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 .
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “means of screw thread” in claim 1. This means is understood to have structure in the form of “screw thread”. Applicant may wish to remove the “means” limitation form the claim to avoid confusion.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-8 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, Line 10 recites “a first spring is welded ono the sliding plate, other end of the first spring…” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “other end” relates to some other “end” which does not appear to have been previously recited? For purposes of examination, the examiner assumes that phrase “a first spring is welded ono the sliding plate, other end of the first spring…” is meant to recite something similar to “a first spring having a first end which is welded ono the sliding plate, another end of the first spring…”
Claim 1, Line 12 recites “each of the two guide plates is fixedly connected to a guide rod…” However, this causes indefiniteness issues as this appears to imply that both of the guide plates (38) are simultaneously connected to a single guide rod (39); wherein the disclosure appears to show that each individual guide plate (38) is connected to its own respective guide rod (39). Does applicant mean to recite multiple “guide plates” in claim 1 or just a single “guide plate” as only one support block and accompanying structure has been set forth? Clarification within the claim is required.
Claim 1, Lines 24-25 recite “a second threaded rod is installed inside the transport shelf through the bearing…” However, the use of the term “the bearing” appears to imply that the “second threaded rod” is attached to the same “bearing” as recited in lines 21-22 which recite “a first threaded rod is installed inside the transport shelf through a bearing…” It is indefinite and unclear as to how both the first and second threaded rods would be attached to the same “bearing”? Clarification is required.
Claim 1, Lines 29-30 recite “the first clamp plate comes into contact with a container body…” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the applicant means to positively recite the “container body” as part of the invention being claimed? Clarification is required.
Claim 2 recites “wherein a plurality of the clamp slots are provided…” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “the clamp slots” as recited in claim 2 relate to the singular “a clamp slot” as previously recited in claim 1? The examiner noting that a singular element cannot later be recited as a plurality of elements. To overcome this rejection, the singular “a clamp slot” in claim 1 must be replaced with something similar to “at least one clamp slot…”; with claim 2 then later reciting something similar to “wherein the at least one clamp slot includes a plurality of clamp slots…”
Claim 5 recites “wherein a plurality of the friction grooves are provided…” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “the friction grooves” as recited in claim 5 relate to the singular “a friction groove” as previously recited in claim 1? The examiner noting that a singular element cannot later be recited as a plurality of elements. To overcome this rejection, the singular “a friction groove” in claim 1 must be replaced with something similar to “at least one friction groove…”; with claim 5 then later reciting something similar to “wherein the at least one friction groove includes a plurality of friction grooves…”
Claim 7, Lines 3-4 recite “a third spring is welded ono the clamp rod, and other end of the third spring…” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “other end” relates to some other “end” which does not appear to have been previously recited? For purposes of examination, the examiner assumes that phrase “a third spring is welded ono the clamp rod, and other end of the third spring…” is meant to recite something similar to “a third spring having a first end which is welded ono the clamp rod, and another end of the third spring…”
Claim 8 recites “wherein a plurality of the clamp holes…” However, claim 8 depends upon claim 1 which does not appear to have any recited “clamp holes”. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to whether claim 8 is meant to depend upon claim 7 which sets forth “a clamp hole”? Additionally, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “the clamp holes” as recited in claim 8 would relate to the singular “a clamp hole” as previously recited in claim 7? The examiner noting that a singular element cannot later be recited as a plurality of elements. To overcome this rejection, the singular “a clamp hole” in claim 7 must be replaced with something similar to “at least clamp hole…”; with claim 8 then later reciting something similar to “wherein the at least clamp hole includes a plurality of clamp holes…”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 272-1467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights