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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 9: Line 12 of the claim, it appears “4.5-5.3° ,” should be “4.5-5.3°,”.
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 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: an inner mold closing mechanism, an outer mold closing mechanism, a mold-closing locking mechanism and an alignment locking mechanism in claim 1; a traveling mechanism and a driving mechanism in claim 2.
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 1-10 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.
Examiner notes that the claims are replete with inconsistent and indefinite language. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in identifying and correcting such language. Non-limiting examples are as follows:
With regard to claim 1: Line 7 of the claim, the limitation “the adjustment assembly” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --each adjustment assembly--. Line 12 of the claim, the limitation “the sliding bump” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --each sliding bump--.
With regard to claim 3: Lines 3 and 6 of the claim; each instance of the limitation “the base” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the base plate--. Line 4 of the claim, it’s unclear if limitation “adjacent traveling portions” is referencing the previously recited at least two traveling portions. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --adjacent traveling portions of the at least two traveling portions--. Lines 4-5 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “at least one driving mechanisms” is referencing the previously recited driving mechanism. Further, it appears “mechanisms” should be singular. Line 5 of the claim, the limitation “the driving mechanisms” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 6-7 of the claim, the limitation “a plurality of the driving mechanisms” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It’s unclear if the limitation is referencing the previously recited driving mechanism of claim 2 or the at least one driving mechanisms of the instant claim.
With regard to claim 4: Lines 1-2 of the claim, the limitation “the traveling portion” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 2 and 3 of the claim, each instance of the limitation “the base” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 3 and 5 of the claim, the limitation “the driving mechanism” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 4 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “two corresponding mounting rods” is referencing the previously recited mounting rod. Lines 4, 6-7 and 9 of the claim, each instance of the limitation “the mounting rod” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 5, 7-8 and 10-11 of the claim, each instance of the limitation “the outer mold plate” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 9 of the claim, it’s unclear if limitation “an end” is referencing the previously recited end in line 6 of the claim.
With regard to claim 5: Lines 2 and 5 of the claim, the limitation “the outer mold plate” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 3 and 5 of the claim, the limitation “the base” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 3 and 6 of the claim, the limitation “the mounting rod” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 6 of the claim, the limitation “the gear” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 6-7 of the claim, the limitation “the rack” lack sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 6: Lines 2-7 of the claim, each instance of the limitation “the inner mold plate” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 7: Lines 3 and 6 of the claim, the limitation “the outer mold plate” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 4 and 6 of the claim, the limitation “the inner mold plate” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 8: Line 5 of the claim, the limitation “the inner mold plate” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 10: Line 3 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “one outer mold plate” is referencing one of the previously recited outer mold plates. Lines 5-6, 13 and 15-16 of the clam, each instance of the limitation “the two mold plates” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 6-7 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a corresponding positioning hole” is referencing one of the previously recited positioning holes. Line 14 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a corresponding connecting plate” is referencing the previously recited connecting plates. Line 17 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “two connecting plates” is referencing previously connecting plates and/or corresponding connecting plate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The combination of all the elements of the claimed mold for cement house construction, comprising inner mold plates and outer mold plates driven by an inner mold closing mechanism and an outer mold closing mechanism respectively for mold closing and demolding, the inner mold plates and the outer mold plates being fastened by a mold-closing locking mechanism, and adjacent said outer mold plates being locked by an alignment locking mechanism, wherein adjustment assemblies are arranged at a bottom of a cement house mold; each adjustment assembly comprising a bottom plate, an adjustment sleeve and a pressing plate; an upper portion of the bottom plate connected to the cement house mold, in particular each adjustment assembly further comprising an adjustment main body, sliding bumps, a blocking plate, an adjustment rod, guide plate, spring, sliding block, mobile plate and handle, wherein the relationship between the elements of each adjustment assembly as claimed is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited are directed to mold assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633