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 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.
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:
Claim 1 recites “movement device”. (A) the term device is a generic placeholder term; (B) “device” performs the function of transporting the reinforcements; (C) there is no further structure to perform the claimed action. Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) based on the specification as “selected among a rail-mounted gantry crane and a mobile crane with a radius of action of 360°; and/or that said device for transporting the columns and slabs in the building construction zone is a self-propelled conveyor of the SPMT type.”
Claim 1 recites “device for transporting”. (A) the term device is a generic placeholder term; (B) “device” performs the function of transporting the columns and or slabs; (C) there is no further structure to perform the claimed action. Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) based on the specification as “a self-propelled transporter of the SPMT type (self-propelled modular transporter) is particularly suitable, preferably provided with a liftable and lowerable platform.”
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.
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 1-18 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 “long products, in particular bars, wire rods, rails and the like, or for flat products, in particular strips, sheets and the like”. The use of the limitations “in particular” and “and the like” renders the claim unclear as it does not clearly point out what is being claimed.
Claim 1 recites “the areas”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 1 recites “two types of areas (L, H) according to the load they are to support” then “namely into an area for loads<1.5 tons/m2 (L) and an area for loads≥1.5 tons/m2 (H)” it unclear if the claim requires the broader first recitation or the more narrow second recitation.
Claim 2 recites “said building construction zone”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 4 recites “the platform”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 4 recites “the self-propelled vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 4 recites “the upper part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 5 recites “elements, in particular strands and respective sleeves”. The use of the limitation “in particular” renders the claim unclear as it does not clearly point out what is being claimed.
Claim 5 recites “at least one covering structure, in particular a marquee”. The use of the limitation “in particular” renders the claim unclear as it does not clearly point out what is being claimed.
Claim 7 recites “long products, in particular bars, wire rods, rails and the like, or for flat products, in particular strips, sheets and the like”. The use of the limitations “in particular” and “and the like” renders the claim unclear as it does not clearly point out what is being claimed.
Claim 7 recites “elements, in particular strands and respective sleeves”. The use of the limitation “in particular” renders the claim unclear as it does not clearly point out what is being claimed.
Claim 8 recites “long products, in particular bars, wire rods, rails and the like, or for flat products, in particular strips, sheets and the like”. The use of the limitations “in particular” and “and the like” renders the claim unclear as it does not clearly point out what is being claimed.
Claim 8 recites “the greater load area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 8 recites “the lesser load area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 8 recites “…two types of areas (H, L) subdivided according to the greater or lesser load to be supported, and specifically subdivided according to the criterion….”. The use of the limitation “specifically” is similar to claiming “in particular” and renders the claim unclear as it does not clearly point out what is being claimed.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benedetti (US20160243602A1).
Claim 8
Benedetti teaches a steel plant for the production of long products (¶0039), in particular bars, wire rods, rails and the like, or flat products, in particular strips, sheets and the like, comprising: (A) two types of areas (12, 13) subdivided according to the greater or lesser load to be supported (The two areas have different total amounts of equipment, and thus support different levels of load.), and specifically subdivided according to the criterion of supporting a load≥ or <1.5 tons/m2, wherein in the greater load area (H) machines of the steel plant corresponding to a load≥1.5 tons/m2 are placed and in the lesser load area (L) machines of the steel plant corresponding to a load<1.5 tons/m2 are placed (It is unclear whether this limitation is currently required by the claim or an alternative due to the term “specifically”. In this rejection, it is interpreted as an alternative.); (B) in the lesser load area (L) a structure containing at least one foundation plate (The floor beneath the lesser load area (13) is a foundation plate.) and/or a plurality of plinths, a plurality of prefabricated columns (Figure 2 shows an elevation view where a column (top of fig. 2 or on the right when oriented in landscape) is used to support a slab (32) of material forming a tensioned element. Figure 2 is a cutaway view and it is interpreted that columns are used along the length of the slabs (32) to support the slabs.) placed at predetermined distances on the at least one foundation plate (Figure 2 shows the column is supported by the foundation.) and/or in the plinths and a plurality of prefabricated slabs (32) positioned above said columns (Figure 2) with spaces between adjacent slabs (Figure 1 shows there is a space between the adjacent slabs (32).) to form a plancher (Figure 1 shows slabs (32) with a space in between, which meets the claimed structure of the plancher.); (C) machinery with a lower weight (Item 31 is a transfer device which has a lower weight than the underlying machinery.) which is placed above said plancher (Figure 2), wherein said slabs comprise tensioned elements. (The material of the slabs (32) inherently have some level of tension.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 11-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The most relevant prior art found during the search and examination period for the application does not teach or obviate the limitations of Claim 1
While the prior art teaches steel plants for long products (US12330196B2 (Figure 1); US20160243602A1 (Figure 1)); the use of columns/slabs in plant construction (US20120193062A1 (Figure 2); US4799535A (Figure 3); US4502527A (Figures 1-2)); and zones within a plant (US20150343524A1 (Figure 2); US9156083B2 (Figure 1A/1B); US4502527A (Figures 1-2); US9126263B2 (Figure 1)), there was no teaching or motivation to combine references found to meet all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Claims 9-10 and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The most relevant prior art found during the search and examination period for the application does not teach or obviate the limitations of Claims 9-10 or 18.
The prior art teaches steel plants for long products that can be interpreted to meet the limitations of Claim 8 (US4502527A (Figures 1-2); US20160243602A1 (Figure 1)), yet these prior art disclosures did not provide a teaching of the spaces being filled with a mortar casting, the specific size/weight of the slabs, or the tensioned elements comprising strands in relative sleeves filled with cement mortar as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Form.
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
US12330196B2
2017-08-22
Figure 1 shows a plant for long metal products (continuous casting, 1) that includes separate zones (1, 2, 3) with different amounts of machinery and therefore weight.
US20160243602A1
2016-08-25
Figures 1-2 show a plant for long metal products (¶0039) that has zones (11, 12, 13) with different amounts of machinery and therefore weight. The zone (13) has overhead rails (32) supported by columns (Figure 2) that are seated on the floor (foundation).
US20120193062A1
2010-10-06
Figure 2 shows an elevation view of a plant for metal products (¶0021) with a foundation plate (2) supporting plinths and columns (5) on the plinths. The columns support a slab (3) that in turn supports machinery.
US4502527A
1983-05-02
Figure 1 shows a plant having a foundation (floor) that supports columns (112), which in turn support slabs (88) having spaces between the slabs. Machinery (100) is supported by the slabs.
US20140054002A1
2012-03-19
Figures 1A/1B show a metal production facility divided into zones (A/B).
US1941434A
1929-06-22
Figure 1 shows a plant for metal products that includes a plurality of zones. Figure 2b shows the use of columns (13) on plinths and foundations that support slabs (14).
US20150343524A1
2014-01-08
Figure 1 shows a plant for long metal products (¶0001) that includes zones (Figure 2) with different amounts of machinery and therefore weight. Figure 1 shows the use of plinths (129) on a foundation (126) that support columns and slabs (not labeled) where machinery (120) is moved.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights