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 .
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: tool head and actuator in claims 1-20.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dasbach US 9283328.
Dasbach discloses a module installation tool (1), comprising: a tool head (14.1) configured to engage and support a module (nozzle assembly, 6) wherein the module is configured to be selectively coupled to a module receiver (delivery device, 2); a tool base (11, 12); and an actuator (15, 16) slidably coupled to the tool base to provide an axial motion of the actuator relative to the tool base, wherein the axial motion is configured to cause the tool head (14.1) to rotate relative to the tool base to couple the module to the module receiver or to uncouple the module (6) from the module receiver (2).
As for claim 5, Dasbach discloses an inner slider (13) configured to translate relative to each of the tool base (11, 12) and the tool head (14.1), wherein axial translation of the inner slider relative to the tool head causes rotation (via 14.2 and 12.2) of the tool head relative to the tool base, and wherein moving the actuator (15, 16) relative to the tool base causes the inner slider to translate relative to the tool base.
As for claim 9, Dasbach discloses a module installation tool, comprising: a tool head (14.1) configured to engage and support a module (6) that is configured to be selectively coupled to a module receiver (2); a tool base (11, 12); an actuator (15, 16) slidably coupled to the tool base; and an inner slider (13) at least partially received within the tool base and configured to translate relative to each of the tool base and the tool head, wherein moving the actuator (15, 16) relative to the tool base causes the inner slider to translate relative to the tool base, wherein the apparatus is configured such that moving the actuator (15, 16) axially relative to the tool base transitions the apparatus among a plurality of configurations defined between and including a retracted configuration (springs 15, 16 uncompressed, see Fig. 2) in which the tool head (14.1) is in a first axial position relative to the tool base, and an extended configuration (see Fig. 7), in which the tool head (14.1) is in a second axial position relative to the tool base that is displaced from the first axial position along a proximal direction (springs 15, 16 are compressed downward), and wherein the apparatus is configured to rotate (via 12.2 and 14.2) the tool head relative to the tool base while the tool head remains in the second axial position.
15. A method comprising: with a module (6) operatively coupled to a tool head (14) of a module installation tool (1), translating an actuator (15, 16) of the module installation tool in a proximal direction (downward direction) from an initial actuator position (see fig. 2) to a second actuator position (see fig. 7) to bring the module (6) into engagement with a module receiver (2); translating the actuator in the proximal direction from the second actuator position to a third actuator position to rotate the tool head relative to the module receiver in an installation rotational direction to at least partially couple the module to the module receiver; and detaching the module from the tool head (see Fig. 8 and col. 5, lines 29-67 and col. 6, lines 1-32).
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the translating the actuator (15, 16) from the second actuator position to the third actuator position comprises translating the actuator without rotating the actuator (compressing the springs).
20. The method of claim 15, wherein the module installation tool (1) comprises a tool base (12) that supports the tool head (14.1), and wherein each of the translating the actuator (15, 16) from the initial actuator position to the second actuator position, the translating the actuator from the second actuator position to the third actuator position, and the detaching the module (6) from the tool head (14.1) is performed while the tool base (11, 12) is operatively coupled to a tool receiver (11, coupling device, col. 4, lines 11-16) that is fixed in position relative to the module receiver (2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-14 and 17-19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ferrara US 8916821 and US 2011085852 are relevant to the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE V HALL JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5948. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/TYRONE V HALL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights