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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the load measuring device must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The Drawings equate the loading device 10 with its load-measuring device, but these are not the same component. If the load-measuring device, e.g., a force sensor per ¶ 51, is going to be explicitly claimed, it must be shown and labeled in the Drawings.
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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the safety zone and the collision region (e.g., claims 6 and 7) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. If the safety zone and the collision region are going to be explicitly claimed, their boundaries must be shown and labeled in the Drawings.
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.
Specification
The following is a quotation 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 Specification is objected to because of the following:
A review of the Specification shows that it is not properly formatted.
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims are written in narrative form. Examiner asks that Applicant format the claims using proper indentation, e.g., to show the relationship between components and their subcomponents, et cetera. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
The term “means” in line 3 of claim 1 is interpreted under 112(f) because it uses the term “means” that is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The claim simply recites that the means is a “loading device” which is “designed to lift…or lower” an element. Inadequate specifics are provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 1, line 3, simply recites that the means is a “loading device” which is “designed to lift…or lower” an element. Inadequate specifics are provided. Examiner was unable to find a crane, a winch, a hoist, et cetera, in the Specification. It is unclear what the recited “means” is in the claim.
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “especially” in line 2. The term " especially " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites “unloading and/or loading of a fuel element from or into a fuel element container.” This wording allows four different possibility: unloading from a fuel element container, loading from a fuel element container, unloading into a fuel element container, and loading into a fuel element container. It is unclear if Applicant intends all four possibilities to be features of the invention, or if only a subset of these interpretations is intended.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "acting at the time" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which time or range of time(s) are being referred to. It is further unclear what the subject of “acting” is. What feature or component is performing the acting step?
Claim 1 recites “a variable speed of travel.” It is unclear what is meant by the speed being “variable.” Does this mean “varying,” i.e., the speed is changing? Does this mean the speed is accelerating or decelerating? Or does “variable” instead mean that the loading device may lower/lift the fuel element at a first speed or a second speed or a third speed, et cetera?
Claim 1 recites “the speed of travel during lifting or lowering of the fuel element being subject to closed-loop control in dependence upon the load and/or load change being measured at the time.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the speed of travel” in the claim. The introduction of this term was “a variable speed of travel.” It is unclear of the “speed of travel” is intended to be non-varying, i.e., a single numerical value for the speed, or if it is intended to refer to a changing, accelerating, or otherwise varying speed.
Claim 1 recites “the speed of travel during lifting or lowering of the fuel element being subject to closed-loop control in dependence upon the load and/or load change being measured at the time.” This limitation is written is such passive tense that Examiner is unclear as to the method step(s) being recited. A method claim recites actionable steps. Examiner cannot extract any performable step in this limitation.
Claim 1 recites “at the time” in line 7 and “at the time” in line 10. Are these referring to the same specific time?
Claim 1 recites in lines 8-10 that the speed is “subject to closed-loop control in dependent upon the load and/or load change being measured at the time.” The meaning of this limitation is unclear. It appears to recite that that the speed is subject to closed-loop control only if the load/load change fulfills some (unknown) parameter. What is this parameter? If it is not fulfilled, is the speed no longer “subject to closed-loop control”? What is this “closed-loop control”? There is no actionable step being performed by the optional possibility of, depending on an known parameter, the speed “being subject to closed-loop control.”
Claim 2 recites “wherein the closed-loop control of the speed of travel during lifting is effected in accordance with a predefined lifting speed/load profile, and/or wherein the closed-loop control of the speed of travel during lowering is effected in accordance with a predefined lowering speed/load profile.” This limitation is written is such passive tense that Examiner is unclear as to the method step(s) being recited. A method claim recites actionable steps. Examiner cannot extract any performable step in this limitation. What does it mean for the control to be “effected” “in accordance” with a “predefined” “lifting speed/load profile”? A “control” being “effected” does not mean anything. Is the control being altered in some manner? If so, how? Or, can the control be “effected” and simply remain unchanged? It is further unclear why lifting speed/load profile are presented as alternatives. These are not the same type of parameter. “Load profile” is not a known term in the art and has no apparent meaning. Does this mean the weight or shape of the load? Or some other parameter? Is “lifting speed” the same speed as the “speed of travel” in line 8 of claim 1, or “a variable speed of travel” in line 5 of claim 1?
Claim 3 recites “the load currently being measured” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No “current” measurement has yet been recited.
Claim 3 recites “the load change currently being measured” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No “current” measurement has yet been recited.
Claim 3 recites, in lines 5-8, “…and at a second lifting speed which is reduced with respect to the first lifting speed if the current measured load is greater than the predefined upper load limit value and/or if the current measured load change is greater than the predefined load change limit value.” Examiner cannot extract any actionable steps from this limitation. Initially, it is unclear how this limitation relates to the first half of the claim. The limitation in lines 5-8 has no subject. What is “at a second lifting speed”? Is the language “…which is reduced” intended to be an actively performed step? Or is this reduction a “predefined” setting? Claim 3 recites “… if … and/or if … and .. if … and/or if …” . This type of run-on sentence that has dozens of possible combinations of “if…then” with “and/or” makes it entirely unclear what is being positively recited.
Claim 4 recites “the load currently being measured” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No “current” measurement has yet been recited.
Claim 4 recites “the load change currently being measured” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No “current” measurement has yet been recited.
Claim 4 recites, in lines 5-8, “…and at a second lowering speed which is reduced with respect to the first lowering speed if the current measured load is less than the predefined lower load limit value and/or if the current measured load change is greater than the predefined load change limit value.” Examiner cannot extract any actionable steps from this limitation. Initially, it is unclear how this limitation relates to the first half of the claim. The limitation in lines 5-8 has no subject. What is “at a second lowering speed”? Is the language “…which is reduced” intended to be an actively performed step? Or is this reduction a “predefined” setting? Claim 4 recites “… if … and/or if … and .. if … and/or if …” . This type of run-on sentence that has dozens of possible combinations of “if…then” with “and/or” makes it entirely unclear what is being positively recited.
Claim 5 recites “the load currently being measured” in lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No “current” measurement has yet been recited.
Claim 6 recites “a known potential collision region.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such region has yet been introduced and therefore is not yet “known.” Additionally, the terms “known” and “potential” conflict with each other. Is it known to be a collision region, or is it just potentially a collision region?
Claim 6 recites, in lines 6-7, “…at a lifting speed or a lowering speed which is reduced with respect to a lifting speed or a lowering speed, respectively, outside the safety zone.” Examiner cannot extract any actionable steps from this limitation. Initially, it is unclear how this limitation relates to the first half of the claim. The limitation in lines 6-7 has no subject. What is “at a lifting speed or a lowering speed”? Is the language “…which is reduced” intended to be an actively performed step? Or is this reduction a “predefined” setting?
The entirety of claim 6 recites language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation (MPEP § 2111.04(I and II) and § 2143.03). Claim 6, as currently drafted, appears to simply suggest the possibility of a region where a collision may or may not occur at any arbitrary speed. Accordingly, the metes and bound of the claim cannot be ascertained by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6 recites “a lifting speed or a lower speed, respectively, outside the safety zone.” Initially, this limitation is indefinite because the boundaries of the “safety zone” and the “collision region” are not defined in the claim. Because these areas have no defined boundaries, the language per being “in a safety zone” or “outside the safety zone” have no meaning. Secondly, the claims are replete with “lifting or lowering” language, and thus it is unclear why only this limitation in claim 6 recites “respectively.” What is being referred back to by “respectively”?
Claim 7 recites “which spacers hold the fuel rods forming the fuel element in position in the fuel element.” The term “which” does not make sense in this phrase.
Claim 7 recites “one or more known potential collision regions.” The terms “known” and “potential” conflict with each other. Is it known to be a collision region, or is it just potentially a collision region?
Claim 7 recites “are located side by side with one or more corresponding spacers of one or more adjacent fuel elements located in the fuel element container at substantially the same height along the path of travel.” It is unclear what the subject of “…are located side by side” is. What is located side by side? What is meant by being located “side by side with one or more corresponding spacers of one or more adjacent fuel elements”? Does this mean the subject of “are located” is alternated with the spacers, which are alternated with the “adjacent” fuel elements, e.g., 1-2-3-1-2-3-1-2-3, and, if so, then how can the fuel elements be adjacent? What is the subject of “located…at substantially the same height”? What is meant by “substantially the same height along the path of travel”? Wouldn’t the height change along the path of travel?
The term “substantially” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationships among the “one or more known potential collision regions,” the “one or more positions,” the “path of travel,” the “one or more spacers,” the “fuel rods,” the element that is “located side by side,” the “one or more corresponding spacers,” and the “one or more adjacent fuel elements” is entirely undefined and unclear.
Claim 8 recites “wherein during lifting and/or lowering the load being measured is measured in dependence upon the position of the fuel element along the path of travel.” Examiner cannot discern any meaning from this limitation. No actionable step is being recited. In what manner is the position of the fuel element influencing the load being measured?
Claim 9 recites “wherein for each fuel element unloaded from the fuel element container the respective measured load along the path of travel is used to determine a maximum value of the measured load or a maximum value of an overload.” Claim 9 is therefore, in its entirety, an intended use claim. There are no actionable steps for an operator to perform. It does not make sense to “determine a maximum value of the measured load.” If the load is being measured, the measurement itself is the value. There is no predetermined “maximum” value. A maximum value can be a threshold, or an idealized setting, but it cannot refer to a measurement, which may well be above an arbitrary “maximum value.” The phrasing “maximum value of an overload” is unclear. This phrase appears to be redundant.
The entirety of claim 10 is written in passive voice. A value “is shown...in a diagram which reproduces the arrangement of the fuel elements.” This not a proper method step, as there is no action being performed by an operator. It is unclear how an apparently pre-existing diagram of position is further expounding upon the parent claim.
Claim 11 recites “for further loading and/or unloading of the fuel element container.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The fuel element container has not yet been described as being loaded or unloaded.
The entirety of claim 11 is written in passive voice. A “position to be occupied” and a “sequence in which the fuel elements are loaded or unloaded” are theoretical possibilities, not actionable steps. Are these limitations referring to a predetermined position/predetermined sequence, or is the position/sequence being actively selected?
Claim 12 recites “each fuel element that is unloaded or is to be loaded.” Parent claim 1 recited ”unloading and/or loading of a fuel element.” It is therefore unclear what the difference is between “loading” of parent claim 1 and the apparently future possibility of loading of the language “is to be loaded” of claim 12.
Claim 12 recites that any bowing or twisting “is determined.” This is passive voice. There is no actionable step being performed, and thus this is an improper method claim.
The entirety of claim 13 is written in passive voice. A “position to be occupied” and a “sequence in which the fuel elements are loaded or unloaded” are theoretical possibilities, not actionable steps. Are these limitations referring to a predetermined position/predetermined sequence, or is the position/sequence being actively selected?
Regarding claim 13, even assuming that bowing or twisting was indeed observed, it is unclear how this observation affects the “position to be occupied” or the “sequence.” The phrasing that these parameters are “determined on the basis of the bowing and/or twisting” is incomplete. For example, if a fuel element is observed to have severe bowing, how does this affect its position/sequence?
Claim 14 recites “a lowering speed/path of travel profile.” The option “a lowering path of travel profile” does not make sense. A path does not lower itself. Additionally, it is unclear how the phrase “of travel profile” fits into this limitation.
Claim 14 recites “the load currently being measured”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No “current” measurement has yet been recited.
It is unclear what the relationship is among the phrases “lowering path,” “travel profile,” and “path of travel” is in claim 14. Are these all referring to the same “path”?
The entirety of claim 14 is written in passive voice. A speed/path “is determined” is not a performable method step.
The entirety of claim 15 is written in passive voice. The fuel element being passively investigated is not a performable method step. Additionally, “the bowing and/or twisting [being] determined” is not a performable method step.
Claim 15 recites “the load currently being measured”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No “current” measurement has yet been recited.
Line 4 of claim 15 recites “during lifting,” but lines 2-3 recited “during unloading.” It is unclear if the fuel element is being lifted or unloaded because it cannot be both simultaneously.
Claim 15 recites “the bowing and/or twisting”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 15, it is unclear what the intended purpose of the phrasing “in dependence upon the position” is. In what manner does the investigation of damage depend upon the position of the fuel element? Does this mean that if damage is present, it may be treated differently depending upon where the fuel element is located?
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites “…during lifting.” This recitation presumes that the method involves lifting. However, parent claim 1 made lifting optional, see “lifting or lowering.” Therefore, it is improper for a dependent claim to presume that lifting was necessarily previously performed.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites “…during lowering.” This recitation presumes that the method involves lowering. However, parent claim 1 made lifting optional, see “lifting or lowering.” Therefore, it is improper for a dependent claim to presume that lowering was necessarily previously performed. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites “…wherein the lowering.” This recitation presumes that the method involves lowering. However, parent claim 1 made lowering optional, see “lifting or lowering.” Therefore, it is improper for a dependent claim to presume that lowering was necessarily previously performed. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 recites “…wherein the lifting.” This recitation presumes that the method involves lowering. However, parent claim 1 made lifting optional, see “lifting or lowering.” Therefore, it is improper for a dependent claim to presume that lifting was necessarily previously performed. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 recites “…wherein the lowering.” This recitation presumes that the method involves lowering. However, parent claim 1 made lowering optional, see “lifting or lowering.” Therefore, it is improper for a dependent claim to presume that lowering was necessarily previously performed. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6, as currently drafted, appears to simply suggest the possibility of a region where a collision may or may not occur at any arbitrary speed. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 recites “wherein for each fuel element unloaded from the fuel element container the respective measured load along the path of travel is used to determine a maximum value of the measured load or a maximum value of an overload.” Claim 9 is therefore, in its entirety, an intended use claim. There are no actionable steps for an operator to perform. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12, as currently drafted, appears to simply state a possible outcome that, if it does not occur, nothing happens. Therefore, it is unclear how this claim limits the parent claim if there is no bowing or twisting. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 recites “…a lowering speed/path.” This recitation presumes that the method involves lowering. However, parent claim 1 made lowering optional, see “lifting or lowering.” Therefore, it is improper for a dependent claim to presume that lowering was necessarily previously performed. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 recites “damage caused during unloading.” This recitation presumes that the method involves unloading. However, parent claim 1 made unloading optional, see “unloading and/or loading.” Therefore, it is improper for a dependent claim to presume that unloading was necessarily previously performed. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Due to the considerable indefiniteness of the claims, there is a great deal of speculation required by the Examiner to interpret said claims. Therefore, no art rejections are being presented in this action. See MPEP 2173.06(II). As stated in /n re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a prior art rejection should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. In this case, because no reasonable interpretation can be made about the structural or functional arrangement of the claimed features, any assumption on the part of the Examiner would be extraordinarily and inappropriately speculative.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646