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 .
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“clamping structure” recited in claim 6
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner notes that the limitation “clamping structure” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing a claimed function;
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language;
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “clamping structure” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘two parallel and spaced apart clamping webs or clamping grooves,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 50), or an equivalent thereof.
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 “the two clamping strips” in the last paragraph of the claim. While the claim previously sets forth “clamping strips,” there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the two clamping strips.” For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “two of the clamping strips.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one clamping structure at least one of a) is oriented ...” Due to various grammatical errors, Applicant intends regarding the limitation is unclear. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the at least one clamping structure is at least one of a) oriented ...”
Claim 7 further recites the limitation “the clamping strip.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one of the “clamping strips” previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth an additional ‘clamping strip’ which is separate and independent from the “clamping strips” previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “one of the clamping strips.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation “one clamping strip.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one of the “clamping strips” previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth an additional ‘clamping strip’ which is separate and independent from the “clamping strips” previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “one of the clamping strips.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the two legs.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the clamping strips are at least one of screwed together or each have at least one through-opening ...” It is generally unclear as to Applicant’s intent of “each” in the limitation. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the clamping strips are at least one of screwed together or have at least one through-opening ...”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the at least one thickening.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to depend upon claim 3, which provides antecedent basis for the limitation.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the other clamping strip.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 – 5 and 10 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patchen (U.S. Patent Number 3,015,470).
As to claim 1, Patchen teaches a device for compensating for height differences on a vehicle (figure 1; column 1, lines 7 – 11), the device comprising: a lifting bag which is fillable with a fluid, wherein the lifting bag is formed from a hose section (figures 1 and 2, element 14 being the ‘lifting bag’ and ‘hose section’; column 2, lines 20 – 28), and the hose section has a hose opening which is closed by clamping strips (figures 1 and 2, upper portion of element 14 being the ‘hose opening’ and elements 21 and 28 being the ‘clamping strips’; column 2, lines 32 – 50); and a seal arranged between two of the clamping strips in order to seal a clamping point defined by the clamping strips on the hose section (figures 1 and 2, element 13 being the ‘seal’; column 2, lines 32 – 50).
As to claim 2, Patchen teaches that the seal is a sealing strip section (figures 1 and 2, element 13).
As to claim 3, Patchen teaches that the seal has a thickening which is oriented in a longitudinal direction of the clamping strips when the seal is in a position of use or extends over a part of a length of the seal (figures 1 and 2, element 13). Examiner notes that the seal Patchen has a “thickening” because the seal has a given ‘thickness.’
As to claim 4, Patchen teaches that the seal has a through-opening for a fastener for connecting the clamping strips (figures 1 and 2, element 33 being the ‘through-hole’; column 2, lines 47 – 50).
As to claim 5, Patchen teaches that the clamping strips each have a clamping profile on a clamping side thereof facing the hose section (figures 1 and 2, upper surface of element 21 and lower surface of element 28 being the ‘clamping profile’ and ‘clamping side’).
As to claim 10, Patchen teaches that the clamping strips are screwed together (figures 1 and 2, elements 31 being the ‘screws’ and elements 21 and 28; column 2, lines 46 – 50).
As to claim 11, Pachen teaches a valve for filling and emptying the lifting bag (figure 1, element 42 being the ‘valve’; column 2, lines 54 – 72).
As to claim 12, Pachen teaches that the seal is arranged inside the hose section (figures 1 and 2, elements 13 and 14).
As to claim 13, Patchen teaches that the thickening comprises at least two edge-side thickenings (figure 2, element 13). Examiner notes that this can be found because Patchen teaches that the ‘edge-sides’ of the seal has a given thickness (figure 2, element 13).
As to claim 14, Patchen teaches that the through-opening is surrounded by a thickening of the seal (figures 1 and 2, element 13). Examiner notes that this can be found because Patchen teaches that the seal has a given thickness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 – 9 and 15 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 6, while Patchen teaches each of the clamping strips having a clamping profile, Patchen does not teach the clamping profile comprising a clamping structure that comprises two parallel and spaced apart clamping webs or grooves, as required by the limitations of claim 6.
As to claim 8, Patchen teaches one of the clamping strips having a clamping profile (figure 2, upper surface of element 21 being the ‘clamping profile’). However, Patchen does not teach the clamping profile having at least one clamping groove, as recited by claim 8.
As to claim 9, Patchen does not teach one of the clamping strips of the two clamping strips having an L-shaped cross-section, and the clamping profile being formed with at least one clamping web and/or with at least one clamping groove on a longer leg of clamping strip, as recited by claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights