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: “second fastening means” in claims 4 and 5; “first fastening means” in claims 14 and 16.
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 Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2: “A” should read “a”.
Claim 1, line 3: “A” should read “a”.
Claim 1, line 5: “A” should read “a”.
Claim 1, line 10: “An” should read “an”.
Claim 1, line 13: “First” should read “first”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
In reference to claim 1, the limitation reading “A “C” bracket” is considered indefinite. Applicant’s use of quotes around the letter C, combined with what is shown in the drawings, raises the question as to the metes and bounds said limitation. The disclosure identifies the combination of elements 20, 22, and 30 as the “C” bracket (paragraph 36; figure 10). However, looking a figure 10, is clear that the identified bracket could also be described as a “U” bracket (parallel arms, narrow channel) or a “G” bracket (one arm shorter than the other). Further, in said limitation, the use of quote marks around the letter C raises the question as to the intended effect of said marks. Are the quote marks intended to broaden the range of possible shapes the “C” bracket can assume, e.g., does the term “”C” bracket” also include U-shaped brackets and/or G-shaped brackets?
Further, even without the quote marks, the metes and bounds of said limitation would be unclear, since the bracket that is shown in the drawings can be considered to be a “G” bracket or a “U” bracket. Thus, for purposes of examination, the examiner will consider said limitation as reading “a substantially C-shaped bracket consisting of first and second parallel arms with a web extending perpendicularly therebetween.” This level of specificity is reasonable, since the disclosure as a whole does not provide guidance as to the metes and bounds of the term “substantially C-shaped,” per se. Correction and/or clarification are required.
Further in reference to claim 1, the limitation reading “An “L” bracket” is considered indefinite. Applicant’s use of quotes around the letter L, combined with what is shown in the drawings, raises the question as to the metes and bounds said limitation. The disclosure identifies the combination of elements 36 and 38 as the “L” bracket (paragraph 38; figure 10). However, looking a figure 10, is clear that the identified bracket includes a foot 36 with portions extending to each side (upwardly and downwardly) of column 38. The upwardly extending portion renders the bracket as deviating from an “L” shape, and, thus, it is unclear what shape brackets are covered/precluded by said limitation.
The upwardly extending portion could possibly render the “L” bracket as a “T” bracket. Further, in said limitation, the use of quote marks around the letter L raises the question as to the intended effect of said marks. Are the quote marks intended to broaden the range of possible shapes the “L” bracket can assume, e.g., does said limitation also include T-shaped brackets? It is the opinion of the examiner, based on the disclosure as a whole, that Applicant does NOT intend to cover T-shaped brackets with the term “L” bracket.
Further, even without the quote marks, the metes and bounds of said limitation would be unclear, since the bracket that is shown in the drawings can be considered to cover shapes other than an L-shape. Thus, for purposes of examination, the examiner will consider said limitation as reading “a substantially L-shaped bracket consisting of a column and a foot arranged perpendicularly to the column.” This level of specificity is reasonable, since the disclosure as whole does not provide guidance as to the metes and bounds of the term “substantially L-shaped,” per se. Correction and/or clarification are required.
Looking at claims 2-16, it is noted that the terms “C” bracket and “L” bracket are recited throughout. Clearly, these recitations would need to be addressed in a manner consistent with any changes made to claim 1. Further, the specification should be amended to reflect any changes made in the claims. Correction and/or clarification are required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 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.
Claims 2-16 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached Notice of References Cited. The reference to Davidson (GB 2144834 A) is considered the closest prior art. The relevance of each other cited reference is made clear by at least the abstract thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8229. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30am-8pm.
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, Troy Chambers can be reached at 571-272-6874. 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.
GABRIEL J. KLEIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3641
/Gabriel J. Klein/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights