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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 have been amended, and claims 1-20 remain under consideration in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of claim includes “Method for maintenance of a sliding closure on an outlet of a metallurgical vessel, however the body of the claim appears to recite no clear maintenance steps but operational steps and/or installation steps of the slide closure. It is therefore suggested to replace “Method for maintenance” with --method of operating--. 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 1-20 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 "controlling, using a robot for an automated maintenance stage, a drive on the sliding closure to release the sliding closure or release the drive" in line 3-4. The manner in which the limitation is written raises an issue of clarity and/or ambiguity, in that it appears the drive releases itself under the control of the robot, which is operationally impermissible; thereby rendering the metes
and bounds of the claim unascertainable.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "configuring the robot to, while the sliding closure is unfolded at least one of:" in line 8, without clearly recited how and by what manner the robot is configured to perform the steps that follows the limitation. The word “configuring” in this instant is vague, as it does not clearly state any structural posture of operational posture of the robot for performing said selected method steps following the limitation. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite as the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Claim 1, recites the limitation “providing, as an alternative to the automated maintenance stage, a manual maintenance stage at a location at which the sliding closure is maintained” in lines 20-21. In, particular, this limitation makes the claim appears confusing because it is unclear if the manual maintenance is required or optional. The claim is also silent as to what necessitates the switching from an automated maintenance to a manual maintenance, if the manual maintenance is not optional. Furthermore, it appears all the dependent claims are only drawn to the automated maintenance steps or automated operations methods. It is therefore unclear from the manner in which the claim 1 is written how and why the automated maintenance and the manual maintenance method are combined as presented. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite as the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "constructing the drive to provide a pressure-based release the sliding closure" in lines 2-3. In, particular, it is unclear what the phrase “constructing the drive” means since the term “constructing” in this instant case has neither being defined in the claim nor any definition/direction given in the specification as what it means. Furthermore, the phrase “constructing the drive” does not appear to be a clear process step or a maintenance step based on the preamble of the claim. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite as the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The amendment to the claims, particularly to claim 1, has introduced new limitations into the claim that raise new issues of clarity under 112(b) as presented above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/M.A/ Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights