DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A preliminary amendment was filed by applicant on 01/26/2024.
No claims are amended, added or canceled.
The amended Drawings (Replacement Sheets) accepted.
Claims 1-20 are remaining in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, regards as the invention.
8. The claimed features “linking member” and “pivotable component” in independent claims 1 and 10 and subsequent dependent claims are not entirely clear with respect to specific and/or requisite material/structure in light of the Specification; clarification for proper interpretation is needed. According to the Specification, the linking member may be a clevis, eyebolt or any suitable component. Similarly, the pivotable component may be a trim tab but is not limited to that structure. Any structure capable of the functional limitations linking or pivotable would read on the claims; the requisite material as disclosed for each is vague regarding defined structure. The written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. The Specification does not clearly specify distinct structure associated to the feature(s); therefore, the feature limitations as claimed are unclear regarding scope, structure or limiting effect in light of the Specification.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such terms are “linking member” and “pivotable component” in independent claims 1 and 10, and subsequent dependent claims.
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), 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: “linking member” and “pivotable component” in independent claims 1 and 10, and subsequent dependent claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
13. 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.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 1-4 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1: US 7128014 B2 (Berthiaume et al.), cited by applicant.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, D1 discloses (see Fig. 10) a bracket [156] (suitable) for coupling an actuator assembly having a first rod and a second rod to a pivotable component (trim tab) [66] of a marine vessel [10], the bracket [156] comprising: a main body [156] with a first end configured (suitable) to be pivotally coupled to the first rod [160] and an opposite second end configured (suitable) to be pivotally coupled to the second rod [160], wherein the main body [156] pivots about at least one axis [238] to thereby facilitate equal loading of the first rod [160] and the second rod [160]; and a linking member [14] pivotally coupled to the main body and configured (suitable) to be coupled to the pivotable component [66]. Regarding claim 10, D1 also discloses the claimed actuator assembly (see Fig. 10). Regarding claim 11, the first and second housings are broadly interpreted as elbows [162] which partially enclose a portion of the end of each rod. Regarding claims 4, 12 and 14, see Fig. 10. Regarding claims 3 and 13, linking member [14] is considered a clevis (U-shaped fastener with holes at each end, paired with a clevis pin to create a secure, hinged, or rotating connection).
Allowable Subject Matter
As best understood by the examiner, claims 5-9 and 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
16. The prior art cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The prior art references disclose actuator assembly brackets for pivotal components of marine vessels.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL V VENNE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7947. The examiner can normally be reached between M-F, 7am-3:30pm Flex. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel J. Morano can be reached on (571) 272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
18. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel V Venne/
Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3615
02/03/2026