DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 9 are 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: “Transport means” in claim 2.
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. As noted by Applicant’s Remarks, page 5-6, the transport means is interpreted as being a staircase, a spiral staircase, and functional 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter type rejection.
Re claim 4, claim 4 recites, “said tower structure does not support the weight of said canopy structure” in lines 4-5. However, after a review of the original disclosure (and of the disclosure of the applications to which the pending application claims priority, if such priority is claimed), the Examiner can find no support for this limitation. There is no mention of the tower structure supporting or not supporting the weight of anything. Thus, there appears to be no support as originally filed for the limitation. In the event that the Applicant is of the opinion that this language is supported as originally filed, the Examiner requests Applicant to please cite to where the language is supported as originally filed.
Re claim 5, claim 5 recites, “said tower structure is positioned adjacent to, yet not under, said canopy structure” in the last two lines. However, after a review of the original disclosure (and of the disclosure of the applications to which the pending application claims priority, if such priority is claimed), the Examiner can find no support for this limitation. There is no mention of the tower structure being positioned adjacent to, yet not under, said canopy structure. Moreover, the figures appear to all show the tower structure at least partially under the canopy structure. Thus, there appears to be no support as originally filed for the limitation. In the event that the Applicant is of the opinion that this language is supported as originally filed, the Examiner requests Applicant to please cite to where the language is supported as originally filed.
Claim 6 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 4-6 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.
Re claim 4, claim 4 recites, “said tower structure does not support the weight of said canopy structure” in lines 4-5. However, after a review of the original disclosure (and of the disclosure of the applications to which the pending application claims priority, if such priority is claimed), the Examiner can find no support for this limitation. There is no mention of the tower structure supporting or not supporting the weight of anything. Thus, it is unclear as to how the tower structure does not support weight. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as within the scope of the claim as if properly supported as originally filed.
Re claim 5, claim 5 recites, “said tower structure is positioned adjacent to, yet not under, said canopy structure” in the last two lines. However, after a review of the original disclosure (and of the disclosure of the applications to which the pending application claims priority, if such priority is claimed), the Examiner can find no support for this limitation. There is no mention of the tower structure being positioned adjacent to, yet not under, said canopy structure. Moreover, the figures appear to all show the tower structure at least partially under the canopy structure. Thus, it is unclear as to how the tower structure is positioned adjacent to, yet not under, said canopy structure. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as within the scope of the claim as if properly supported as originally filed.
Claim 6 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cajiga et al (“Cajiga”) (US 2014/0123467) in view of Townsend et al (“Townsend”) (US 3,768,016).
Re claim 2, Cajiga discloses a multifuel fueling platform (10), comprising:
a tower structure (middle 14);
a canopy structure (12) supported on legs (left/right 14) a predetermined distance above ground (Fig. 1; [0070]) to facilitate the passage of land vehicles thereunder (52 being a fuel dispenser; [0085]), said canopy structure (middle 14) being releasably affixed ([0073] discloses that 14 is connected to 24 via brackets 32, [0072] discloses that 24 is included in 12, and [0080] discloses bolts may be used to fix 32 to 14 and 24; as such, 12 is releasably attached to middle 14 via removal of bolts within 32) to said tower structure (12);
an energy source (28), said energy source (28) being housed within ([0072]) said canopy structure (12);
wherein said tower (middle 14) provides access ([0082]) to said canopy (12) from said ground (Fig. 1), as well as providing operational supply ([0082]) of one of a liquid, gaseous and electrical energies ([0091], [0095]) to said energy source (28),
but fails to disclose the tower enables a human being to access the canopy via transport means positioned within said tower.
However, Townsend discloses the tower (T) enables a human being to access (via 13) the canopy (R) via transport means (13) positioned within (Fig. 2) said tower (T).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multifuel fueling platform of Cajiga wherein the tower enables a human being to access the canopy via transport means positioned within said tower as disclosed by Townsend in order to allow for internal climbing for maintenance for higher level structures, the internal staircase saving exterior space by being disposed interior to said tower instead of exterior to said tower.
Re claim 3, Cajiga as modified discloses the multifuel fueling platform according to claim 2, Townsend discloses wherein: said transport means (13) includes a stairway (13) defined within said tower structure (T).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cajiga et al (“Cajiga”) (US 2014/0123467) in view of Beaver et al (“Beaver”) (US 10,940,380).
Re claim 4, Cajiga discloses a multifuel fueling platform (10), comprising:
a canopy structure (12) supported on legs (left/right 14) a predetermined distance above ground (Fig. 1; [0070]), said canopy structure (middle 14) being releasably affixed ([0073] discloses that 14 is connected to 24 via brackets 32, [0072] discloses that 24 is included in 12, and [0080] discloses bolts may be used to fix 32 to 14 and 24; as such, 12 is releasably attached to middle 14 via removal of bolts within 32) to a tower structure (12) positioned adjacent said canopy structure (12);
an energy source (28), said energy source (28) being housed within ([0072]) said canopy structure (12);
but fails to disclose wherein said tower structure does not support the weight of said canopy structure.
However, Beaver discloses wherein said tower structure (100) does not support the weight of said canopy structure (400).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multifuel fueling platform of Cajiga wherein said tower structure does not support the weight of said canopy structure as disclosed by Beaver in order to provide a separate structure for additional features which need not be load bearing.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cajiga et al (“Cajiga”) (US 2014/0123467) in view of Crown (US 2,021,544) and Beaver et al (“Beaver”) (US 10,940,380).
Re claim 5, Cajiga discloses a multifuel fueling platform (10), comprising:
a tower structure (middle 14);
a canopy structure (12) supported on legs (left/right 14) and suspended (Fig. 1) a predetermined distance above ground (Fig. 1; [0070]), said canopy structure (middle 14) being releasably affixed ([0073] discloses that 14 is connected to 24 via brackets 32, [0072] discloses that 24 is included in 12, and [0080] discloses bolts may be used to fix 32 to 14 and 24; as such, 12 is releasably attached to middle 14 via removal of bolts within 32) to said tower structure (12);
an energy source (28), said energy source (28) being housed within ([0072]) said canopy structure (12);
but fails to disclose wherein said tower structure includes a work platform providing access to said energy source, and wherein said tower structure is positioned adjacent to, yet not under, said canopy structure.
However, Crown discloses wherein said tower structure (11) includes a work platform (27, 23) providing access to the energy source (page 2 lines 12-25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multifuel fueling platform of Cajiga wherein said tower structure includes a work platform providing access to said energy source as disclosed by Crown in order to enable an operator to access an upper part of the structure (page 2 lines 12-25), and to provide additional coverage the structure below.
In addition, Beaver discloses wherein said tower structure (100) is positioned adjacent to, yet not under (Fig. 1), said canopy structure (400).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multifuel fueling platform of Cajiga wherein said tower structure is positioned adjacent to, yet not under, said canopy structure as disclosed by Beaver in order to provide a separate structure for additional features which need not be load bearing, and which can be accessed exterior to the canopy structure.
Re claim 6, Cajiga as modified discloses the multifuel fueling platform according to claim 5, Crown discloses wherein: said work platform (27, 23) is positioned above (Fig. 1) said canopy structure (18).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cajiga et al (“Cajiga”) (US 2014/0123467) in view of Crown (US 2,021,544), Beaver et al (“Beaver”) (US 10,940,380) and Pierik et al (“Pierek”) (US 2005/0220917).
Re claim 7, Cajiga as modified discloses the multifuel fueling platform according to claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein: said canopy structure includes a base frame, said base frame being selectively detachable from said canopy structure and detachably accommodating said energy source.
However, Pierik discloses said canopy structure (12) includes a base frame (17), said base frame (17) being selectively detachable from ([0041]) said canopy structure (12) and detachably accommodating ([0041]) said energy source (per the above).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multifuel fueling platform of Cajiga said canopy structure includes a base frame, said base frame being selectively detachable from said canopy structure and detachably accommodating said energy source as disclosed by Pierik in order to provide for disassembly ([0010]) which would permit repair and/or transportation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 9 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Response to General Comments:
Applicant argues that none of the art teach every aspect of the independent claims. How the art reads on the claims is provided in the above.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments Presented under 35 USC 112(a)
On page 6, Applicant reiterates arguments presented in the previous response. These arguments were addressed in the previous response and need not be addressed in full again. Applicant is directed to the 4/22/26 Response to Arguments to find the Examiner’s position on the matter.
It is noted that Applicant argues that the specification clearly and explicitly indicates which structures support the canopy. The Examiner reiterates that “support” is no the same as bearing weight. “Support” doe not inherently require weight bearing. The Earth “supports” the Moon’s orbit and yet, the Moon is 239k miles away.
Regarding claim 5 and 8, the issue is not and has not been support for being adjacent to the canopy. The lack of support is in regard to “yet not under.” Showing an element as above is not the same as precluding all instances of being under something. There is support for being above. There is no support which precludes being under. In response to the previous response to arguments, Applicant states that there are simply no portions shown in Applicant’s structure which hare under the canopy structure. Again, however, simply “not showing” is not the same as precluding. Just because the drawings do not show something as “not under” does not equate to precluding something as being “not under.” In addition, claim 8 has been cancelled rendering these arguments moot.
The Examiner and Applicant have addressed these rejections ad nauseum. If Applicant remains of the opinion that support can be found for the features and claims rejection under 35 USC 112(a), perhaps other avenues of prosecution would be beneficial to Applicant.
Response to Arguments Presented under 35 USC 112(b)
Each argument mirrors those of the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) in the above. As such, each argument is addressed above. Rejection of claims 4-6 under 35 USC 112(b) are maintained for the reasons stated above. In addition, claim 8 has been cancelled rendering these arguments moot.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 1 and 9 are rendered moot by the indication of allowability in the above.
On page 14, regarding claims 2-3, Applicant argues that Cajiga and Crown are non-analogous art. This argument was addressed in the previous response and need not be addressed in full again. Applicant is directed to the 4/22/26 Response to Arguments to find the Examiner’s position on the matter. It is again noted that Crown is not relied upon in any rejection of claims 2-3.
Next, Applicant again states that Cajiga does not teach or suggest any transport means in its tower at all. This argument was addressed in the previous response and need not be addressed in full again. Applicant is directed to the 4/22/26 Response to Arguments to find the Examiner’s position on the matter.
On page 15, regarding claim 4, Applicant argues that Beaver is non-analogous art. This argument was addressed in the previous response and need not be addressed in full again. Applicant is directed to the 4/22/26 Response to Arguments to find the Examiner’s position on the matter.
In addition, Applicant argues that Applicant has reviewed Beaver and can find no disclosure showing that the tower structure 100 does not support the weight of the canopy 400. A cursory review of Fig. 4 shows that 100 is disposed offset to the side of the canopy structure. The canopy 400 is clearly supported by 3, not 100. Thus, Fig. 4 clearly shows that 100 is not supporting the weight of 400.
On page 17, regarding claims 5-6, Applicant contends that there is no motivation for the proposed modification. This argument was addressed in the previous response and need not be addressed in full again. Applicant is directed to the 4/22/26 Response to Arguments to find the Examiner’s position on the matter.
On page 18-19, regarding claims 7-8, Applicant states that the prior art doesn’t disclosed the claim features. These arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571)270-3238. 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 WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights