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.
In claim 7, the term means for locking is interpreted based on the description provided in the specification on page 11 lines 3-8.
In claim 8, the term clamping means designed to press is interpreted based on the description provided in the specification on page 9 lines 11-17.
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 1-15 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 the limitation “a first lateral support device for supporting a head end part of the packaging when it is in a horizontal position for transport” in lines 6-7. The term “it” is unclear that “it” refers to the first lateral support or the packaging. For examination purposes “it” is interpreted as the packaging.
The limitation “a pivoting support system, pivotably mounted on the support frame so as to be able to pivot in relation to the latter and in relation to the first lateral support device when the packaging is tipped” in lines 9-11. The term “the latter” is unclear that “the latter” refers to the pivoting support system or the support frame. For examination purposes “the latter” is interpreted as the support frame.
The imitation “a second lateral support device for supporting a bottom end part of the packaging when it is in a horizontal position for transport and when it is tipped” in lines 12-13, and the limitation “an axial support device for the bottom end part of the packaging, designed to take up the axial forces generated by the packaging when it is tipped” in lines 14-15. The term “it” is unclear that “it” refers to the second lateral support or the packaging in lines 12-13, and the axial support device or the packing in lines 14-15. For examination purposes “it” in both limitations is interpreted as the packaging.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the support frame is fitted with an axial stop device for the packaging, when it adopts its horizontal position for transport, the axial stop device comprising an axial stop member that is self-positioning relative to the packaging when the latter is placed on the support frame”. The terms “it” and “the latter” are unclear. For examination purposes “it” and “the latter” are interpreted as the packaging.
Since claims 2-8, 11-15 and 10 depend on rejected claims 1 and 9, these claims are also rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2481058 B1 (MHE TECH INC, hereinafter: Mhe. This reference is cited on IDS by applicants. However, submitted copy of the reference is WO2011/038342A1. Therefore, English copy of EP-2481058-B1 is attached to this Office action. Also, it is cited on PTO-892 form).
Regarding claim 1, Mhe teaches a system (Fig. 6-8) for supporting packaging (14 in fig. 6) for transporting radioactive materials (¶001), the system being configured to allow the packaging (14) to be moved from a horizontal position (it can be seen in fig.6) for transport to a vertical position (it can be seen in fig.6) for use, and vice versa, the system comprising: a support frame (see attached annotated fig.6);
a first lateral support device (see attached annotated fig.6) for supporting a head end part (see attached annotated fig.6) of the packaging (14) when it is in a horizontal position for transport (it can be seen in fig.6), the first lateral support device being mounted on the support frame (it can be seen in fig.6);
a pivoting support system (see attached annotated fig.6), pivotably mounted on the support frame (it can be seen in fig.6) so as to be able to pivot (it can be seen in fig.6-7) in relation to the latter and in relation to the first lateral support device (it can be seen in fig.6-7) when the packaging (14) is tipped, the pivoting support system (46) comprising:
a second lateral support device (see attached annotated fig.6) for supporting a bottom end part (see attached annotated fig.6) of the packaging (14) when it is in a horizontal position for transport and when it is tipped (it can be seen in fig.6); and
an axial support device (see attached annotated fig.6) for the bottom end part (see attached annotated fig.6) of the packaging (14), designed to take up the axial forces generated by the packaging when it is tipped (it can be seen in fig.7).
PNG
media_image1.png
423
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Mhe teaches all the limitations of claim 1. It also teaches wherein the axial support device (see above attached annotated fig.6) is designed to be removed from the pivoting support system (it can be seen in fig. 8, axial support can be pivoted towards the ground to load the packaging interprets as removed, ¶0038).
Regarding claim 4, Mhe taches all the litigations of claim 1. It also teaches wherein the axial support device (see above attached annotated fig.6) includes a beam fitted with axial support means on the bottom end part of the packaging (see attached annotated fig.8, as pe BRI: Axial support device has a beam as annotated which provides the axial support to packaging which interprets as a claimed structure).
PNG
media_image2.png
419
439
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Mhe teaches all the limitations of claim 1. It also teaches wherein the support frame (see above attached annotated fig.6) is fitted with an axial stop device (see above attached annotated fig.6) for the packaging (14), when it adopts its horizontal position for transport (it can be seen in fig.6), the axial stop device (see above attached annotated fig.6) comprising an axial stop member (see above attached annotated fig.6) that is self-positioning relative (¶0038, column 13 lines 11-15, teaches latch is hydraulicly operated as per BRI it is interpreted as once the hydraulic is operated, latch will lock the packaging in place by itself repositioning) to the packaging (14) when the latter is placed on the support frame (see above attached annotated fig.6).
Regarding claim 10, Mhe teaches all the limitations of claim 9. It also teaches wherein the axial stop member (see above attached annotated fig.6) has an upwardly tapering axial thickness (see above attached annotated fig.8).
Regarding claim 11, Mhe teaches all the limitations of claim 1. It also teaches wherein the support frame (see above attached annotated fig.6) is fitted with lifting points (see attached annotated fig. 7) and/or lashing points (see attached annotated fig. 7, Examiner’s note: As per BRI marked areas of the support frame of Mhe can be used for lifting or lashing to achieve its function).
PNG
media_image3.png
491
377
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Mhe teaches all the limitations of claim 1. It also teaches wherein a pivot connection (see above attached annotated fig. 6-7) is provided between the pivoting support system and the support frame at an axial end part (as per BRI, annotated pivot connection is interpreted as an axial end part towards left end) of the support frame, this connection defining a pivot axis (see above attached annotated fig. 7) even notionally pass through the bottom (as per BRI, anything below the top end is interprets as bottom therefore, pivot axis as it annotated reads as bottom) of the packaging (14).
Regarding claim 13, Mhe teaches an assembly (fig. 6-7) comprising packaging (14) for transporting radioactive materials (¶001), as well as the system for supporting packaging according to one of the preceding Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Mhe teaches a vehicle (16 in fig. 6-8) for transporting radioactive materials (¶001) fitted with the system (fig. 6-8) for supporting packaging (14) according to one of Claims 1 (see rejection of claim 1), the vehicle comprising a platform (see above attached annotated fig. 6) on which the packaging support frame is fixed (it can be seen in fig.6-7).
Regarding claim 15, Mhe teaches method for moving packaging (14) for transporting radioactive materials (¶001) using the system for supporting packaging according to Claims 1 (see rejection of claim 1), the method comprising the following steps:
-placing the axial support device (see above attached annotated fig. 6) on the bottom end part (see above attached annotated fig. 6) of the packaging (14); and
-lifting and moving the packaging (14) using at least one handling element (56 in fig. 6, as per BRI: when packaging is being move from horizontal to vertical, handling element 56 is being lifted and moved from horizontal to vertical position) attached to the head end part (it can be seen in fig. 6) of the packaging (14), so as to cause the pivoting support system (see attached annotated fig. 6) to pivot in relation to the support frame, until the packaging supported by the pivoting support system adopts a vertical position (it can be seen in fig. 6-7).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2481058 B1 in view of US 5044846 A (Richardson).
Regarding claim 2, Mhe taches all the litigations of claim 1. It does not explicitly teach wherein the second lateral support device includes an arcuate beam fitted with support pads.
Richarson teaches wherein the second lateral support device (38 in fig. 4A-B) includes an arcuate beam (It can be seen in fig. 4A-B) fitted with support pads (43 in fig.4A-B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Mhe by incorporating the second lateral support device includes an arcuate beam fitted with support pads in view of Richardson in order to provide reinforces ability to the support frame (column 6, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 6, Mhe taches all the litigations of claim 1. It does not explicitly teach wherein the first lateral support device includes support pads mounted on the support frame.
Richarson teaches wherein the first lateral support device (38 in fig. 4A-B) includes support pads 43 in fig.4A-B) mounted on the support frame (it can be seen in fig. 4A-B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Mhe by incorporating the first lateral support device includes support pads mounted on the support frame in view of Richardson in order to provide reinforces ability to the support frame (column 6, lines 1-5).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2481058 B1 in view of US 5841147 A (Steinke et al.).
Regarding claim 8, Mhe teaches all the limitations of claim 1. It also teaches the pivoting support system (see above attached annotated fig.). However, it does not explicitly teach wherein the pivoting support system also includes removable clamping means, designed to press the bottom end part of the packaging against the second lateral support device.
Steinke et al. teaches wherein the pivoting support system also includes removable clamping means (105 in fig.1), designed to press the bottom end part (it can be seen in fig. 1) of the packaging against the second lateral support device (301 in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Mhe by incorporating the pivoting support system also includes removable clamping means, designed to press the bottom end part of the packaging against the second lateral support device in view of Steinke et al. in order to secure the packaging with respect to support device (as it can be seen in fig. 1 and column 5, lines 26-31).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7 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. Other cited references show a system, an assembly and a vehicle which comprises a support system for supporting packaging. US 20080145170 A1 (Lisenby) teaches lateral support device includes acute beam (it can be seen in fig. 2) as it claimed in claim 2. It also teaches axial support device is designed to be removed (280 in fig. 2, ¶0032, The uplift prevention device 280 is put into place after the transportation cask is placed into the cradle 100) as it claimed in claim 3. 280 of fig. 2 of Lisendby is also acts as a removable clamping as it claimed in claim 6 (see ¶0032).
US 20070241001 A1 (Ales et al.) teaches the concept of support frame having a lifting and lashing points (11 in fig. 1, ¶0023) as it claimed in claim 10. US 7246987 B2 (Jagos et al.) teaches a pivot connection (fig.2) is provided between the pivoting support system (Fig.2) and the support frame (106 in fig. 2) at an axial end part (it can be seen in fig.2) of the support frame, this connection defining a pivot axis (412 in fig. 4) intended to notionally pass through said bottom end part (it can be seen in fig. 2 and 6) of the packaging or even notionally pass through the bottom (it can be seen in fig. 2 and 6) of the packaging as it claimed in claim 12. It also teaches last method step (it can be seen in fig. 1 and 6) of claim 15.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIMIN G PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 517-272-7097. 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.
/JAIMIN G PATEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/JONATHAN SNELTING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights