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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1
Line 3: “with that additional rocker link” should be –the additional pivotable rocker link--.
Line 5: “with those circular means” should be –the circular means--.
Line 6: “so that when one connected rocker link is held” should be –so that when one connected rocker link is held in a position--.
Claim 2
Line 1: “A device, apparatus or machine” should be –The mechanism--.
Claim 4
Line 1: “A device, apparatus or machine that accords with Claim 3” should be –The device, apparatus or machine of Claim 3--.
Claim 5
Line 1: “A device, apparatus or machine that accords with Claim 1” should be –A device, apparatus or machine incorporating the mechanism of Claim 1--.
Claim 6
Line 1: “A device, apparatus or machine that accords with Claim 1” should be –A device, apparatus or machine incorporating the mechanism of Claim 1--.
Line 1: “and in which the coupler link” should be either –wherein the coupler link—or --in which the coupler link--.
Claim 7
Line 1: “A device that accords with Claim 1” should be –A device incorporating the mechanism of Claim 1--.
Claims 8-20
Claims 8 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only.
Claims 9-20 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim.
See MPEP 608.01(n). Accordingly, claims 8-20 have not been further treated on the merits.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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 1, in line 3, recites “at least one additional pivotable rocker link,” and the phrasing “additional” is unclear because there is no previously claimed “pivotable rocker link.” If Applicant intends for the parallelogram four bar linkage to include “a pivotable rocker link,” the Examiner recommends positively claiming it.
Claim 1, in line 4, recites “one of the four bar linkage rocker links”, and the phrasing is unclear because “rocker links” have not been positively recited in the claim for the parallelogram four bar linkage.
Claim 1, in lines 4-5, recites “their ground link pivot points”, and the phrasing is unclear because “ground link pivot points” have not been positively recited in the claim for the parallelogram four bar linkage.
Claim 1, in line 6, recites “one connected rocker link” and in lines 6-7 recites “the other connected rocker link”, but it is unclear what the term “connected” is describing. For example, the rocker link does not appear to be positively claimed as connected to another rocker link, or to a ground link, or to an additional rocker link, etc.
Claim 1, in line 8, recites “the other link”, and it is unclear if the antecedent basis for the phrasing is the other “connected rocker link” or another meaning.
Claim 1, in line 9, recites “the four bar linkage moving and being held accordingly,” and in line 12 recites “remains in line,” which are worded as hybrid claims that are respectively unclear in accordance with MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). It is not clear whether Applicant is claiming a method of using the apparatus or merely reciting functional language. If Applicant intends to use functional claiming language, the Examiner recommends amending the phrasing to, for example: –the four bar linkage being capable of moving and being held accordingly--.
Claim 1, in lines 10-11, “the full length of travel of the additional rocker link in that opposite direction”, which is unclear because the claim has described “the other link” as moving “in the opposite direction” (line 8), and not “the additional rocker link.” It is unclear if the phrasing contains a typographical error or if the motion of the additional rocker link has not been positively recited in the claim.
Claim 1, in line 12, recites “the coupler link pivot points”, which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 2, in line 10, recites “the additional coupler link moves in a straight line,” which is constructed as a hybrid claim (i.e., similar as above) and thereafter unclear. If Applicant intends to use functional claiming language, the Examiner recommends amending the phrasing to: –the additional coupler link is capable of moving in a straight line--.
Claim 3, in line 3, recites “one or more each side of the linkage” which is unclear. It appears the phrasing is missing a word and/or contains a typographical error.
Claim 3 has multiple recitations to “circular means”, and it is unclear what structure is required by the claim. For instance, it is unclear if the circular means of Claim 3 include the “circular means” of Claim 1, line 4; or if the respective “circular means” of Claim 3 are separate elements. To avoid confusion, the Examiner recommends adopting a naming convention such as “first circular means”, “second circular means”, etc., in order to differentiate the respective elements.
Claim 4, in lines 1-2, recites “both additional rocker links that are next to each of the linkage rocker links and both the linkage rocker links”, and the phrasing is generally unclear because the relationship between the “additional rocker links” and the “linkage rocker links” has not been positively recited in the claim. The claim requires a “parallelogram four bar linkage with a ground link that can be extended as required to mount at least one additional pivotable rocker link,” but there is no requirement in the claim for the “additional rocker links” to be “next to” the linkage rocker links.
Claim 4, in line 6, recites “combine to move and hold,” which is constructed as a hybrid claim and therefore unclear. As above, the Examiner recommends: –combine to be capable of moving and holding--.
Claim 6, in line 4, recites “the apparatus or machine” and it is unclear if the phrasing is intended as “the apparatus or machine”, or if the intention is “the device, apparatus, or machine” as recited in the preamble.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 5712707778. 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.
T.S.FIX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3618
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618