DETAILED ACTION
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
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:
“lifting elements” recited in claim 10
“control installation” recited in claim 10
“measuring installation” recited in claim 10
“installation” recited in claim 18
“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.
The limitation “lifting elements” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing a claimed function (“elements”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“lifting” or ‘configured for lifting’ and ‘configured for adjusting a height of the crossbeam’).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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 a functional equivalent thereof.
The limitation “control installation” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing a claimed function (“installation”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“for adapting the length of the telescopic struct at least during a lifting or lowering movement”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “measuring installation” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing a claimed function (“installation”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“measuring” or ‘configured for measuring’ and “for measuring a lateral offset of the crossbeam relative to the frame”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “installation,” as recited in claim 18, invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing a claimed function (“installation”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“for detecting a respective lifting height of the device”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “installation,” as recited in claim 19, invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing a claimed function (“installation”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“for detecting the respective length of said telescopic strut”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “installation,” as recited in claim 19, will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a rotary encoder or linear encoder,’ as taught by the Specification (page 6, first paragraph), or a functional 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 10 recites the limitation “said crossbeam receiving the load ...” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the load” in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret “the load” so as to refer to the “loads” previously set forth in the preamble of the claim. Secondly, Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “a device for lifting and stabilizing loads.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘crossbeam’ to receive the ‘loads,’ such that the preamble is directed towards ‘a combination of a device and loads,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth functional language of the ‘crossbeam,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a device for lifting and stabilizing loads.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to set forth functional language of the ‘crossbeam.’
Claim 10 further recites the limitation “at least one telescopic struct which extends diagonally substantially in an imaginary vertical plane parallel to the direction of displacement of the frame ...” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, Examiner notes that “substantially” is a term of degree and is not clearly defined in the Specification. Therefore, the metes and bounds of “substantially” is unclear. Secondly, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the direction of displacement.”
Claim 10 further recites the limitation “the other side” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 further recites the limitation “wherein a length of the at least one telescopic strut, when exceeding a predefined maximum lateral offset, is changed so as to counteract the offset” in the last paragraph of the claim. The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “a device for lifting and stabilizing loads.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the step of ‘changing a length of the at least one telescopic strut so as to counteract the offset,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of lifting and stabilizing loads,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth functional language of the ‘telescopic strut,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘device’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to recite functional language of the ‘telescopic strut.’ Secondly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the offset” in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret “the offset” so as to refer to the “lateral offset” previously set forth in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the device includes two telescopic struts for stabilization.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth two ‘telescopic struts’ which are separate and independent from the “at least one telescopic strut” previously set forth in claim 10, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to, and further define the ‘at least one telescopic strut’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to, and further define, the ‘at least one telescopic strut’ previously set forth.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “where the two telescopic struts are actuated such that their respective changes in length ...” Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards “a device for lifting and stabilizing loads.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the step of ‘actuating the two telescopic struts,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of lifting and stabilizing loads,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth functional language of the ‘two telescopic struts,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘device’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to recite functional language of the ‘two telescopic struts.’
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a mechanical actuation device.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to, and further define, the “actuator” previously set forth in claim 10, or whether Applicant intends the ‘mechanical actuation device’ to be a separate and independent element from the ‘actuator.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to, and further define, the ‘actuator’ previously set forth. Examiner notes that this interpretation is consistent with the teachings of the Specification (page 5, last paragraph).
Claim 17 recites the limitation “wherein a length of the at least one telescopic strut ... is adjusted via a respective lifting height.” The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends “a length of the at least one telescopic strut” to refer to the ‘length of said at least one telescopic strut” previously set forth in claim 10, or whether Applicant intends the set fort a second ‘length’ which is separate and independent from the ‘length’ previously set forth. Secondly, Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards “a device for lifting and stabilizing loads.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the step of ‘adjusting a length of the telescopic strut,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of lifting and stabilizing loads,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth functional language of the ‘telescopic strut,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘device’ itself. Finally, it is generally unclear as to how the ‘length of the telescopic struct’ can be adjusted “via a respective lifting height.” For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the at least one telescopic struct is configured such that the length of the at least one telescopic strut ... can be adjusted to a respective lifting height.”
Claim 18 recites the limitation “installation.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to either of the “control installation” or “measuring installation,” each of which were previously set forth in claim 10, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘installation’ which is separate and independent from the ‘control installation’ and ‘measuring installation’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to set forth an additional ‘installation’ which is separate and independent from the ‘control installation’ and ‘measuring installation’ previously set forth.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “installation.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to either of the “control installation” or “measuring installation,” each of which were previously set forth in claim 10, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘installation’ which is separate and independent from the ‘control installation’ and ‘measuring installation’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to set forth an additional ‘installation’ which is separate and independent from the ‘control installation’ and ‘measuring installation’ previously set forth.
As explained above, each of the claim limitations “control installation,” “measuring installation,” and “installation” (as recited in claim 18) 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 of “control installation,” Examiner notes that the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation itself (page 5, first paragraph, page 6, last paragraph). However, the Specification does not teach the structure necessary for the limitation to perform the claimed function. Regarding the limitation of “measuring installation,” Examiner notes that the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation itself (page 4, last paragraph and page 7, first paragraph). However, the Specification does not teach the structure necessary for the limitation to perform the claimed function. Regarding the limitation of “installation,” as recited in claim 8, Examiner notes that the Specification does not provides antecedent basis for the limitation performing the claimed function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “control installation.” As explained above, the limitation invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As further explained above, the Specification does not teach sufficient structure of the limitation to allow one skilled in the art to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the limitation is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the joint inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 further recites the limitation “measuring installation.” As explained above, the limitation invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As further explained above, the Specification does not teach sufficient structure of the limitation to allow one skilled in the art to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the limitation is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the joint inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “installation.” As explained above, the limitation invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As further explained above, the Specification does not teach sufficient structure of the limitation to allow one skilled in the art to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the limitation is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the joint inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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