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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Turkey on 09/06/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2023/011025 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed 01/07/2025. This IDS has been considered.
Drawings
Figures 1-4 are objected to because the clarity of the individual elements is not satisfactory for reproduction.
All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning. See MPEP § 608.02 (V)(l).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-11 are objected to. The phrase “wherein” to further define a claim is understood to be a “characterizing” term, used to describe an already introduced element or feature whereas the phrase “further comprising” is used to introduce new elements that further define the invention set forth. Using “wherein” to introduce new elements or features of the claims is confusing as it is understood that “wherein” describes already defined features. It appears that Applicant is using “wherein” to introduce new features, as opposed to “further comprising” which is the proper phraseology for setting for the new elements of features. See 37 C.F.R. 6.3(a)-(b).
Claim 2 is objected to. It appears line 8 should read --multiple connection eyebolts--.
Claim 3 is objected to. It appears lines 2-3 should read --multiple fixing eyebolts--.
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 1-11 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 1, the limitation “the equipment” lacks antecedent basis. Is the equipment the same element as “the body”? Or is this a new element to be introduced? It is not clear what the structural limitation encompassed by “the equipment” is referring to.
Also regarding claim 1, the phrase “multiple ropes one end of which is connected to the ground and the other end to the connector” is confusing due to lack of agreement between plural “ropes” and their arrangement. Does the “one end of which” refer to one end of each rope? Or one end of one rope? And if so, which single rope is it referring to? And “the other end” presumably refers to the other end of the rope that was recited in regards to “one end” however it is still not clear if this is a single rope or a characterization of each rope.
Claims 2-11 inherent the deficiencies of claim 1 and are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 2, the line 7 limitation “connector” lacks antecedent basis. Is this the same connected recited in claim 1, line 7? Or a new, second connector?
Regarding claim 3, as noted in reference to claim 1, the term “the equipment” is not properly introduced or defined therefore rendering the metes and bounds of the claim undefined.
Also regarding claim 3, the line 3 limitation “rope” lacks antecedent basis. Is this referring to the “multiple ropes” of claim 1, line 8? Or one of the ropes in particular? Or each of the ropes? “The rope” is again references in lines 4 and 5 but it is impossible to determine which rope is being referenced.
Similarly, regarding claim 3, the lines 3 and 6 limitations “the connection eyebolt” lack antecedent basis. Claim 2, line 8 introduces “multiple connection eyebolt[s]” so it is not possible to determine from claim 3 which one (or all) of the multiple connection eyebolts are being referenced in lines 3 and 6.
Similarly regarding claim 3, the line 5 limitation “the fixing eyebolt” lacks antecedent basis. Lines 2-3 of this same claim introduces “multiple fixing eyebolt[s]” so it is not possible to determine which one (or all) of the multiple fixing eyebolts are being referenced in line 5.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “wherein fixing eyebolt” lacks antecedent basis and is unclear. Does this refer to one of the “multiple” fixing eyebolt[s] of claim 3? One of the fixing eyebolt[s]? Or it is introducing a new fixing eyebolt? From line 4, it appears the phrase “are positioned on the ground” indicates that “fixing eyebolt” should be plural but there is a lack of agreement between subject and verb.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “one end of which” as it pertains to “multiple turnbuckles” is unclear due to lack of agreement between plural “turnbuckles” and their arrangement. Does the “one end of which” refer to one end of each turnbuckle? Or one end of one turnbuckle? And if so, which single turnbuckle is it referring to? And “the other end” presumably refers to the other end of the turnbuckle that was recited in regards to “one end” however it is still not clear if this is a single turnbuckle or a characterization of each turnbuckle.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “allows the user to view the data obtained from the load measuring device simultaneously” is unclear. In order to be simultaneous, two things must be happening at once, but the limitation only describes one thing happening and so it is not possible to discern what is happening simultaneously with the user viewing the data.
Allowable Subject Matter
There are no prior art rejections for claim 1-11. However, the Examiner cannot comment on their allowability until all the rejections under §112(b) are adequately addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and represents the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights