DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
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:
“lifting elements” recited in claim 10
“control installation” recited in claim 10
“measuring installation” recited in claim 10
“additional installation” recited in claim 18
“additional installation” recited in claim 19
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 “lifting elements” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘cables or belts,’ as taught by the Specification (page 8, last paragraph), or equivalents thereof.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “control installation” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a PID controller,’ as taught by the Specification (page 7, first paragraph), or an equivalent thereof.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “additional installation” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a rotary encoder or linear encoder,’ as taught by the Specification (page 6, first paragraph), 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 10 – 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the device includes two telescopic struts for stabilization.” Examiner notes that claim 10 previously sets forth “at least one telescopic strut.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘at least one telescopic strut,’ such that ‘at least one telescopic strut’ comprises ‘two of the telescopic struts,’ or whether Applicant intends to set forth an addition set of ‘telescopic struts,’ such that the claimed ‘device’ comprises the ‘at least one telescopic strut’ as well as ‘two additional telescopic struts.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to the ‘at least one telescopic strut,’ such that ‘at least one telescopic strut’ comprises ‘two of the telescopic struts.’
As explained above, the claim limitations “measuring installation” and “additional installation” (recited claim 18) each invoke 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. Regarding the limitation “measuring installation,” while the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation and the claimed function (page 5, first paragraph and page 6, last paragraph). However, the Specification does not teach the structure necessary for the limitation to perform the claimed function. Examiner recognizes that the Specification teaches an embodiment in which the ‘measuring installation’ comprises ‘two microswitches.’ However, the Specification teaches that these microswitches “can only be used for binary feedback-control” (page 7, last paragraph). The Specification does not teach the microswitches being used for the claimed function of ‘measuring a lateral offset of the crossbeam relative to the frame.’ The Specification further teaches the use of ‘pressure transducers,’ ‘strain gauges,’ or ‘fiber Bragg grating’ (page 7, last paragraph – page 8 first paragraph). However, the Specification teaches these elements are used to measure the “displacement of the telescopic struts” (page 8, first paragraph), rather than the claimed function. Regarding the limitation “additional installation” (recited in claim 18), the Specification does not provide antecedent basis for the limitation preforming the claimed function. 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.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 10 – 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.
As explained above, each of the limitations “measuring installation” and “additional installation” (recited in claim 18) invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As further explained above, the Specification fails to teach sufficient structure for the limitations to perform their respective claimed functions. Therefore, the limitations are not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 6 – 7, that the Specification teaches sufficient structure for the limitation “measuring installation” to perform the claimed function of “measuring a lateral offset of the crossbeam relative to the frame.” Examiner disagrees. Examiner recognizes that the Specification teaches an embodiment in which the ‘measuring installation’ comprises ‘two microswitches.’ However, the Specification teaches that these microswitches “can only be used for binary feedback-control” (page 7, last paragraph) and does not teach the ‘microswitches’ performing the claimed function. The Specification further teaches the use of ‘pressure transducers,’ ‘strain gauges,’ or ‘fiber Bragg grating’ (page 7, last paragraph – page 8 first paragraph). However, the Specification teaches these elements are used to measure the “displacement of the telescopic struts” (page 8, first paragraph), rather than the claimed function. Examiner notes that Applicant has not stated or otherwise argued what structure of the ‘measuring installation’ is sufficient to perform the claimed function.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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