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: “a measured coordinate receiving unit”, “an effective coordinate determining unit”, “a coordinate change unit”, “a displacement amount calculation unit” , “a first processing unit” and “a second processing unit” in claims 10 - 17. The aforementioned claim limitations are all parts of a CPU as illustrated at Fig. 6 and also described in the specification at page 21, lines 1 – 8 (paragraph [0041]).
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 7 at step S2b states “FIRST PROCESSING STEP” whereas the step S2b has been used to describe the “second processing step” throughout the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 10 and 14 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.
As to Claim 1, the instant claim recites the phrase “separated from each other” in line 15. It is vague/unclear as to what “each other” is referring to. Which parts are being separated from each other? Examiner notes that lines 12 – 16 describe the “lower-half casing” which includes “a lower flange” (line 12), “a first supported portion” (lines 13 – 14), “a second supported portion” (line 14) and a “base frame” (line 15). Does applicant mean that all of these components are “separated from each other” or the “base frame” being separated” from the rest of the “lower-half casing” components? Therefore, the aforementioned limitation is vague/unclear and thus renders the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 1, the instant claim recites the limitation "the largest load" in page 6, line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting in unclear scope of the claim. It is further unclear as to how the aforementioned load is being “applied” in the first supported portion as the instant claim states “the largest load is applied” (page 6, line 5). Is there an external component that “applies” a load/force to the first supported portion? Or is the “applied load” resulting from state of the flange (i.e., open vs. fastening)? Therefore, the aforementioned limitation is vague/unclear and thus renders the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 10, the instant claim recites the phrase “separated from each other” in line 16. It is vague/unclear as to what “each other” is referring to. Which parts are being separated from each other? Examiner notes that lines 13 – 17 describe the “lower-half casing” which includes “a lower flange” (line 13), “a first supported portion” (lines 14 – 15), “a second supported portion” (line 15) and a “base frame” (line 16). Does applicant mean that all of these components are “separated from each other” or the “base frame” being separated” from the rest of the “lower-half casing” components? Therefore, the aforementioned limitation is vague/unclear and thus renders the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 10, the instant claim recites the limitation "the largest load" in page 12, line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting in unclear scope of the claim. It is further unclear as to how the aforementioned load is being “applied” in the first supported portion as the instant claim states “the largest load is applied” (page 12, line 11). Is there an external component that “applies” a load/force to the first supported portion? Or is the “applied load” resulting from state of the flange (i.e., open vs. fastening)? Therefore, the aforementioned limitation is vague/unclear and thus renders the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 14, the instant claim recites the phrase “separated from each other” in line 16. It is vague/unclear as to what “each other” is referring to. Which parts are being separated from each other? Examiner notes that lines 13 – 17 describe the “lower-half casing” which includes “a lower flange” (line 13), “a first supported portion” (lines 14 – 15), “a second supported portion” (line 15) and a “base frame” (line 16). Does applicant mean that all of these components are “separated from each other” or the “base frame” being separated” from the rest of the “lower-half casing” components? Therefore, the aforementioned limitation is vague/unclear and thus renders the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 14, the instant claim recites the limitation "the largest load" in page 16, line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting in unclear scope of the claim. It is further unclear as to how the aforementioned load is being “applied” in the first supported portion as the instant claim states “the largest load is applied” (page 16, line 15). Is there an external component that “applies” a load/force to the first supported portion? Or is the “applied load” resulting from state of the flange (i.e., open vs. fastening)? Therefore, the aforementioned limitation is vague/unclear and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Due to claim dependency, all dependent claims are also rejected (claims 2 – 9, 11 – 13 and 15 – 17).
Conclusion
None of the prior art of record appears to read on the invention, and the subject matter of the claims appears to be allowable if the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 can be overcome. However, upon applicant’s amendment to overcome the rejections raised by the Examiner, a comparison of the prior art to the claims will again be made.
Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 14, the prior art does not appear to teach or suggest determining the displacement amount using an effective coordinate determining step of determining effective three-dimensional coordinate data, using a coordinate changing step of changing the effective three-dimensional coordinate data determined in the effective coordinate determining step as well as using a first processing step and a second processing step of determining effective three-dimensional coordinate data as claimed in all independent claims 1, 10 and 14 in combination with the remaining limitations.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yashirodai et al. (U.S. 2019/0107007 A1) teaches assembling a turbine including: a casing consisting of an upper half part and a lower half part fastened together by bolts; a stationary body accommodated in the casing and supported by the lower half part; and a rotary body supported by a plurality of bearings so as to be situated on the inner side of the stationary body, there are executed: a procedure of reading a finite element model of the three-dimensional configuration of the turbine; a reading procedure of reading actual measurement information on the three-dimensional configuration of the upper half part and the lower half part of the casing in the open state; a model correction procedure of reflecting actual measurement information of an evaluated portion that is a specific part of the casing in the finite element model and generating a correction model obtained through correction of the finite element model; a deformation amount estimation procedure of estimating the movement amount of the evaluated portion generated when the upper half part and the lower half part of the casing are fastened together by the bolts through simulation using the correction model; and an output procedure of outputting an estimated value of the movement amount to an output device. Yashirodai does not explicitly teach an effective coordinate determining unit/step with a first processing step and a second processing step as well as use of a coordinate changing step to determine the displacement of the flange as claimed.
Yashirodai et al. (U.S. 2018/0307205 A1) teaches a method of assembling includes gaining measurement data on the configuration of a casing upper half part not fastened to a casing lower half part; gaining measurement data on the configuration of the casing lower half part in an open state in which the casing upper half part and a rotor are removed and in which a stationary part is mounted; comparing measurement data on the configuration of the casing upper half part and the casing lower half part with simulation data on the configuration of the casing upper half part and the casing lower half part previously obtained to select simulation data closest to the measurement data on the configuration of the casing upper half part and the casing lower half part; calculating, based on the selected simulation data, a change amount of the configuration of the casing upper half part and the casing lower half part when the casing upper half part is fastened to the casing lower half part in the open state; and adjusting the installation position of the stationary part inside the casing taking into account the calculated change amount. However, Yashirodai does not explicitly teach an effective coordinate determining unit/step with a first processing step and a second processing step as well as use of a coordinate changing step to determine the displacement of the flange as claimed.
Seeley et al. (U.S. 6,257,829 B1) teaches computerized method for positioning support jacks underneath industrial gas turbines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARRIT EYASSU whose telephone number is (571)270-1403. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Laura E. Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/MARRIT EYASSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855