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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “56 (fig. 7)”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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 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 13-15, 17-27, and 29-30 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.
Regarding claim 13, there is no antecedent basis for each of the limitations, “the inclination directions (line 5)” and “the plate edges (last line)” in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, there is no antecedent basis for each of the limitations, “the master cylinder (line 5)”, “the slave cylinders (lines 4-5), “the motor-pump unit (line 5)”, and “the inclination sensor (last line)” in the claim as it is depended upon claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation, “the inclination sensor (last line)” in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, there is no antecedent basis for each of the limitations, “the speed (line 2)”, “the master cylinder (line 2)”, “the respective slave cylinders (lines 3-4)” in the claim as it is depended upon claim 11. For the purpose of examination, the claim is treated as it is depended upon claim 14, where a speed adjustment of the master cylinder recited.
Regarding claim 17, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation, “the direction of motion (line 4)” in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation, “the hydraulic supply circuits (lines 1-2)” in the claim as it is depended upon claim 11 instead of claim 17, where hydraulic supply circuits recited. For the purpose of examination, the claim is treated as it is depended upon claim 17, where hydraulic supply circuits recited.
Regarding claim 19, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation, “the hydraulic supply circuits (line 2)” in the claim as it is depended upon claim 11 instead of claim 17, where hydraulic supply circuits recited. For the purpose of examination, the claim is treated as it is depended upon claim 17, where hydraulic supply circuits recited.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations “horizontally extending plates, which, as part of a filtration filter process as a plate stack, each receive between them a cake that is to be separated from a process liquid” following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Additionally, claim 20 is indefinite because it depends upon the canceled claim 1.
Assuming that claim 20 is intended to depend upon claim 11, the metes and bounds of claim 20 are unclear because it is not clear what Applicant is relying on in the apparatus of claim 11 for patentability. Claim 20 should be rewritten in an independent form with all of the intended limitations.
Furthermore, since claim 20 is treated as it is depended upon claim 11, it is unclear whether “an inclination sensor” as claimed in claim 20 is referring to “a sensor” as claimed in claim 11 or to a different sensor.
As best understood and for the purpose of examination, claim 20 is treated as it requires, “A pressing device with an apparatus for moving a plate in opposite directions using a plurality of hydraulic actuators wherein at least one possible inclination of the plate relative to a specifiable reference plane is monitored using a sensor which controls the actuators in such a way that the plate takes the position of the reference plane”.
Regarding claim 22, there is no antecedent basis for each of the limitations, “the inclination directions (line 5)” and “the plate edges (lines 6-7)” in the claim.
Regarding claim 23, there is no antecedent basis for each of the limitations, “the master cylinder (lines 3-4)”, “the slave cylinders (line 5), and “the motor-pump unit (line 5)” in the claim as it is depended upon claim 20 instead of the claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation, “the inclination sensor (last line)” in the claim.
Regarding claim 24, there is no antecedent basis for each of the limitations, “the speed (line 2)”, “the master cylinder (line 2)”, “the respective slave cylinders (lines 3-4)” in the claim as it is depended upon claim 20. For the purpose of examination, the claim is treated as it is depended upon claim 23, where a speed adjustment of the master cylinder recited.
Regarding claim 26, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation, “the direction of motion (line 4)” in the claim.
Regarding claim 27, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation, “the hydraulic supply circuits (lines 1-2)” in the claim as it is depended upon claim 20 instead of claim 26, where hydraulic supply circuits recited. For the purpose of examination, the claim is treated as it is depended upon claim 26, where hydraulic supply circuits recited.
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 –
(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.
Claims 11-12, 16, 20-21, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa et al. (hereinafter “Nakagawa”) (JP-2000015499A).
Regarding claim 11, Nakagawa discloses an apparatus for moving a plate (10) in opposite directions using a plurality of hydraulic actuators (20FL, 20FR, 20RL, 20RR), wherein at least one possible inclination of the plate relative to a specifiable reference plane is monitored using a sensor (16LR, 16FR) which controls the actuators in such a way that the plate takes the position of the reference plane (see page 8, last paragraph to page 9, line 17, and page 12, first paragraph of the English translation).
Regarding claim 12, the apparatus of claim 11, wherein each actuator comprises a motor-pump unit (27-28) (see page 6, last line of the English translation) for control purposes and wherein one of the actuators acts as the master and the other actuators act as slaves in relation thereto (see “master-slave system” in para. 4-6 of the English translation).
Regarding claim 16, the apparatus of claim 11, wherein, once the specifiable reference plane has been reached, all actuators (20FL, 20FR, 20RL, 20RR) are switched to pressure control to exert a feed force on the plate and to force control when creating an electromechanical solution (see para. 35 of the English translation).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Nakagawa discloses a press (see “press” in the abstract”) with an apparatus for moving a plate (10) in opposite directions using a plurality of hydraulic actuators (20FL, 20FR, 20RL, 20RR), wherein at least one possible inclination of the plate relative to a specifiable reference plane is monitored using a sensor (16LR, 16FR) which controls the actuators in such a way that the plate takes the position of the reference plane (see page 8, last paragraph to page 9, line 17, and page 12, first paragraph of the English translation).
Regarding claim 21, the pressing device of claim 20, wherein each actuator comprises a motor-pump unit (27-28) (see page 6, last line of the English translation) for control purposes and wherein one of the actuators acts as the master and the other actuators act as slaves in relation thereto (see “master-slave system” in para. 4-6 of the English translation).
Regarding claim 25, the pressing device of claim 20, wherein, once the specifiable reference plane has been reached, all actuators (20FL, 20FR, 20RL, 20RR) are switched to pressure control to exert a feed force on the plate and to force control when creating an electromechanical solution (see para. 35 of the English translation). .
Regarding claim 28, the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the plate comprises a rectangular basic outline (see “rectangular slide” in claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa in view of Wen et al. (hereinafter “Wen”) (CN 105716577 A).
Regarding claim 13, the apparatus of claim 11, Nacagawa discloses wherein the sensor comprises an inclination sensor (see “inclination angle sensors 16LR and 16 FR” on page 9, line 13 of the English translation). Nakagawa does not expressly disclose the inclination sensor is the type that includes a biaxial measurement system for recording the inclination of the plate with reference to a reference plane and which is attached to the plate in such a way that the inclination directions to be recorded are perpendicular to one another and are in each case oriented parallel to the plate edges of the plate.
Wen discloses the type of inclination sensor that includes a biaxial measurement system (see “background technology” section on page 2 of the English translation) capable to record inclination directions that are perpendicular to one another.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provides Nakagawa with the type of inclination sensor that includes a biaxial measurement system, as taught by Wem, to improve the measuring precision (see line 7 of “background technology” section on page 2 of the English translation).
Regarding claim 22, see the rejection of claim 13 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15, 17-19, 23-24, 26-27, and 29-30 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 14, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “wherein a speed adjustment facility is provided for the master cylinder and a position adjustment facility is provided for the slave cylinders, wherein the motor-pump unit for the master cylinder is operated at a constant speed and the respective extended position of the master cylinder is monitored by a monitoring processor, and wherein the respective extended position of the slave cylinders is calculated using a geometric model using measurement data from the inclination sensor”, in combination all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 would be allowable in virtue of its dependence upon claim 14 as set forth in the 112 rejections above.
Regarding claim 17, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “hydraulic supply circuit … comprises at least one changeover valve to switch the direction of motion of the respective actuator and a load-holding valve and a discharge device for returning fluid”, in combination all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 18-19 and 29-30 would be allowable in virtue of their dependence upon claim 17 as set forth in the 112 rejections above.
Regarding claim 23, the claim would be allowable for the same reason as set forth in claim 14 above.
Claim 24 would be allowable in virtue of its dependence upon claim 23 as set forth in the 112 rejections above.
Regarding claim 26, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “hydraulic supply circuit … comprises at least one changeover valve to switch the direction of motion of the respective actuator and a load-holding valve and a discharge device for returning fluid”, in combination all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 27 would be allowable in virtue of its dependence upon claim 26 as set forth in the 112 rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 111539083 A discloses a plate levelling system using four hydraulic cylinders (11).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights