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
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 02/27/2026. Claims 1-5 and 9-20 are currently pending with claims 1, 3, 5, 9-12, and 14-20 being amended, and claims 6-8 being cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted on 02/27/2026 overcome the claim objections set forth in the previous Office action except for those set forth in the claim objection section.
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes wherein Applicant argues the newly amended limitations, which have not been addressed by the prior art of record. As such, Examiner has augmented the below rejection(s) in view of the record to address the newly amended limitations.
Regarding the Applicant’s remarks directed to the interpretation of claim limitations under 112(f), the Examiner has reviewed the amendments and augmented the below rejection in view of these amendments. The Examiner would further note wherein some limitations have been amended to incorporate structure, such as “size detector” and “code position acquirer”, and these no longer are interpreted under 112(f) and therefor, any associated 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn. However, some limitations were not amended to incorporate sufficient structure for performing the claimed functionality. These limitations include “an inclination detector”, “a cylinder inspector”, “a pressurizer”, “a position adjuster”, “a pressurization unit”, and “an inclination analyzer” and will still be interpreted accordingly under 112(f). Examiner further notes wherein the limitations which have been amended to incorporate a processor are not supported by the Applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding the Applicant’s remarks directed to the rejection of claims 5 and 16 under 112(b), the Applicant’s amendments/arguments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 5 and 16 under 112(b) has been withdrawn. However, these claims still depend from a claim rejected under 112(b) and inherit the rejections from claims 1 and 15 respectively.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs 0022 and 0037 use the term “cue” whereas paragraph 0073 uses the term “queue”. Correction of this, for consistency throughout the claims and written description, is earnestly solicited.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Applicant has amended the claims to introduce “a pressurization unit”. Based on the disclosure this appears to be the same as the “pressurizer introduced in the previous line. If this is meant to be a second instance of this structure, clarification in order to distinguish the two instances is earnestly solicited. If this is the same structure previously introduced, correction for consistency is requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Regarding claim 1, “size analyzer” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “analyzer”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
The above claim limitation 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. Therefor a corresponding 112(b) rejection is presented below.
Regarding claim 11, “center detector” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “detector”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
The above claim limitation 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. Therefor a corresponding 112(b) rejection is presented below.
Regarding claim 13, “inclination detector” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “detector”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (paragraph 0031) as distance sensors.
Regarding claim 14, “inclination analyzer” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “analyzer”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
The above claim limitation 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. Therefor a corresponding 112(b) rejection is presented below.
Regarding claim 15, “cylinder inspector” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “inspector”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (paragraph 0033) as a rotatable table and controller.
Regarding claim 15, “size analyzer” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “analyzer”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
The above claim limitation 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. Therefor a corresponding 112(b) rejection is presented below.
Regarding claim 18, “pressurizer” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “pressurizer”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (paragraph 0093) as structure in contact with the cylinder and a pneumatic cylinder connected to a rod.
Regarding claim 18, “position adjuster” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “adjuster”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (paragraph 0094) as a structure contacting the cylinder opposing the pressurizing unit.
Regarding claim 18, “pressurization unit” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “unit”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (paragraph 0093) as structure in contact with the cylinder and a pneumatic cylinder connected to a rod.
Regarding claim 20, “size analyzer” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “analyzer”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
The above claim limitation 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. Therefor a corresponding 112(b) rejection is presented below.
Regarding claim 20, “center detector” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “detector”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
The above claim limitation 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. Therefor a corresponding 112(b) rejection is presented below.
Regarding claim 20, “inclination detector” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “detector”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (paragraph 0031) as distance sensors.
Regarding claim 20, “inclination analyzer” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “analyzer”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
The above claim limitation 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. Therefor a corresponding 112(b) rejection is presented below.
Regarding claim 20, “cylinder inspector” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “inspector”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (paragraph 0033) as a rotatable table and controller.
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.
Claims 1, 11, 14, 15, and 20 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. In these claims, the Applicant provides the claim limitations: “a first processor”, “a second processor”, and “a third processor”. Examiner notes wherein the term “processor” is not provided anywhere in the Applicant’s disclosure (i.e. specification, drawings, etc.) and therefor the written description fails to teach what the “processor” correlates to, and as such, is rejected under this section for failing to satisfy the written description requirement. The Examiner further notes wherein the remarks provided by the applicant indicate support for these amendments in paragraphs 0079, 0081, and 0085 as well as figures 3 and 6. These sections of the Applicant’s disclosure do not include a “processor” or indicate the structure of one within the drawings. Neither do these sections indicate a structure equivalent to a processor capable of performing the claimed functionality such as, for example, a computer, central processing unit, microprocessor, microcontroller, or integrated circuit. The record does not demonstrate adequate written description for the claimed “processor”. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited. Claims 2-5, 9-10, 12-13, and 16-19 depend from claims 1 and 15 respectively and therefor are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “size analyzer” 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. The limitation is not clearly linked to a structure within the disclosure. It is unclear what structure is this is meant to be. 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.
Regarding claim 11, claim limitation “center detector” 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. The limitation is not clearly linked to a structure within the disclosure. It is unclear what structure is this is meant to be. 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.
Regarding claim 14, claim limitation “inclination analyzer” 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. The limitation is not clearly linked to a structure within the disclosure. It is unclear what structure is this is meant to be. 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.
Claims 2-5 and 9-14 depend from claim 1 and therefor are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 15, claim limitation “inclination analyzer” 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. The limitation is not clearly linked to a structure within the disclosure. It is unclear what structure is this is meant to be. 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.
Claims 16-19 depend from claim 15 and therefor are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 20, claim limitation “size analyzer” 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. The limitation is not clearly linked to a structure within the disclosure. It is unclear what structure is this is meant to be. 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.
Regarding claim 20, claim limitation “center detector” 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. The limitation is not clearly linked to a structure within the disclosure. It is unclear what structure is this is meant to be. 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.
Regarding claim 20, claim limitation “inclination analyzer” 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. The limitation is not clearly linked to a structure within the disclosure. It is unclear what structure is this is meant to be. 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 20 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. The “inclination detector” is indicated to include “a third processor”. However, the written disclosure, specifically paragraph 0031, indicates that this limitation is a distance sensor. Clarification of this limitation is earnestly solicited.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the non-use cylinder information" in line 67. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 15, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph as well as under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-5, 9-14, and 16-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph as well as under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the referencesapplied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations arerepresentative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER KENIRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5468. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
/H.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights