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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character (17) has been used to designate both the “retaining means” and the second of the pair of rollers in figure 1 (i.e., in figure 1, the label (17) proximate the clamping module (45) should be (17’) since it designates a roller). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
The drawings are also objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the fastening means recited in claim 1 line 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: though the specification in para [0004] and [0047] mentions the fastening means, however, it fails defined clearly what constitutes the fastening means or give direction as to its position in the drawing in relation to the drive. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3, it appears the limitation “using a robot for automated
maintenance” should be replaced with -- using a robot for automated maintenance stage --. At least based on the specification para [0043] and also the dependent claim 2.
In claim 1, lines 6-7, it appears “a first refractory closure plate is, together with a first cassette” should be replaced with -- a first refractory closure plate together with a first cassette is --.
In claim 1, lines 7-8, it appears “a second refractory closure plate is, together with a second cassette” should be replaced with -- a second refractory closure plate together with a second cassette is--.
In claim 11, lines 2-3, it is suggested to replace “providing centering elements in
corresponding guide elements laterally to the housing” with -- providing centering elements in corresponding guide elements laterally in the housing --. Based on the specification para [0026]. Also in claim 11, line 3-4, it is suggested to replace “; centering the first cassette by means of the centering elements” with --; and centering the first cassette by means of the centering elements--.
In claim 16, it is suggested to replace “further comprising coupling the drive to a pressure source to enable, through use of the pressure source, release of the sliding closure and thus swinging of the slider unit relative to the housing” with -- further comprising coupling the drive to a pressure source, through use of the pressure source, to release the sliding closure and thus swinging of the slider unit relative to the housing--. The use of the term “to enable” appears redundant since no additional structure is required in releasing the sliding closure. 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, lines 3-5, recites the limitation “controlling, using a robot for automated maintenance, a drive on the sliding closure to selectively enable release of the sliding closure or release of the drive by disengaging fastening means, and enable unfolding of the sliding closure”. The phrases “selectively enable release” and “enable unfolding” raise issues of clarity in that it is unclear if the robot directly causes the drive on the sliding closure to selectively release the sliding closure and to unfold the sliding closure, or these two claimed steps or actions are performed by another unstated means activated by the robot. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bound are unascertainable.
Claim 1, lines 9-5, recites the limitation “wherein when the sliding closure is unfolded, a first refractory closure plate is, together with a first cassette, insertable into or removable from a housing of the sliding closure and a second refractory closure plate is, together with a second cassette, insertable into or removable from a slider unit of the sliding closure coupled to the housing”. The limitation raises issues of clarity in that it
includes a conditional clause “when the sliding closure is unfolded” followed by
the two phrases “a first refractory closure plate is, together with a first cassette, insertable into or removable from a housing of the sliding closure”; and “a second refractory closure plate is, together with a second cassette, insertable into or removable from a slider unit of the sliding closure coupled to the housing”. It is unclear if both inserting/ removing steps did occur and/or if both steps are required since the claim does not necessarily contain any active inserting step or removing step or both. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Claim 1, recites the limitation "the location" in line 10. There is insufficient
antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is indefinite in that it appears to recite a robot automated maintenance stage or step and a manual maintenance step or stage but fails to establish any clear operational connection between these two maintenance steps or stages to allow the sequence of maintenance between said steps be ascertained, thus amounting to a gap between the steps as claimed. The scope of the claim is therefore unascertainable.
Claim 1 in lines 11-12, recites the “the first and second cassettes are fixed respectively in the housing and the slider unit” without clearly stating how and by what manner the step of fixing is performed, thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 in lines 12-15, recites the limitation “the first and second closure plates are insertable manually directly into the respective one of the first and second cassettes when present in the sliding closure to be centered and fastened therein, or the first and second closure plates are releasable from the respective one of the first and second cassettes”. The limitation raises issues of clarity in that it includes the phrase “the first and second closure plates are insertable manually directly into the respective one of the first and second cassettes” followed by a conditional clause “when present in the sliding closure”. It is unclear if the manual inserting of both the first and second closure plates into the respective one of the first and second cassettes, or releasable of the first and second closure plates from the respective one of the first and second cassettes did occur and/or required since the claim does not necessarily contain any active inserting and releasing steps. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Claim 12, recites the limitation “performing both the automated maintenance and the manual maintenance in a mixed operation with work steps partly manual and partly automated”. It is unclear as to what “work steps” encompasses since neither this claim nor the base claim 1 defines what constitutes “work steps”. Furthermore, neither this claim nor the base claim 1 clearly categorizes the maintenance steps into automated, manual and mixed steps. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since scope is unascertainable.
Claim 13 is indefinites in that it recited the limitation “determining using the robot, a precise position of the vessel and the sliding closure” without reciting how and by what manner said precise position is determined by the robot, particularly since a conventional robot is not necessarily configured for position sensing. The claim appears vague.
Claim 13, recites the limitation "the location" in line 3. There is insufficient
antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16, recites the limitation “further comprising coupling the drive to a pressure source to enable, through use of the pressure source, release of the sliding closure and thus swinging of the slider unit relative to the housing”. Though the specification in para [0039], mentions a pressure source, however it does not clearly show what the pressure source is or what structure constitutes the pressure source, thereby rendering the claim vague. Particularly since the “pressure source” could be any conceivable pressure source or pressure applicator known in the art. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Art rejection
The claims, particularly claim 1 raises multiple issues of clarity under 112(b) as presented in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ),
second paragraph, above for an art to be applied to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Heinrich et al. (US 12.070,796), Sato et al. (US 5,665,264), Toaldo (US 6,422,435) and Plattner et al. (US 5,836,485) are also cited in PTO-892.
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