DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner notes that the claims are replete with examples of unclear claim language and the examples below are NON-LIMITING examples only. Applicant must review and amend all claims for clarity, definiteness, and grammatical accuracy.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “wherein at least one electromagnetic means of the first gate post is rotatable around the first gate post by means of the first receiving arrangement, wherein at least one electromagnetic means of the first gate post is rotatable around the first gate post by means of the first receiving arrangement”, which is the same limitation twice. This is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the first and second gate post comprises a respective first and second receiving arrangement, each comprising respective electromagnetic means” followed by “at least one electromagnetic means of the first gate post is rotatable”. This limitation is unclear, since it is unclear if “at least one electromagnetic means” is intended to refer to “at least one” of the previously recited “electromagnetic means”, or if the recitations of “electromagnetic means” and “at least one electromagnetic means” are intended to refer to different structure. Additionally, it is unclear if the claim term “electromagnetic means” is intended to refer to a plurality of “electromagnetic means” (i.e. how many “electromagnetic means” are being claimed?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the door blade edge”. This is unclear since “a door blade having a first edge and a second edge” is previously recited in the claim (i.e. which “door blade edge” is “the door blade edge”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “a first cylinder is a primary rotating cylinder onto which electromagnetic means is arranged”. This is unclear since “electromagnetic means” and “at least one electromagnetic means” are previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, and it is unclear if the “electromagnetic means” recited in claim 2 is intended to refer to the same or different “electromagnetic means” with respect to the terms recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “the gate post”. This is unclear since “at least a first gate post and a second gate post” is previously recited in claim 1 (i.e. which gate post is “the gate post”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “a second cylinder is a secondary rotating cylinder onto which electromagnetic means is arranged for providing passive rotation and stability to the arrangement, and a third cylinder is a static cylinder onto which electromagnetic means is arranged”. This is unclear since “electromagnetic means” and “at least one electromagnetic means are previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, and it is unclear if the “electromagnetic means” recited in claim 3 is intended to refer to the same or different “electromagnetic means” as those recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “the electromagnetic means is arranged to provide attraction to the magnetic means”. This is unclear since “electromagnetic means” and “at least one electromagnetic means” are previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, and it is unclear which of the previously recited “electromagnetic means” are being referred to by “the electromagnetic means” recited in claim 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “the electromagnetic means is in the form of a polygonal sleeve”. This is unclear since “electromagnetic means” and “at least one electromagnetic means” are previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, and it is unclear which of the previously recited “electromagnetic means” are being referred to by “the electromagnetic means” recited in claim 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “the facet”. This is unclear since “a polygonal sleeve having equally spaced facets” is previously recited (i.e. which facet is “the facet”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “a third gate post comprising a third receiving arrangement comprising electromagnetic means”. This is unclear since “electromagnetic means” and “at least one electromagnetic means” are previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, and it is unclear if the “electromagnetic means” recited in claim 7 is intended to refer to the same or different “electromagnetic means” as those recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “the first electromagnetic means of the second gate post”. This is unclear and lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e. are “the first electromagnetic means” intended to be different than the “electromagnetic means” and “at least one electromagnetic means” as previously recited in claim 1). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “an electromagnetic flux of the electromagnetic means” and “at least one of the electromagnetic means”. This is unclear, as numerous “electromagnetic means” have been recited in claims 7 and 1, and it is unclear which “electromagnetic means” are being referred to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “disconnect the electromagnets”. This is unclear since no “electromagnets” have been previously recited (i.e. are “the electromagnets” intended to refer to the “electromagnetic means”?). Consistent terminology must be maintained in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “moving a door blade into a predetermined position” followed by “the door blade”. This is unclear since “a door blade having a first edge” is previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 7 depends (i.e. which “door blade” is “the door blade”? how many door blades are being claimed?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “the static cylinder” and “the primary rotating cylinder”. These terms are unclear and lack proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “a connecting arrangement comprising magnetic means and which connecting means is arranged at the respective edge of the door blade”. This limitation is awkwardly worded and unclear (i.e. what is “and which connecting means” referring to?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “the first and second gate post comprises a respective first and second receiving arrangement, each comprising respective electromagnetic means” followed by “at least one electromagnetic means of the first gate post is rotatable”. This limitation is unclear, since it is unclear if “at least one electromagnetic means” is intended to refer to “at least one” of the previously recited “electromagnetic means”, or if the recitations of “electromagnetic means” and “at least one electromagnetic means” are intended to refer to different structure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “the first receiving arrangement” and “the second receiving arrangement”, “the first and second connecting arrangements”, “the magnets”, “the electric-magnetic means”. These terms are unclear and lack proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “the receiving arrangement”. This is unclear since “first and second receiving arrangement” is previously recited (i.e. which “receiving arrangement” is “the receiving arrangement”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “a drive clutch in the gate post”. This is unclear, since numerous “gate posts” have been previously recited (i.e. which gate post is “the gate post”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “the transmission of movement”. This term is unclear and lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “at least one door blade…wherein the door blade “. This is unclear as “at least one door blade” is previously recited in claims 14, and “a door blade” is recited in claim 1. (i.e. how many door blades are being claimed?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites “each operable gate post”. This is unclear (i.e. what is “each operable gate post”? Are some gate posts not “operable”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites “a plurality of nodes which presents the gate post”. This limitation is awkwardly worded and unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites “the common motor” and “the drive shafts”. These terms are unclear and lack proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6, 9, 11-12 and 16 are objected to as depending from a base claim with an objection.
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 1-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The Claim limitations, “a respective first and second receiving arrangement, each comprising respective electromagnetic means, wherein the electromagnetic means are active by electromagnetic flux provided via an electric current for enabling detachable engagement between the gate posts”, as recited in independent claims 1 and 8, and “a drive means for transmitting the movement between motor and drive shaft”, as recited in claim 10, have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether these limitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claimed “electromagnetic means” appears to simply be referring to an “electromagnet”. Additionally, Applicants specification does not identify any particular structure that is intended to be represented by the term “electromagnetic means”. Additionally, claim 11 recites “wherein the drive means is selected from a belt, chain, wire rope or the like”, and therefore it does not appear like Applicant intendeds to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) with above limitation.
However, the claim limitations above remain unclear, and the boundaries of the claim limitations are ambiguous; therefore, the claims are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 11 recites “the drive means is selected from a belt, chain, wire rope or the like”. Additionally, claim 16 recites “the pulley element is selected from a belt pulley, sprocket wheel, spur gear or the like”. Examiner notes that this renders the claims indefinite, as the above limitations are constructed as an improper Markush group (i.e. what is being claimed by “or the like”?). Examiner notes that alternative expressions are permitted if they present no uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the question of scope or clarity of the claims. A “Markush” claim recites a list of alternatively useable species. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 719-20, 206 USPQ 300, 303-04 (CCPA 1980); Ex parte Markush, 1925 Dec. Comm’r Pat. 126, 127 (1924). A Markush claim is commonly formatted as: “selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C. It is improper to use the term “comprising” instead of “consisting of.” Ex parte Dotter, 12 USPQ 382 (Bd. App. 1931).
Claims 2-7, 9-10, and 12-15 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best understood, Examiner believes that Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, as well as resolving the claim objections indicated above. However, patentability of the claims remains unclear due to the numerous claim objections and issues regarding 35 U.S.C. 112 identified above.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record lacks the structure and functionality of the electromagnetic gate arrangement as claimed. The closest prior art is found in Steinberg (US 2007/0163180). Steinberg discloses an electromagnetic gate arrangement (See at least paragraph [0013], “It is another object of the present invention to provide a door, window, hatch or other aperture or opening that can open from more than two sides”) comprising a door blade (510) having a first edge and a second edge (See at least Figures 6-7, right and left edges of element 510 are shown), at least a first gate post (See Figure 8, considered at least left element 830) and a second gate post (See Figure 8, considered at least right element 830), wherein the door blade, at the first and second edge respectively, comprises a connecting arrangement (considered at least element 934) comprising magnetic means (934) and the first and second gate post comprises a respective first and second receiving arrangement (element 830 is considered to “receive” element 934), each comprising respective electromagnetic means (element 830 is an “electromagnetic means”), wherein the electromagnetic means are active by electromagnetic flux provided via an electric current for enabling detachable engagement between the gate posts and the door blade edge, wherein the first receiving arrangement is arranged for enabling rotational movement of the door blade around the first gate post when the door blade is disengaged from the second receiving arrangement (See at least paragraph [0014]).
Steinburg, however, lacks wherein at least one electromagnetic means of the first gate post is rotatable around the first gate post by means of the first receiving arrangement. Examiner notes that electromagnetic means (element 830) of Steinburg is stationary, and cannot rotate. Additionally, modification of Steinburg in this way would not be logical or obvious, and would destroy the functionality of the system of Steinburg without a significant redesign of the structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN B REPHANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/JUSTIN B REPHANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3634