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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 24, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 70 is 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.
Claim 70 recites “the support wheel control device is connected to a compressed air source.” This limitation contains new matter because it lacks support in the specification at the time of filing for the control device being connected to a compressed air source. Appropriate correction required.
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 58-61, 64-80 and 82-88 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 58 recites “a fitting disc coupled to the cage front disc” in Line 12. This limitation gives rise to a lack of clarity concerning the scope of each of the cage front disc and the fitting disc. It is unclear how the cage front disc is considered coupled to the fitting disc. These rotation discs work independently of one another and are separated by more than one intervening feature (structural guide pipe, and the fitting disc shaft). In claim 73, the fitting disc shaft is claimed as being coupled to the fitting disc and the structural guide (to which the cage is mounted upon) is coupled to the fitting disc shaft. As such, the scope of the coupling claimed between the fitting disc and the cage front disc is unclear. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 58 recites limitation “fitting disc rotation device,” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, the motor is part of the fitting disc rotation device and the fitting disc shaft is connected to the motor (i.e., the shaft is not part of the fitting disc rotation device). The scope of the fitting disc rotation device is unclear as it apparently includes the motor but it is unclear what else is included in the device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 64 recites “a first plurality of apertures . . . positioned to align with the cage rotation device” in Lines 4-5. It is odd to state that the apertures are positioned to align with the cage rotation device as if the two features are not connected in the manner disclosed. As such, it is unclear whether the holes are meant to align at some point in the future as suggested by the claim language or if the holes align (presumably with corresponding holes) with the cage rotation device. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 64 recites “a second plurality of apertures . . . positioned to align with the bar.” It is unclear how the second plurality of apertures is positioned to align with the bar (as opposed to connect to the bar). Moreover, it is unclear whether the plurality all align with the bar as claimed or if only one of the plurality aligns with the bar as disclosed. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 71 recites “a pneumatic control” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 71 recites “the support wheel control device is connected to a pneumatic control configured to equalize a pressure of the first support wheel with a pressure of the second support wheel.” It is unclear whether each support wheel has a support wheel control device (e.g., a first support wheel control device and a second support wheel control device) or if there is only one such control device relative to the first wheel. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 72 recites “the support wheel control device is configured to position the first support wheel parallel to or perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the bar.” It is unclear how the positions are considered either parallel or perpendicular. That is, a feature may be parallel or perpendicular to another, but it is difficult to ascertain how a position is considered parallel or perpendicular if the reference feature of the first support wheel is not set forth. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 74 recites “the fitting disc configured to rotate together with the fitting disc shaft.” It appears a term is missing from the limitation (e.g., the term “is” between “disc” and “configured”). Appropriate correction required.
Claim 76 recites “the fitting disc shaft is mechanically coupled to an electric motor of the fitting disc rotation device.” It is unclear whether the fitting disc shaft is part of the fitting disc rotation device or not. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 84 recites “vertical” and “horizontal” relative to two respective positions. It is unclear how the vertical and horizontal nature is to be determined because the claim fails to specify the manner in which the vertical or horizontal is determined. It also appears that the vertical and horizontal positions may be inadvertently reversed in the claim. Appropriate correction required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 58 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record, Siracusa (IT BO20130698 A1) in view of Paysinger (US Patent No. 4,343,207), discloses the claimed device absent means to rotate the support arm. That is, the prior art of record lacks explicit disclosure of a support arm rotation device as claimed, which is interpreted as means for causing rotation of the support arm (the support arm being rotatable via the support arm rotation device).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that claim 70 has support in the specification at the time of filing. Applicant argues against the interpretations under 35 USC 112(f), and subsequent rejections under 112(b), by stating that the nonce terminology is not tantamount to means-plus-function. Examiner disagrees.
The specification, in paragraph 0108, provides support for a coupling for receiving a compressed air hose. This is not support for a compressed air device being part of the claimed invention. The new matter rejection would be obviated by amending the claim to recite the coupling for receiving the compressed air hose.
The 112(f) interpretations have been maintained. The rejection under 112(b) of “cage rotation device” for failing to adequately disclose the structure associated with the interpretation under 112(f) has been withdrawn. The specification illustrates the cage rotation device (7.13) as the frame attached to the cage and driven by motor 7.11 to drive both cage rotation device and cage. Yet, the rejection of claim 71 and the “pneumatic control” limitation has been maintained. The specification fails to set forth the structure that correlates to a pneumatic control.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Kitaoka et al. (JP 60141404 A); Pendleton (US Patent No. 3,717,055); and Vitel (FR 2333625 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights