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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 8-14, in the reply filed on 09 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The remainder of the instant Office Action is directed to claims 8-14.
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: “canister positioning device” in claims 8 and 10-14.
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 8-14 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 8 recites the limitation "the pivot joints" in the third to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, in view of the language previously recited in line 4, the examiner will consider said limitation as reading “the one or more joints.” Correction and/or clarification are required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the pivot joints" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider said limitation as reading “the one or more joints.” Correction and/or clarification are required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the pivot joints" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider said limitation as reading “the one or more joints.” Correction and/or clarification are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 –
Claims 8, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harris et al. (4363257).
In reference to claim 8, Harris discloses a system, comprising:
a tower (23);
a pivot arm coupled to the tower (pivot arm 131; alternatively, the pivot arm can be considered element 146);
a canister positioning device coupled to the pivot arm by one or more joints (positioning device 146, including elements 29+31, coupled to pivot arm 131 via joint 168+173, which enables rotation of element 146 relative element 131 between vertical and horizontal orientations; alternatively, the positioning device can be considered element 32 coupled to pivot arm 146 via joint 174/176);
a hoist including a hoist cable (figure 13, hoist cable 177, the hoist is the combination of the other structures internal to element 27 plus element 32; alternatively, element 32 can be considered as not part of the hoist; also see provided Reference U, definition of “cable”);
a launcher cell (12); and
a control system (figures 2 and 14, at least elements 37+189; alternatively, see column 6, lines 28-37, which clearly discloses that the control system can be electrical or pneumatic) configured to provide control signals to the pivot arm and the hoist to control the pivot arm and the hoist to perform actions comprising:
positioning the canister positioning device proximate to a canister (considering the positioning device as elements 29+31+146: figures 2 and 3, canister 28, column 4, lines 44-53, and column 13, lines 44-52; alternatively, considering the positioning device as element 32, which includes elements 33: figures 2 and 3, canister 28, column 4, lines 54-60, and column 13, lines 44-56);
coupling the canister positioning device to the canister (considering the positioning device as elements 29+31+146: figures 2 and 3, canister 28, column 4, lines 44-53, and column 13, lines 44-52; alternatively, considering the positioning device as element 32, which includes elements 33: figures 2 and 3, canister 28, column 4, lines 54-60, and column 13, lines 44-56);
attaching the hoist cable from the hoist to the canister (hoist cable 177 is attached to the canister 28 via elements 33 of element 32);
raising the pivot arm on the tower from a first position on the tower to a second position on the tower (pivot arm 131, i.e., cradle elevator 131 goes up and down relative to the tower 23; column 9, lines 30-52, paragraph bridging columns 13-14; element 146 goes up and down with element 131);
adjusting a positioning of the pivot arm to position the canister proximate to the launcher cell (paragraph bridging columns 13-14; also see figure 14);
adjusting a positioning of the one or more joints to align the canister with the launcher cell (paragraph bridging columns 13-14; also see figure 14); and
lowering the hoist cable to lower the canister into the launcher cell (paragraph bridging columns 13-14; also see figure 14; the hoist cable lowers along with element 32).
In reference to claim 9, Harris discloses the claimed invention, as set forth above (also see clamp 29 and/or 31; alternatively, elements 33 collectively form a clamp).
In reference to claim 11, Harris discloses the claimed invention (figures 2, 3, and 15-17; column 13, lines 30-68; column 14, lines 1-3).
In reference to claim 12, Harris discloses the claimed invention (figures 2, 3, and 15-17; column 13, lines 30-68; column 14, lines 1-3).
In reference to claim 13, Harris discloses the claimed invention (figures 2, 3, and 15-17; column 13, lines 30-68; column 14, lines 1-3).
In reference to claim 14, Harris discloses the claimed invention (figures 2, 3, and 15-17; column 13, lines 30-68; column 14, lines 1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 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.
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 relevance of each cited reference is made clear by at least the abstract and/or drawings 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