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 .
The Preliminary Amendment filed on 08/07/2024 has been acknowledged.
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 limitations are:
“a device for measuring the penetration of the impactor into the ground, under the effect of the movement of the mass” in claim 1;
“the device for measuring the penetration of the impactor into the ground includes a movement sensor, notably a linear potentiometer” in claim 2;
“said device being configured to be movable, notably having wheels, for example two wheels on which a chassis of the device is mounted” in claim 6;
“said device is configured to be movable, having wheels on which a chassis of the device is mounted” in claim 13.
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.
Specification states:
In Paragraph [0106], the instant application describes the corresponding structures of a linear potentiometer being “the device for measuring the penetration of the impactor into the ground includes a movement sensor, notably a linear potentiometer” and “a device for measuring the penetration of the impactor into the ground, under the effect of the movement of the mass.”
In Paragraph [0108], the instant application describes the corresponding structures of a simulation device being “said device being configured to be movable, notably having wheels, for example two wheels on which a chassis of the device is mounted” and “said device is configured to be movable, having wheels on which a chassis of the device is mounted.”
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 2-6,10, 12 & 13 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.
In regards to claim 2, line 3 recites the broad recitation “movement sensor”, and the claim also recites “linear potentiometer” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(d): “If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made.” The limitation of claim 2 will be read as “wherein the device for measuring the penetration of the impactor into the ground includes a movement sensor” upon further examination. Claim 12 is rejected due to its dependency.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the compression speed" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of claim 3 will be read as “…configured so that a compression speed of the ground…” upon further examination.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the average stiffness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of claim 4 will be read as “…configured to provide an average stiffness (Rm) of the ground…” upon further examination.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the ratio of the maximum vertical force (Fz max) to the corresponding penetration (Enf)" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The limitation of claim 4 will be read as “…which is a ratio of a maximum vertical force (Fz max) to a corresponding penetration (Enf) of the impactor…” upon further examination.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the segment stiffnesses" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of claim 4 will be read as “…into the ground, and/or segment stiffnesses for different force levels…” upon further examination.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the damping coefficient" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of claim 5 will be read as “…configured to provide a damping coefficient of the ground…” upon further examination.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the slope of the straight line passing through the vertices of the consecutive peaks of the vertical force" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The limitation of claim 5 will be read as “…from a slope of a straight line passing through vertices of consecutive peaks of a vertical force (Fz)…” upon further examination.
In regards to claim 6, line 2 recites the broad recitation “wheels”, and the claim also recites “two wheels” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(d): “If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made.” The limitation of claim 6 will be read as “said device being configured to be movable having two wheels on which a chassis…” upon further examination. Claim 13 is rejected due to its dependency.
In regards to claim 10, line 2 recites the broad recitation “a sportsground”, and the claim also recites “an equestrian sportsground” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(d): “If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made.” The limitation of claim 10 will be read as “A method for determining the accident risk of a sportsground wherein the simulation device as claimed in claim 1…” upon further examination.
In regards to line 10 of claim 2, the phrase “a simulation device” is unclear. Is there an additional “simulation device”, or is the “simulation device” the same as recited in line 1 of claim 1? The limitation will be read as “A method for determining the accident risk of a sportsground, including an equestrian sportsground, wherein the simulation device as claimed in claim 1…” upon further examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 7-9, 11 & 14-17 are allowed.
Claims 2-6,10, 12 & 13 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: The Examiner agrees with the proposed novelty of the instant application according to the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority (PCT/EP2023/052914) filed on 02/07/2023. Also, in the Examiner’s opinion in regards to claim 1, Scherbring (US 8327693 B2) teaches a mobile turf instrument apparatus (2) comprising a mobile platform or frame (4) supported for rolling over the ground by one or more rotatable ground engaging members, such as by a pair of wheels (6). Frame (4) preferably comprises a tow frame having a forwardly extending tongue (8) for allowing frame (4) to be hitched to a motive device in the form of a towing vehicle, such as a mower, utility vehicle, or the like (Column 4, lines 17-31). The mobile turf instrument apparatus (2) further comprises a load cell (48) positioned between housing (50) and bracket (40) of probe assembly (24) is used to measure soil compaction when probes (62) are being inserted in the ground. This is so because the force exerted on load cell (48) by housing (50) will vary depending upon the hardness of the ground. The rocking action of housing (50) determines the force on load cell (48) and the rocking action varies depending upon the hardness of the ground (Column 7, line 59 – Column 8, line 5; Figure 1).
However, Scherbring does not teach the structural limitations of the simulation device further comprising a device for simulating the behavior on the ground of a limb of a mammal including one or more stops placed on one or more vertical rods along which the mass moves with the vertical rod or rods being connected to the vertical shaft by one or more elastic members and a device for measuring the penetration of the impactor into the ground, under the effect of the movement of the mass where the stated limitations are not suggested in addition to not being anticipated or taught in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claim 1. The remaining claims are allowed due to their dependency upon overcoming the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tholen et al (US 4116041 A) - The present invention relates to an apparatus for applying a predetermined force on natural stabilized ground material or such material having at least one surface layer. The force is applied by means of a falling weight which is dropped from a predetermined height to strike an intermediate weight which is vertically movable in guides of the frame of the apparatus. The falling weight is also guided for vertical movement in the frame. The shock energy transmitted to the intermediate weight is then transmitted to the ground through a pressure plate connected to the intermediate weight.
Ma et al (CN 111829901 B) - The invention claims a drop hammer type deflection detecting device in the road surface deflection detecting field.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMAINE L JENKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-3 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/J.L.J/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights