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.
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:
Removal device in claim 1
Gripping device in claim 3
Cleaning device in claim 13
Articulated arm robot in claim 9
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.
Claims 6, 10, 11, 16 and18-20 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.
Claims 6 and 18: the usage of the term, “in particular,” is indefinite because it is unclear whether applicant limits the claim to driverless trucks only.
Claim 10: “the carriage’ and “the industrial truck” lack antecedent bases.
Claims 11 and 20: “is in a position facing away from the filter press” is indefinite because it is unclear what applicant intended by this phrase. The term “facing away” means facing in an opposite direction. If the gripping device is facing away, how would it remove a filter plate or stack of filter plates as intended? (Note: claim 12 uses the same phrase, but does not have this problem.)
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.
Claims 5 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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. These claims recite the support as mountable on a ceiling, wall, floor or a truck. Claim 1 recites the mounting as “laterally outside the installation space,” which limits the mounting to a horizontal side of the filter press, according to applicant’s disclosed definition, “… the removal device is arranged predominantly outside the installation space, namely laterally, i.e. in particular not above or below the installation space or above or below the filter press.” (Page 2 of the specification.) This makes claims 5 and 18 broader than claim 1. 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 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.
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 1-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Spiegel et al (US 5,246,578).
PNG
media_image1.png
524
982
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12-15: Fig. 1 of Spiegel is copied herein, annotated with the major claim elements. The filter press as claimed has an installation space as marked by the squiggly rectangle. Lateral (to a side, under the broadest reasonable interpretation) to the filter space are the removing device and the filer cleaning device. The filter press has filter plates arranged one behind or adjacent to another along an axis parallel to the support bars or “spars” [sic] 5a and 5b (col. 1 lines 62-66.) The removing device is identified as the displacement device 32 (abstract,) which, as is clear from the figure, can be completely outside (lateral to) the filter installation space in at least one position, and is configured for transporting the plates from the filter press to the cleaning station and back.
Claim 3, 6, 7, 17: The removing device 32 has a support structure, a frame or carriage 35 with wheels 33 that moves on rails (a “truck” under the broadest reasonable interpretation,) and a gripping device 37 as claimed: see col. 2 lines 32-48. Carriage – frame 35.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 18, 19: the support, or the transport rails are outside the installation space, and mounted above the filter press. Id.
Claims 9, 10: articulated arm robot – the gripper has flexible rams and it grips. Spiegel teaches “precisely controlled” regarding the operation of the gripper in col. 3 lines 18-29. This would meet the “robot” requirement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, after addressing the 112(b) issues.
None of the prior arts teach an industrial driverless truck/transport vehicle which is configured to move by reference points in the filter press system as claimed. Applicant defines the truck as: ” the support is mounted on an industrial truck, in particular a driverless transport vehicle. An industrial truck is understood in particular to be a vehicle IO that travels on level ground and has its own traction drive. Rail-bound vehicles and vehicles suspended from a ceiling or from a support (e.g. cranes) are in particular not covered by the term industrial truck.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 5712720579. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights