DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on January 25, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR 2300682 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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” (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 use the word “means,” and 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 limitation of “means” 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:
“elastic sealing means” recited in claim 1
“vacuum-generation means” recited in claim 1
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 “elastic sealing means” is being interpreted so as to comprise ‘a seal,’ as taught by the Specification (page 5, lines 13 – 15), or an equivalent thereof.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “vacuum-generation means” is being interpreted so as to comprise ‘an air pump,’ as taught by the Specification (page 5, lines 18 - 19), or an 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 – 10 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 the limitation “... a first surface, referred to as the top surface, of said deck” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the top surface” in the claim. Secondly, it is generally unclear as to whether Applicant intends the ‘first surface’ to be a ‘top surface’ of the ‘deck,’ or whether Applicant merely intends the ‘first surface’ to be labelled a ‘top surface,’ regardless of whether or not the ‘first surface’ is actually a ‘top surface’ of the ‘deck.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “... a first surface, which is a top surface, of said deck.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the periphery” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “... a second surface, referred to as the bottom surface, of said deck” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the bottom surface” in the claim. Secondly, it is generally unclear as to whether Applicant intends the ‘second surface’ to be a ‘bottom surface’ of the ‘deck,’ or whether Applicant merely intends the ‘second surface’ to be labelled a ‘bottom surface,’ regardless of whether or not the ‘second surface’ is actually a ‘bottom surface’ of the ‘deck.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “... a second surface, which is a bottom surface, of said deck.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the use of said device” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “vacuum-generation means ... controlled and configured to generate a negative pressure ...” in the fourth paragraph of the body of the claim. Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards a “drawing device intended to carry at least one drawing tool adapted to straighten metal sheet.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘controlling the vacuum-generation means to generate a negative pressure,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of straightening metal sheet,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to merely recite functional language of the ‘vacuum-generation means,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘drawing device’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation of “vacuum-generation means ... configured to generate a negative pressure ...”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “characterized in that said deck further comprises, on its second surface, ...” in the last paragraph of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends “its second surface” to refer to the ‘second surface of the deck’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘second surface’ which is separate and independent from the ‘second surface’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “characterized in that said deck further comprises, on the second surface, ...”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “at least one bearing zone putting said deck on contact with said support surface” in the last paragraph of the claim. Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards a “drawing device intended to carry at least one drawing tool adapted to straighten metal sheet.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘bearing zone be on contact with the support surface,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of straightening metal sheet,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to merely recite functional language of the ‘bearing zone,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘drawing device’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation of “at least one bearing zone configured to put the deck in contact with said support surface.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “substantially” twice in the claim. Because “substantially” is a term of degree which is not expressly defined in the Specification, the metes and bounds of the limitations are unclear.
Claim 2 further recites the limitation “four bearing zones.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to, and further define, the “at least one bearing zone” previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second set of ‘bearing zones,’ which are separate and independent from the ‘bearing zones’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to, and further define, the ‘at least one bearing zone’ previously set forth.
Claim 2 further recites the limitation “the four corners.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “... polymer, and more precisely from ethylene propylene diene monomer.” A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the limitation recites a “polymer” as well as “ethylene propylene diene monomer” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thibaut (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0352694).
As to claim 1, Thibaut teaches a drawing device (abstract), said device comprising: a deck, adapted to be removably secured to a support surface (figures 1 and 2, element 1 being the ‘deck’; paragraph 23), a drawing column configured to carry a drawing tool (figure 2, any one of elements 30 being the ‘drawing column’; paragraphs 70 and 74 – 75), said drawing column being secured to a first surface, which is a top surface, of said deck (figure 2, elements 30 and 1; paragraph 73), elastic sealing means comprising a seal and extending over a periphery of a second surface, which is a bottom surface, of said deck, said elastic sealing means being configured, during use of said device, to be disposed between the deck and the support surface to form a closed space (figure 1, element 3 being the ‘elastic sealing means’ and ‘seal’ and element 2 being the ‘closed space’; paragraph 24), vacuum-generation means comprising an air pump, in fluid communication with the closed space at an orifice in said deck, and configured to generate a negative pressure in said closed space so as to secure said deck to said support surface (figure 1, element 4 being the ‘vacuum-generation means’ and ‘air pump’ and element 4a being the ‘orifice’; paragraphs 25 – 26), characterized in that said deck further comprises, on the second surface, a bearing zone configured to put said deck in contact with said support surface (figure 1, outer lower periphery of element 1 being the ‘bearing zone,’ see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
605
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7, Thibaut teaches that said deck comprises a groove for receiving said elastic sealing means (figure 1, see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
614
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, Thibaut teaches that the elastic sealing means are removably secured in said groove (figure 1, element 3; paragraph 24).
As to claim 9, Thibaut teaches that the elastic sealing means are in the form of a seal extending over the whole of the periphery of said second surface of said deck (figure 1, element 3; paragraph 24).
As to claim 10, Thibaut teaches that the seal is manufactured from a polymer (figure 1, element 3; paragraph 24).
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.
Claim(s) 2 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thibaut as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmalz (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2003/0201593, cited in IDS).
As to claim 2, Thibaut first teaches the deck being circular in shape (figure 2, element 1), rather than quadrilateral. Schmalz teaches a drawing device (abstract), said device comprising: a deck, adapted to be removably secured to a support surface (figure 1, element 20 being the ‘deck’; paragraph 16), elastic sealing means comprising a seal and extending over a peripheral of a second surface of said deck, said elastic sealing means being configured, during use of said device, to be disposed between the deck and the support surface to form a closed space (figure 1, element 22 being the ‘elastic sealing means’ and ‘seal’ and element 24 being the ‘closed space’; paragraphs 16 – 17), characterized in that said deck further comprises at least one bearing zone configured to put said deck in contact with said support surface (figure 1, elements 28 and 32 being the ‘bearing zones’; paragraphs 16 – 20). Schmalz further teaches that the deck has a shape in a quadrilateral (figure 2, element 20). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the circular shape of the deck of Thibaut, such that the deck has a quadrilateral shape, as taught by Schmalz, because one skilled in the art would have recognized that either a circular or a quadrilateral shape provides the same benefit of providing a closed space to generative negative pressure and secure the deck to a support surface, as desired by Thibaut (paragraphs 25 – 26).
Thibaut also does not teach the deck having 4 bearing zones. Schmalz further teaches the at least one bearing zone comprising four bearing zones disposed at four corners of said deck (figure 1, elements 28 – 32; paragraphs 16 – 20). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the deck of Thibaut with the bearing zones of Schmalz because Schmalz teaches that the bearing zones provide the benefit of supporting the deck when the deck is secured to the support surface (paragraphs 18 and 19).
As to claim 3, Thibaut does not teach a bearing zone being in the form of a shoe manufactured from an adherent material. Schmalz teaches a drawing device (abstract), said device comprising: a deck, adapted to be removably secured to a support surface (figure 1, element 20 being the ‘deck’; paragraph 16), elastic sealing means comprising a seal and extending over a peripheral of a second surface of said deck, said elastic sealing means being configured, during use of said device, to be disposed between the deck and the support surface to form a closed space (figure 1, element 22 being the ‘elastic sealing means’ and ‘seal’ and element 24 being the ‘closed space’; paragraphs 16 – 17), characterized in that said deck further comprises at least one bearing zone configured to put said deck in contact with said support surface (figure 1, elements 28 and 32 being the ‘bearing zones’; paragraphs 16 – 20). Schmalz further teaches that the at least one bearing zone is in the form of a shoe manufactured from an adherent material (figure 1, elements 32; paragraph 18). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the deck of Thibaut with the bearing zones of Schmalz because Schmalz teaches that the bearing zones provide the benefit of supporting the deck when the deck is secured to the support surface (paragraphs 18 and 19).
As to claim 4, Schmalz teaches that the at least one bearing zone is manufactured from a polymer (figure 1, elements 32; paragraph 18).
As to claim 5, Thibaut does not teach a bearing zone that is secured removably to said second surface of said deck. Schmalz teaches a drawing device (abstract), said device comprising: a deck, adapted to be removably secured to a support surface (figure 1, element 20 being the ‘deck’; paragraph 16), elastic sealing means comprising a seal and extending over a peripheral of a second surface of said deck, said elastic sealing means being configured, during use of said device, to be disposed between the deck and the support surface to form a closed space (figure 1, element 22 being the ‘elastic sealing means’ and ‘seal’ and element 24 being the ‘closed space’; paragraphs 16 – 17), characterized in that said deck further comprises at least one bearing zone configured to put said deck in contact with said support surface (figure 1, elements 28 and 32 being the ‘bearing zones’; paragraphs 16 – 20). Schmalz further teaches that the at least one bearing zone is secured removably to the second surface of said deck (figure 1, elements 32; paragraph 18). Examiner notes that this can be found because Schmalz teaches that bearing zone 32 is a separate element from bearing zone 28 and the second surface of the deck (figure 1, elements 32, 28, and 20; paragraph 18). Because Schmalz does not teach the bearing zone 32 being fixedly secured to the bearing zones 28, the deck, or any other element, it is the position of the Examiner that the bearing zones 32 are removably secured to the second surface of the deck. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the deck of Thibaut with the bearing zones of Schmalz because Schmalz teaches that the bearing zones provide the benefit of supporting the deck when the deck is secured to the support surface (paragraphs 18 and 19).
As to claim 6, Schmalz does not teach how the bearing zones 28 are secured to the second surface of the deck. However, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to secure the bearing zones 28 to the second surface of the deck by screwing, so as to allow the bearing zones 28 to be removed and replaced upon excessive wear.
Conclusion
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