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 connections that lead to a common point of the axle preferably to the end face of the axle of claim 6, the entrainer of claim 7, the securing device of claim 16, the transport belt of claim 17 and 19, and the plant which processes foodstuffs of claim 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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, “device”, 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: the “securing device” in claim 16.
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.
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 2, 6, 9-16 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the recesses” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the connections" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 19 all recite the limitation "the sleeve". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims as none of these claims depend from claim 8 which introduced the limitation “at least one sleeve”.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "i.e." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim limitation “the securing device” invokes 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. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is 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.
Claim 19 states that the shaft is “configured to be capable of cleaning primarily in an intermediate space therebetween”. This renders the scope of the claim impossible to ascertain for two reasons. First, the language suggests that the shaft is configured to do the cleaning, rather than being configured to be cleaned as described in the specification. Second, it is unclear what the parts of the claim thee word “therebetween” is intended to refer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Uum (DE 10 2014 007 368).
Uum shows an axle/shaft 1 that is provided with openings/depressions/recesses 6 in a radial direction. The recesses are oriented in a longitudinal direction of the axle 1. The recesses 6 are of slot-shaped configuration. The recesses 6 are of punctiform configuration with several of the recesses aligned together and oriented in longitudinal direction of the axle. The recesses 6 couple be connected by channels that lead to a common point of the axle such as the end face 5 of the axle. The main body 3 of the axle 1 is of hollow form. The main body 3 of the axle forms a sleeve that is pushed onto the internal shaft 2 of the axle 1. The sleeve has a circular cross-section at members 5 and 9 that internally corresponding with the internal shaft of the axle. The axle 1 is intended to be used to guide or drive a transport belt (see translation abstract). The axle 1 is configured to be cleaned in an intermediate space between the sleeve formed by the main body 3 and the internal shaft 2 of the axle by spraying cleaning fluid into the openings 6. As described above, Uum shows all the structure required by claims 1-10, 17, and 19.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Barber (US 1,889,527).
Barber shows an axle/shaft 1 that is provided with openings/depressions/recesses 7 in a radial direction. The recesses are oriented in a longitudinal direction of the axle 1. The recesses 7 are of slot-shaped configuration. The recesses 7 are of punctiform configuration with several of the recesses aligned together parallel to each other and oriented in longitudinal direction of the axle. The recesses 7 couple be connected by channels that lead to a common point of the axle such as the end face of the axle. A sleeve 2/3/5 is pushed onto the axle 1. The sleeve has a generally circular cross-section that internally corresponding with the axle 1 (see figure 2). The sleeve also has teeth 9 that engage the recesses 7. The sleeve is displaceably mounted on the axle and secured in place by a securing device in the form of a set screw 10 that may be detached from the sleeve 2/3/5 and the axle 1 to allow the sleeve to slide on the axle 1 (see lines 55-65). As described above, Barber shows all the structure required by claims 1-6 and 8-11.
In regard to claims 12-13, it should be noted that if the member 5 is viewed by itself as forming the sleeve, then the axle has a sleeve 5 that is rotatably mounted on the axle. This sleeve is mounted by friction couple on the axle 1 via the members 2/3/4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber in view of Gleeson (US 3,106,285).
Barber shows generally all the structure required by claims 17-19, including a shaft 1 that is configured to be capable of being cleaned in an intermediate space between the sleeve 2/3/5 and the shaft as required by claim 19 because a fluid may be sprayed into the recesses so that it enters between the sleeve 2/3/5 and the shaft 1. However, the axle of barber is not used to drive or guide a transport belt in a plant which processes foodstuffs as required by claims 17-19.
Gleeson shows an axle with a similar structure to that of Barber. Gleeson teaches that such an axle may be used to support and guide or drive a transport belt 30. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the axle of barber to support a transport belt. When this is done, the resulting device would have all the structure required by claim 17.
Furthermore, as transport belts 30 are used in a wide variety of environments, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try and use the above device in a plant which processes foodstuffs as required by claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, it should be noted that, as the claims presented are extraordinarily broad, that many of the references not relied upon above could have bee used to reject many of the claims. In the interest of streamlined prosecution, these rejections were not made at this time, but the applicant’s representative should take care to consider all of the cited references when amending the claims for further action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A DEUBLE whose telephone number is (571)272-6912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday flex schedule.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/MARK A DEUBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651