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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Chinese Application CN201621388937.1 dated 02/18/2016. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b).
Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows: Figs. 11-50 of the instant application do not have support in the foreign application and therefore do not benefit from the earlier date.
Figs. 1-50 of the instant invention are fully supported in application 17/028,820 and therefore the Figs. 11-50 will benefit earlier filing date of 09/22/2020.
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” (means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; the following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for.";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 2 recites “an elastic member … configured to exert an elastic force”.The three prong tests are:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or a generic placeholder (member),
(B) the term “means” is modified by functional language (to exert an elastic force),
(C) the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (member is modified by elastic material).
The third prong test is failed and thus this claim limitation will not be interpreted to invoke 35 USC 112f.
Claim 4 recites “a locking device … configured to overcome the elastic force”.The three prong tests are:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or a generic placeholder (device),
(B) the term “means” is modified by functional language (to exert an elastic force),
(C) the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (device is modified by act of locking).
The third prong test is failed and thus this claim limitation will not be interpreted to invoke 35 USC 112f.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 13, “the direction of opening” should read --a direction of opening--.
Claim 5, lines 13-14, “the maximum opening angle” should read --a maximum opening angle--.Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites “a first clamping block disposed at a top end, away from the first handheld portion, of the first clamping portion”. It is not clear if applicant is claiming the first clamping portion is part of the first handheld portion. Figures of the invention show the first clamping block disposed at a top end of the first clamping portion.Therefore to overcome this ambiguity it is suggested to amend this limitation as below: --a first clamping block disposed at a top end of the first clamping portion, away from the first handheld portion--.
Claim 1 recites “a second clamping block disposed at a top end, away from the second handheld portion, of the second clamping portion”. It is not clear if applicant is claiming the second clamping portion is part of the second handheld portion. Figures of the invention show the second clamping block disposed at a top end of the second clamping portion.Therefore to overcome this ambiguity it is suggested to amend this limitation as below: --a second clamping block disposed at a top end of the second clamping portion, away from the second handheld portion--.
Claims 2-9 are rejected due to dependency on rejected claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “clamping teeth, wherein the clamping teeth are disposed on a side face, facing the second clamping block, of the first clamping block, and/or the clamping teeth are disposed on a side face, facing the first clamping block, of the second clamping block” which is unclear. Examiner suggests amending the claim as below to overcome this rejection:--clamping teeth, wherein the clamping teeth are disposed on a side face of the first clamping block, facing the second clamping block, and/or the clamping teeth are disposed on a side face of the second clamping block, facing the first clamping block--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(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 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Gillet et al. (US 20130319165 A1) hereinafter Gillet.
Claim 1 recites a pushing and clamping plier that is used for push an insertion block into a ceramic tile leveling bracket. More limiting the features and relationship between A (insertion block and tile) and B (the plier) mount to mere components associated with the intended use of the recited plier. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)) and cases cited therein. See also MPEP § 2112 - MPEP § 2112.02. Thus, the prior art only needs to teach the recited components of the plier.
Gillet teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) pushing and clamping pliers used to push an insertion block into a ceramic tile leveling bracket (this is intended use of the plier and plier of Gillet is capable of pushing a certain size first object/block/wire 2 into a certain size second object/ceramic tile leveling bracket), the pushing and clamping pliers comprising: a first component comprising a first clamping portion (11) and a first handheld portion (14); a second component comprising a second clamping portion (12) and a second handheld portion (15); a pivot (13) via which the second clamping portion is rotatably connected to the first clamping portion; a first clamping block (16) disposed at a top end of the first clamping portion, away from the first handheld portion; a second clamping block (17) disposed at a top end of the second clamping portion, away from the second handheld portion; a first groove (163) inwardly recessed from an inner side wall of the first clamping block, with the direction of opening of the clamping groove facing the second clamping portion; and a second groove (174), which penetrates the second clamping block toward the first clamping block and is disposed opposite the first groove; the first groove and the second groove being configured to hold the insertion block (2) when the pushing and clamping pliers push the insertion block into the ceramic tile leveling bracket (as stated above, this is intended use of the plier and plier of Gillet is capable of pushing a certain size first object/block/wire 2 into a certain size second object/ceramic tile leveling bracket); wherein the first clamping portion extends and bends from the first handheld portion, the second clamping portion extends and bends from the second handheld portion, and the first clamping portion and the second clamping portion bend in the same direction (upward direction in Figs. 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
766
1150
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Gillet teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the pushing and clamping pliers further comprises an elastic member (return spring 18), one end of the elastic member connected to the first component and another end of the elastic member connected to the second component, the elastic member configured to exert an elastic force to cause the first component and the second component to move in an opening direction (as described in par. 0052, the return spring moves first and second handheld portions (handles 14, 15) of the first and second components in an opened position).
Regarding claim 3, Gillet teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the pushing and clamping pliers further comprises: a first guiding post protruding from a side face, facing to the second component, of the first component; a second guiding post protruding from the second component and disposed opposite the first guiding post; wherein the elastic member is a spring (return spring 18) with one end of the spring being sheathed over the first guiding post, and another end of the spring being sheathed over the second guiding post (par. 0053: “spring 18 is a simple helical spring blocked between two bosses 19 provided on the blade of the handles 14, 15”).
Regarding claim 4, Gillet teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the pushing and clamping pliers further comprise a locking device (locking device comprises 40, 41 and 42) configured to overcome the elastic force of the elastic member when the locking device is locked, so that the first component and the second component are in a closed state (locking device overcomes spring force and holds first and second handheld portions (handles 14, 15) of the first and second components in an closed position).
Regarding claim 9, Gillet teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) clamping teeth, wherein the clamping teeth are disposed on a side face, facing the second clamping block, of the first clamping block, and/or the clamping teeth are disposed on a side face, facing the first clamping block, of the second clamping block.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6-7 would be allowable due to dependency on allowable claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm 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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723