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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that references cited in the PCT international search report were not provided on a separate list in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). However, the Examiner has considered the references and listed the references on the attached PTO-892.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 lacks an article before “Apparatus” and should read --An apparatus for covering--. 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.
Claim 1 recites in the preamble “a flexible covering device and detent pin securement for an automotive service pit, said pit having a generally rectangular floor opening, where said flexible covering for said rectangular floor opening comprise…” Firstly, the claim recites “a flexible covering device and detent pin securement” which appears to be drawn to a “securement.” It is unclear if the claim intends to be directed to a structural apparatus having the combination of a flexible covering device and a detent pin securement means. Additionally, the intended use “for an automotive service pit” is directed to an intended use and the structurally recitations directed to the intended use are not understood to be positively recited. The claim recites “said pit having a generally rectangular floor opening” and then later recites “said flexible covering for said rectangular floor opening comprises said generally rectangular floor opening exhibiting…” It is not understood how the flexible covering comprises the structure of the pit itself. It is also noted that said flexible covering” lacks antecedent basis since the claim previously recites “a flexible covering device.” The remainder of the claim also refers to the floor opening and it is unclear how it is structurally part of the flexible covering device. Based on the body of claim 1 and the preambles of the dependent claims, it is unclear what the preamble of claim 1 should recite.
Claim 1 refers to “C-channel rails” which are understood to be structure of the intended use and the body of the claim refers to the C-channel rails. If the claims are amended to positively require the elements of the pit, there is inconsistency in claim language. The claim refers to “C-channel rails” while also referring to “said C-channel” and “said C-channels.” And also refers to “each C-channel flange” without properly setting forth for the element.
Claim 1 recites “said flexible cover to positions…” it is unclear if the claim should refer to --said flexible covering device to positions-- or if a flexible cover is intended to be introduced.
Claims 2-11 and 13-15 depend from claim 1 and inherit these issues and are rejected for depending from claim 1.
The claims are inconsistent in referring to “transverse support members”, “transverse web strip”, “transverse web support members” and “transverse webs” and it is unclear if the claims are referring to the same or different elements.
Claim 1 is directed to “A flexible covering device and detent pin securement for an automotive service pit, said pit having a generally rectangular floor opening” yet dependent claims 2-5 refer to “the improved covering device…” which was not previously recited. The dependent claims are unclear as to if they should refer to “the flexible covering device” or if they intend to refer to a different covering device. If so, an improved covering device has not been introduced.
Claims 6-11 and 13-15 refer to “apparatus” without proper articles. Further it is unclear what apparatus is being referred to in each of the claims because the claims are dependent from device claims and an apparatus was not previously defined. As stated above, it is unclear what is required of the preamble of claim 1.
Claim 6 refers to flexible cover” should the claim recite “flexible covering device”?
Claim 7 is dependent from claim 3 which is dependent from claim 1 which recites “a web net” it is unclear if an additional web net is required or if the claim should refer to the web net previously recited.
It is unclear what is required of claim 16 and what the preamble is directed to. What is the structural device or apparatus being claimed? The claim is directed to an intended use and it is unclear what is required of the claim.
The claims are replete with issues of indefiniteness and unclear language the above examples are non-limiting examples only. The Applicant is advised to carefully review the claims for definiteness and clarity.
In view of the 112 issues discussed above the claims have been examined as best understood.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate Friday.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634