment shield, comprising a shield body and a shading cloth, a protecting cover body is L-shaped structure with downward opening, the protective cover body of the operating cover is step structure; operation of the protective cover body comprises an upper vertical, lower vertical surface and a connecting plane, on the bottom and connected with the horizontal sealing manner, the lower vertical surface top part connected with the connecting plane sealing, the lower level device with two operating holes; the back cover of the shield body is provided with a xenon lamp and two exhaust fans (Abstract and Figure 1); Lu (CN-210974827 U) reference discloses an anti-corrosive ventilating device, comprising: a plurality of frame box body and control cabinet, a frame box body is provided with a ventilating chamber for containing reaction kettle, the frame box body is provided with a suction opening connected with the ventilation chamber. and the suction and exhaust assembly are connected, control cabinet comprises a plurality of ventilation controller corresponding with the plurality of frame box, ventilation controller for adjusting the exhaust assembly and connected to the frame body, can simultaneously realize the ventilation control of ventilation chamber in the plurality of frame box body adopts one control cabinet. saving the mobile control staff between the control system of a plurality of frame box, can timely ventilation control the ventilation chamber of a plurality of frame box, the operation is simple (Abstract and 1-3 and 5). However, neither Hu nor Lu reference discloses the claimed the structure comprises at least one openable and lockable transfer means for temporary removal, in a maintenance mode, of at least part of at least one apparatus according to (i) from the structure through at least one of said transfer means in opened state and wherein an openable and lockable access means is an upper part of said structure, said structure comprising a lower part and said upper part being located, in a production mode, on said lower part and wherein at least part of the housing is in form of a skeleton to which a plurality of removable panels are removably attached, said removable panels forming closing elements. There is no motivation/suggestion to modify/combine the above teachings to come up with the claimed openable and lockable transfer means in the upper part and lower part of the claimed structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY-TRAM NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3167. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, 7:00am - 3pm, 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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/HUY TRAM NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights