DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
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:
“support part” recited in claim 1
“flow control arrangement” recited in claim 1
“lowering operating element” recited in claim 1
“locking means” recited in claim 1
“pump operating element” recited in claim 11
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.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “support part” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a table, a support plate, or a support frame,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 72), or a functional equivalent thereof.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “flow control arrangement” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a switchable valve or differential pressure valve,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraphs 30 – 31 and 62 – 63), or a functional equivalent thereof.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “lowering operating element” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘foot pedal,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraphs 27 and 58), or a functional equivalent thereof.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “pump operating element” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘foot pedal,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraphs 27 and 58), or a functional equivalent thereof.
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, 5 – 8, 11 – 18, 21, and 22 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.
As explained above, the claim limitation “locking means” 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. It is the position of the Examiner that the Specification does not teach sufficient structure of the ‘locking means’ to perform the claimed functions of “locking relative rotation of the support part about a longitudinal axis of the piston rod relative to the mobile frame in a locking states” and “allowing relative rotation of the support part about the longitudinal axis of the piston rod relative to the mobile frame in a release state,” as recited by the last paragraph of claim 1. Examiner recognizes that the Specification the ‘locking means’ as being a “locking body” and specifically identifies element 65 of Figures 3 and 4 as being the ‘locking means’ (figures 3 and 4, element 65; paragraph 72). However, it is the position that “locking body” is insufficient structure to perform the claimed functions. Specifically, it is unclear as what structure of the “locking body” is configured to perform the function of “locking relative rotation of the support part about a longitudinal axis of the piston rod relative to the mobile frame in a locking state.” Examiner notes that the illustrations of the ‘locking means’ depicted in Figures 3 and 4 also do not provide a teaching for the ‘locking means’ performing the claimed functions. 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.
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.
Claims 1, 5 – 8, 11 – 18, 21, and 22 are 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 1 recites the limitation “locking means.” As explained above, the limitation invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As further explained above, the Specification fails to provide sufficient structure for the limitation to perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the limitation is not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 7, that the Specification provides sufficient structure for the limitation “locking means” to perform the claimed functions. Applicant argues that this can be found because the Specification teaches the ‘locking means’ as comprising a “locking body” that is disposed in a ‘locking recess’ of the cylinder housing, fluid container, or mobile frame (figures 3 and 4, element 65 being the ‘locking means’ and ‘locking body,’ element 22 being the ‘cylinder housing,’ element 21 being the ‘fluid container,’ and element 12 being the ‘mobile housing’; paragraphs 72 – 73). Examiner disagrees. While Examiner recognizes this teaches, it is remains unclear as to how the ‘locking body’ is structured to perform the claimed functions. Specifically, it is unclear as to how the ‘locking body,’ or the structure of the ‘locking body,’ acts to ‘lock relative rotation of the support part about a longitudinal axis of the piston rod relative to the mobile frame in a locking state,’ as recited by the last paragraph of claim 1. For these reasons, the Specification does not teach sufficient structure of the “locking means” to perform the claimed functions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights