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 .
Claim Interpretation
1. 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 limitations are:
a cleaning unit (50) in line 3 of independent claim 1, according to the specification at paragraph [00163], the cleaning unit (50) includes a support framework (63); at least one cleaner roller (110); and a first and second connector (111, 112); and
a suspension device (139) in line of independent claim 1, according to the specification at paragraph [0118], the suspension device include an elastic suspension device having left and right suspension device (139’) and (139’’), for example a spring suspension or a pneumatic suspension.
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.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102
2. 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication (2013/0091653) to Pollack.
Regarding independent claim 1, Pollack discloses a chassis (11), a cleaning unit (20) mounted to the chassis (11) with at least one degree of freedom relative to the chassis (11) allowing the cleaning unit (20) to be lifted and lowered relative to the chassis (11), at least one suspension device (29) operatively active on the cleaning unit (20) and configured to transmit to the cleaning unit (20) an upwardly directed force (See FIGS. 1-2 and paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 2, Pollack discloses at least one mechanism (22) linking a forward end (33) of the chassis (11) to a cleaning unit support framework (24); and wherein the at least one suspension device (29) is interposed between the cleaning unit (20) and the chassis (11).
Regarding claim 14, Pollack discloses that the suspension device (29) is configured for transmitting to the cleaning unit (20) an upwardly directed force not greater than the cleaning unit weight (capable of carrying the cleaning unit (50) with a force commensurate with cleaning unit (50).
Claims 1-3, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication (2017/0245723) to Baertsch et al.
Regarding independent claim 1, Baertsch et al. discloses a chassis (40), a cleaning unit (60) mounted to the chassis (40) with at least one degree of freedom relative to the chassis (60) allowing the cleaning unit (60) to be lifted and lowered relative to the chassis (40), at least one suspension device (70) operatively active on the cleaning unit (60) and configured to transmit to the cleaning unit (60) an upwardly directed force (See FIGS. 1-2 and paragraphs [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 2, Baertsch et al. discloses at least one mechanism (90) linking a forward end (top end) of the chassis (40) to a cleaning unit support framework (80); and wherein the at least one suspension device (70) is interposed between the cleaning unit (60) and the chassis (40).
Regarding claim 3, Baertsch et al. discloses that the mechanism (90) includes a first lever (See right lever in FIG. 3) having a first end (bottom pivot point of right lever in FIG. 3) coupled with the cleaning unit support framework (80) and an opposite second end (top point of right lever in FIG. 3) cinematically connected to the chassis (40), and a second lever (See left lever in FIG. 3) having a first end (bottom pivot point of left lever in FIG. 3) coupled with the cleaning unit support framework (80) and an opposite second end (top point of left lever in FIG.) cinematically connected to the chassis (40) (See paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 8, Baertsch et al. discloses that the at least one suspension device (70) is interposed between the cleaning unit (60) and the mechanism (90) linking the forward end of the chassis (40) to the cleaning unit support framework (80) (See FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Baertsch et al. discloses that the suspension device (70) includes an elastic suspension device selected between from a spring suspension or a pneumatic suspension (See paragraph [0051]).
Allowable Subject Matter
2. Claims 4-7 and 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. 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, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
MICHAEL DEANGILO. JENNINGS
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MICHAEL D JENNINGS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights