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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/23/2026.
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 limitations use generic placeholders that are coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholders are not preceded by any structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a positioning mechanism operatively coupling the impact wrench to the support arm, the positioning mechanism configured to lower and raise the impact wrench to and from the spacers thereby enabling the socket to engage the at least one clamping bolt” (claim 6, lines 6-8); as well as “a side movement mechanism operatively coupling the impact wrench to the positioning mechanism thereby enabling side to side movement of the impact wrench within the positioning mechanism as the impact wrench and the socket tightens the at least one clamping bolt” (claim 7, lines 2-5).
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.
The claim limitation(s) has/have been presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it/they meet(s) the following 3-prong analysis:
(A) The claim limitation(s) use the phrase “means for” or “step for” or a generic replacement therefore: The word “mechanism” is a generic nonce term which imparts no structure to the words which it purportedly modifies. The claims would have no more or less weight and meaning if they instead disclosed “a positioning means for operatively coupling the impact wrench to the support arm, the positioning means for lower[ing] and rais[ing] the impact wrench to and from the spacers thereby enabling the socket to engage the at least one clamping bolt” (claim 6), or “a side movement means for operatively coupling the impact wrench to the positioning mechanism thereby enabling side to side movement of the impact wrench within the positioning mechanism as the impact wrench and the socket tightens the at least one clamping bolt” (claim 7).
(B) The “means for” or “step for” is modified by functional language: “operatively coupling the impact wrench to the support arm, the positioning mechanism configured to lower and raise the impact wrench to and from the spacers thereby enabling the socket to engage the at least one clamping bolt” (claim 6) and “operatively coupling the impact wrench to the positioning mechanism thereby enabling side to side movement of the impact wrench within the positioning mechanism as the impact wrench and the socket tightens the at least one clamping bolt” (claim 7).
(C) The phrase “means for” or “step for” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function. In this instance, the terms “positioning”, “side movement” and “mechanism” are not at all structural, nor do they carry implicit structure. The remaining cited language is entirely functional in nature and contains no structural descriptions at all. Accordingly, the reader must refer to the original specification in order to determine what structure(s) and/or their equivalents were intended in these claims.
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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 discloses “The apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the apparatus is configured for installing a plurality of the spacers on at least three wires configured as the span of the wires” (lines 1-2; emphasis added). While it is not inherently indefinite to define the structure of a product in part by the capability or functionality of the product, it must be clear how the claimed functionality would define the structure. Otherwise, as is the case in this claim, the reader is left to guess how the claim is intended to further limit the apparatus and therefore the scope or metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained. There is no way to guess what structures would be included in order for the apparatus to be capable of performing the intended function and thus the claim is indefinite.
Claim 10 is also rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of its dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 9.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. (CN 110165599; translation concurrently provided by the Examiner and relied upon for the citations below).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses an apparatus for installing spacers on at least two wires configured as a span of the wires, each of the spacers comprising at least one clamping bolt for clamping the spacers to the span of the wires (Title; Abstract; fig. 1), the apparatus comprising: a) a rolling chassis (2, 3, 4, 5) configured to move along the span of the wires; b) a magazine assembly (8, 10) operatively disposed on the rolling chassis, the magazine assembly configured to hold at least one of the spacers, the magazine assembly further configured to position one of the spacers on the span of the wires; and c) a bolt tightening assembly (7, 9, 11) disposed on the rolling chassis, the bolt tightening assembly configured to fasten the spacers onto the span of the wires (figs. 1 and 3-6; pg. 2, lines 24-32; pg. 4, lines 12-20 and 22-42).
Regarding claim 2, Jiang discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the rolling chassis comprises a plurality of wheel truck assemblies (4, 5) that are configured to contact the span of wires and to move the rolling chassis along the span of the wires (figs. 1-2; pg. 4, lines 12-20).
Regarding claim 4, Jiang discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 2, wherein the rolling chassis comprises at least two front wheels (fig. 1: either the two left-most wheels or the two right-most wheels) configured to stabilize the rolling chassis on the span of the wires (figs. 1-2).
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 of this title, 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, in view of Su et al. (CN 113851996 A; translation concurrently provided by the Examiner and relied upon for the citations below).
Regarding claim 3, Jiang discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Jiang further discloses the plurality of wheel truck assemblies comprises one or more wheels (one or two wheels each) further comprising an electric motor (5) disposed therein (fig. 1; pg. 4, lines 12-20). Jiang, however, does not explicitly disclose that the electric motor is powered by a battery disposed on the apparatus.
Su teaches that it is well known to provide a similar overhead line traveling apparatus (fig. 1: all), the apparatus comprising: a) a rolling chassis (1) configured to move along the span of the wires (fig. 1; pg. 5, lines 2-6 and 29-42); wherein the electric motor is powered by a battery (41) disposed on the apparatus (fig. 1; pg. 6, lines 19-25).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Jiang to incorporate the battery of Su. POSITA would have realized that batteries can be easily and readily used on vehicles to achieve the desired portability, remote operation capability, autonomy, mobility as is well understood. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special battery was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old apparatus of Jiang with the well-known battery of Su. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, in view of Gibel et al. (US 2020/0335959 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Jiang discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jiang further discloses that the bolt tightening assembly comprises: a) a support arm operatively coupled to the rolling chassis; b) an impact wrench (bolt fastening mechanism, 9) comprising a socket configured for tightening the at least one clamping bolt (figs. 1-5; pg. 4, lines 34-42); and c) a positioning mechanism (6 and/or 7) operatively coupling the impact wrench to the support arm, the positioning mechanism configured to lower and raise the impact wrench to and from the spacers thereby enabling the socket to engage the at least one clamping bolt (figs. 1-5; pg. 4, lines 12-20 and 22-38). Jiang, however, does not explicitly disclose the wrench is an impact wrench.
Gibel teaches that it is well known to provide an apparatus for working on wires (Title; Abstract) wherein the wrench is an impact wrench (pars. 0061-0065).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Jiang to incorporate the impact wrench of Gibel. POSITA would have realized that the rotary bolt driver of Jiang can be easily and readily replaced with an impact driver to achieve the desired enhanced torque and speed of bolt installation well understood in the use of impact drivers. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special impact driver was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old apparatus of Jiang with the well-known impact wrench of Gibel. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 7, Jiang in view of Gibel teaches the apparatus of claim # as detailed above, and Jiang further discloses that the positioning mechanism further comprises a side movement mechanism operatively coupling the impact wrench to the positioning mechanism thereby enabling side to side movement (annotated fig. 3, below; and/or movement shown in figs. 5-6) of the impact wrench within the positioning mechanism as the impact wrench and the socket tightens the at least one clamping bolt (figs. 1-6; pg. 4, lines 12-20 and 22-38).
Regarding claim 8, Jiang in view of Gibel teaches the apparatus of claim # as detailed above, and Jiang further discloses that the side movement mechanism comprises slide rods slidably coupled to slide tubes (annotated fig. 3; below).
PNG
media_image1.png
603
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, in view of Jean et al. (US 2013/0214223 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Jiang discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jiang, however, does not explicitly disclose that the apparatus is configured for installing a plurality of the spacers on at least three wires configured as the span of the wires.
Jean teaches that it is well known to provide an apparatus (100) (Title; Abstract; fig. 4) which is configured for installing a plurality of the spacers on at least three wires configured as the span of the wires (figs. 2, 8, 14; pars. 0033-0037).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Jiang to incorporate the capability of installing spacers on three wires of Jean. POSITA would have realized that any reasonable number of wires can be easily and readily accommodated by an appropriate spacer (which is not a part of the claimed apparatus) to achieve the desired safe minimum distance between a plurality of wires. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special structure(s) was/were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old apparatus of Jiang with the well-known capability of carrying and installing a 3-plus wire spacer of Jean. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 10, Jiang in view of Jean teaches the apparatus of claim # as detailed above, and Jean further teaches that it is well known that the magazine assembly further comprises a retention pin assembly (124 including 132) configured to engage and retain at least one of the spacers whereby the at least one of the spacers moves along the span of the wires as the rolling chassis moves along the span of the wires (pars. 0041-0043).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Su and Groninga (EP 3 858 730 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Jiang discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jiang, however, does not explicitly disclose that the apparatus further comprises a computer, a radio modem operatively coupled to the computer, and at least one antenna operatively coupled to the radio modem disposed thereon, the radio modem configured to receive wireless commands from a ground station via the at least one antenna and to relay the wireless commands to the computer, wherein the computer is configured to control operation of one or more of the rolling chassis, the magazine assembly and the bolt tightening assembly in response to the wireless commands. Su teaches that it is well known to provide a related apparatus (see claim 3, above), including a radio modem (33), and at least one antenna (34) operatively coupled to the radio modem disposed thereon, the radio modem configured to receive wireless commands from a ground station via the at least one antenna and to relay the wireless commands (fig. 1; pg. 6, lines 19-25). Additionally, Groninga teaches that it is well known to provide a related apparatus (Title; Abstract; fig. 1) including a radio modem (20) configured to receive wireless commands from a ground station and to relay the wireless commands to the computer (24), wherein the computer is configured to control operation of one or more of the rolling chassis, the magazine assembly and the bolt tightening assembly in response to the wireless commands. (fig. 1; par. 0010).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the invention of Jiang to incorporate the antenna, radio and computer of Su and Groninga. Given that there is no operator in the apparatus of Jiang, POSITA would realize that it is highly probable that the apparatus of Jiang would have such devices in order to be able to function as intended, but is simply silent on the matter. POSITA would have realized that basic radio connectivity and control can be easily and readily incorporated in such apparatuses to achieve the desired autonomy, controllability and ability to be operated remotely to predictably increase the safety of the operators in the field. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special antenna, radio or computer was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old apparatus of Jiang with the well-known antenna, radio and computer of Su and Groninga. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Shan (CN-111193220-A) is held to be of particular relevance to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571)272-3460. 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729