. 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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:
A force-producing mechanism operatively associated with said plunger, said force-producing mechanism producing a mechanical force and applying said mechanical force to said plunger to controllably urge said plunger through said door plate opening. in claims 5 and 17. The nonce term mechanism is modified by functional language “force” and “a mechanical force and applying said mechanical force to said plunger to controllably urge said plunger through said door plate opening”. This will be interpreted as a hydraulic pump or any variety of force producing mechanisms per Paragraph 0060.
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.
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 6 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.
Claims 6 recite “wherein said force-producing mechanism comprises one of a hydraulic drive, a gaseous pressure drive and a mechanical drive, said drive producing said force”. Only a hydraulic drive is disclosed in the specification not the other devices.
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 13 and 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.
Claims 13 and 20 recites “a lift, said lift controllably raising and lowering said push gate”. The device is a push gate. The claim recites structure outside of the pushgate. It is unclear if the structure is limited to the pushgate or includes structure outside of the pushgate. For examination purposes Examiner will consider that this structure is positively recited.
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) 1-2, 4-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB719364 to Brooke (Brooke).
Regarding claim 1, Brooke teaches a door plate (plate on the left side of 10, Figures 1-5), said door plate sealing at least in part said doorway when said door plate is positioned against said doorway (shown in Figure 2 and the device is a push gate and therefore the device only needs to be able to interact with the furnace in the claimed manner which it can), said door plate having an opening there through (shown in Figures 1-4 with rod 19 passing through); b. a scoop (18, Figures 1-5), said scoop movable from a first position at which said scoop is proximate said door plate to a second position at which said scoop is separated from said door plate (shown in Figures 1-4), said scoop being shaped and sized to fit within said volatizing chamber (shown in Figures 1 and 4); and c. a plunger (19, Figures 1-4), said plunger having a first end and a second end, said first end attaching to said scoop, said plunger first end controllably extending through said door plate opening into and retracting from said furnace volatizing chamber when said door plate is positioned against said doorway (shown in Figures 1-4), said plunger first end urging said scoop between said scoop first and second positions (shown in Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 2, Brooke teaches wherein said plunger extends through said door plate, fits snugly into said door plate opening, and at least in part seals said opening (Figures 1-4 show the passage through the opening which at least partly seals the opening).
Regarding claim 4, Brooke teaches wherein said plunger comprises a shaft, said shaft having a substantially uniform portion, said shaft uniform portion extending through said door plate opening (shown in Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 5, Brooke teaches a force-producing mechanism operatively associated with said plunger, said force-producing mechanism producing a mechanical force and applying said mechanical force to said plunger to controllably urge said plunger through said door plate opening (20, Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 6, Brooke teaches wherein said force-producing mechanism comprises one of a hydraulic drive, a gaseous pressure drive and a mechanical drive, said drive producing said force (20, Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 8, Brooke teaches when said door plate is positioned against said furnace doorway, said scoop first position corresponds to a first location in said volatizing chamber first process subzone, and said scoop second position corresponds to a second location in said volatizing chamber second process subzone (shown in Figures 1-4, and the device is a push gate and therefore the device only needs to be able to interact with the furnace in the claimed manner which it can).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooke in view of U.S. Patent 2714966 to Taylor et al. (Taylor).
Regarding claim 3, Brooke is silent on a seal positioned in said door plate opening, said plunger extending through said seal, said seal sealing at least in part said opening.
Taylor teaches a seal for a piston passing through a plate (unlabeled in Figures 1 and 2 which show seals round piston 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Brooke with the teachings of Taylor to provide a seal positioned in said door plate opening, said plunger extending through said seal, said seal sealing at least in part said opening. Doing so would avoid locking or wedging of movable parts and provide structure already likely present in Brooke as Brooke would reasonably not have only a piston and a hole without additional structure in the shown orientation.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooke in view of U.S. PGPUB 20100178627 to Dover et al. (Dover).
Regarding claim 7, Brooke teaches control over a movement from a first to second position (Figures 1-4 and Page 2 lines 66-95) which would appear to require memory but to expedite prosecution the below is provided.
Booke is silent on a computer control system operatively associated with said force-producing mechanism, said computer control system having a memory unit, said memory unit storing a user programmable computer code for a desired process flow, said computer code instructing said force-producing mechanism to control said plunger to move said scoop between said first and second positions at one or more predetermined times in accordance with said process flow.
Dover teaches a PLC to control movement the of a stopper and spoon (Paragraph 0035). This is interpreted to have memory and because Brooke teaches the positions and Dover teaches the control system with memory the claim is taught. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Brooke with the teachings of Dover to provide a computer control system operatively associated with said force-producing mechanism, said computer control system having a memory unit, said memory unit storing a user programmable computer code for a desired process flow, said computer code instructing said force-producing mechanism to control said plunger to move said scoop between said first and second positions at one or more predetermined times in accordance with said process flow. Doing so would be simply automating a manual process or allow the device to operate with limited human interaction.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooke in view of U.S. Patent 4984952 to Reuter (Reuter).
Regarding claim 9, Brooke is silent on a fastener, said fastener releasably securing said door plate to said furnace doorway.
Reuter teaches a fastener, said fastener releasably securing said door plate to said furnace doorway (Figure 3 shows the device connected by a flange which is a fastener and in its normal use would use screws or bolts). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Brooke with the teachings of Reuter to provide a fastener, said fastener releasably securing said door plate to said furnace doorway. Doing so would ensure the device would not move and be damaged by the movement while in one stage of operation.
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Brooke teaches wherein said fastener comprises one of a rotating lock, a lock-pin, a latch, a hook, a clamp and a screw (Figure 3 of Reuter shows the device connected by a flange which is a fastener and in its normal use would use screws or bolts
Claim(s) 11-12, 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooke in view of U.S. Patent 1204252 to Cruikshank (Cruikshank).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Brooke is silent a carriage, said carriage having a proximal end and a distal end, said carriage supporting at least in part said plunger, said plunger first end being oriented proximate said carriage proximal end, said carriage being movable from a first position in which said door plate is proximate said furnace doorway to a second position in which said door plate is not proximate said furnace doorway.
Cruikshank teaches a carriage (device below and above 22, Figure 1), said carriage having a proximal end and a distal end (shown in Figure 1), said carriage supporting at least in part said plunger, said plunger first end being oriented proximate said carriage proximal end, said carriage being movable from a first position in which said door plate is proximate said furnace doorway to a second position in which said door plate is not proximate said furnace doorway (carriage can move the entire device as claimed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Brooke with the teachings of Cruikshank to provide a carriage, said carriage having a proximal end and a distal end, said carriage supporting at least in part said plunger, said plunger first end being oriented proximate said carriage proximal end, said carriage being movable from a first position in which said door plate is proximate said furnace doorway to a second position in which said door plate is not proximate said furnace doorway. Doing so would allow the device to be moved in and out of place as desired.
Regarding claims 12 and 16, the modified device of Brooke teaches wherein said carriage comprises a glide, said door plate being attached to said glide, said glide moving said door plate between a forward position and a rearward position in said carriage (35 and 36 are rails and wheels which are interpreted as a glide, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Brooke teaches a force-producing mechanism operatively associated with said plunger, said force-producing mechanism producing a mechanical force and applying said mechanical force to said plunger to controllably urge said plunger through said door plate opening (20, Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 19, Brooke teaches when said door plate is positioned against said furnace doorway, said scoop first position corresponds to a first location in said volatizing chamber first process subzone, and said scoop second position corresponds to a second location in said volatizing chamber second process subzone (shown in Figures 1-4, and the device is a push gate and therefore the device only needs to be able to interact with the furnace in the claimed manner which it can).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooke in view of U.S. Patent 1273141 to Brosius (Brosius).
Regarding claim 13, Brooke is silent a lift, said lift controllably raising and lowering said push gate.
Brosius teaches a lift, said lift controllably raising and lowering said push gate (Page 2 lines 27-49 disclose a structure lifting the device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Brooke with the teachings of Brosius to provide a lift, said lift controllably raising and lowering said push gate. Doing so would allow the height of the unit to be adjusted and allow the device to be used on different units.
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Brooke teaches a counterweight, said counterweight positioned opposite said plunger first end, said counterweight having a weight, said weight being sufficient to preclude said push gate proximal end from tipping downward when said plunger is extended (41, Figure 1 of Brosius).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooke in view of Cruikshank and Dover.
Regarding claim 18, Brooke teaches control over a movement from a first to second position (Figures 1-4 and Page 2 lines 66-95) which would appear to require memory but to expedite prosecution the below is provided.
Booke is silent on a computer control system operatively associated with said force-producing mechanism, said computer control system having a memory unit, said memory unit storing a user programmable computer code for a desired process flow, said computer code instructing said force-producing mechanism to control said plunger to move said scoop between said first and second positions at one or more predetermined times in accordance with said process flow.
Dover teaches a PLC to control movement the of a stopper and spoon (Paragraph 0035). This is interpreted to have memory and because Brooke teaches the positions and Dover teaches the control system with memory the claim is taught. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Brooke with the teachings of Dover to provide a computer control system operatively associated with said force-producing mechanism, said computer control system having a memory unit, said memory unit storing a user programmable computer code for a desired process flow, said computer code instructing said force-producing mechanism to control said plunger to move said scoop between said first and second positions at one or more predetermined times in accordance with said process flow. Doing so would be simply automating a manual process or allow the device to operate with limited human interaction.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooke in view of Cruikshank and Brosius.
Regarding claim 20, Brooke is silent a lift, said lift controllably raising and lowering said push gate.
Brosius teaches a lift, said lift controllably raising and lowering said push gate (Page 2 lines 27-49 disclose a structure lifting the device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Brooke with the teachings of Brosius to provide a lift, said lift controllably raising and lowering said push gate. Doing so would allow the height of the unit to be adjusted and allow the device to be used on different units.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights