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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: line 14 should be “the rear frame (B3)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, the word “when” should be lowercase. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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:
“a folding element” in claim 1 (because A-“element” is the nonce/placeholder term; (B)- “folding” is the function, and (C) no structure is present in the claim, to perform the recited function of folding; therefore the limitation is similar to “means for folding” . Specification support for the folding element is unclear but appears to correspond to a folding assembly comprising at least a folding button and a folding knob. See related 35 USC 112b rejection below.
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.
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 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 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “folding element” is ambiguous, as no specification support was present to define the intended scope of this limitation (see discussion under 35 USC 112f above), and therefore the intended scope of the claim is indefinite/unclear. For the purpose of further prosecuting the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation framework will be used. Claims 2-10 rejected for being dependent from rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the synchronizing wire rope link assembly synchronizer" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes that the term “synchronizer” should be removed to fix this limitation.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the right wire rope" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it was previously called “a right straight wire rope”. The Examiner notes to remain consistent with terminology throughout the claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the mode of operation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the right cable" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it was previously called “a right straight wire rope” and “a right wire rope”.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "of any type of multifunctional foldable children’s tricycle" renders the claim(s) indefinite. Inclusion of the term “type” makes the claim scope indefinite because the scope of what is encompassed by the word "type" is unclear. In this regard, since we cannot determine what the word type covers we cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "as described in one of claims 1 to 9" renders the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to which claim is the parent claim. Due to the improper claim dependency, Claim 10 recites the following limitations, but is not limited to, with insufficient antecedent basis due to the improper multiple claim dependency:
“the steering handle (B4)”, “the right cable (B7)”, and “the left wire rope (B6)” have antecedence with claims 2-4, but not claims 5-9.
“the sliding hole (A33)” and “the upper block (A31)” have antecedence with claim 9, but not claims 2-8.
“the sheet metal part (C3)”, “the return spring (C6)”, and “the folding button (C5)” have antecedence with claims 9, but not claims 2-8.
“the bar-shaped hole (A7)” has antecedence with claims 5-8, but not claims 2-4 or 9.
“the slider (A32)”, “the sliding hole (A33)”, and “the upper block (A31)” have antecedence with claim 7, but not claims 2-4, 5, 6, 8, or 9.
Accordingly, the claim 10 not been further treated on the merits. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach tricycles of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611