DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “disclosed is” (both occurrences) is redundant to the purpose of the abstract and should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-20 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. These errors include, but are not limited to: “a so-called longitudinal direction” (claim 1); “tending to bring the body…” (claim 1); and “the rest of the body” (claim 5).
The recitations beginning with “once the adjustable head” in claim 3 are narrative and indefinite process type recitations improperly recited in a product claim.
These are examples only of indefinite issues and not necessarily a comprehensive list.
Claims 2, 4 and 6-20 are rejected at least because of their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-4, 8, 9, 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Piermee (U.S. Patent 9,021,743).
Piermee discloses a device for accessing an underground facility (column 1, lines 11-14, for example) having a frame (2) forming an opening (O) and a lid (3) to cover the opening (Figure 2, for example). There is a cylinder (7) with a longitudinally extending helical spring (13) which interact in the manner claimed (claim 1, for example). There is an adjustable head (8, for example) connected to one end of the cylinder (Figure 6, for example) and a mechanism (14) for adjusting the longitudinal position of the head with respect to the body of the cylinder (column 4, lines 57-63, for example).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, the mechanism for adjusting includes complementary tapped/threaded elements (10, 14, 15, 19).
Regarding claim 3, nut (19) acts as a lock nut.
Regarding claim 4, because the cylinder (7) is “anchored to” the threaded portion (15) of the screw (14), it has a threaded orifice.
Regarding claims 9 and 16-19, the tapped portion is a tapped rod (Figure 8, for example).
Regarding claim 11, the device is connected to the frame (22) and lid (3) as claimed (Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 13, Piermee is mounted on the opening of a manhole in the manner claimed.
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.
Claims 10, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piermee (U.S. Patent 9,021,743), as applied above.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the examiner takes Official notice that it is known to provide flat ears on rotatable devices in order to facilitate manual manipulation thereof. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Piermee as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, there are not separate adjustment mechanisms; however, the examiner takes Official notice that such arrangement are known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Piermee as claimed in order to suit a particular application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach devices with spring loaded lifting arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571 272-0547. 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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights