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 limitations are: “stowage module,” “expansion/contraction device,” “turning device,” and “traveling device,” in claim 1.
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 1-7 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.
Words and signs within parenthesis are vague and ambiguous because it is not clear whether these words are exemplary in nature, or if they form a limiting part of the claim. For example:
“(stowage frame)” in claim 1 line 2
“(sill beam)” in claim 1 line 4
“(+)” in claim 1 line 30
“(-)” in claim 1- see fourth to last line
“(a deviation in straightness…. and stopping positions)” in claim 5- see last 4 lines
“(+)” in claim 6 line 12
Some of the adjectives and adverbs used in the claims convey a relative degree or amount, which is vague and ambiguous, because it is not clear how much of the word is needed. For example:
“sharply protruding” in claim 1 line 20
“a long socket hole” in claim 1 lines 22-23
“formed right below” in claim 1 line 24
“right below the inclined surface” in claim 1 lines 25-26
“sufficiently enters” in claim 1 line 28
“the long socket hole” in claim 1 line 28
“fundamentally prevented” in claim 1, second to last line
“close contact” in claim 4 line 14
“large” in claim 5 line 24
“angle around 1 to 2° ” in claim 5 line 31
“easily modified” in claim 6- see 2nd to last line
“fundamentally prevent” in claim 7- see 4th to last line
Claim 4 line 14 recites “to completely come into close contact,” which is vague and ambiguous. It is not clear what the word “completely” means in this context. Can something come into contact with another thing, but not completely contact? What is meant by this limitation?
Claim 5 line 30 recites “the lock pin holder,” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6 line 14 recites “although the height…” but does not seem to finish the thought. Perhaps the word “although” is extraneous?
Claim 6 lines 15-16 recite “which makes it essential to add an installation space…” which is vague and ambiguous. Is an installation space required by this limitation, or does Applicant merely wish to explain the virtues of the invention?
Claim 6 lines 15-20 appear explanatory in nature, and use (seemingly) hypothetical terms to limit the invention. It is not clear if the components listed are required by the claims, or merely used to expound the benefits of the claimed apparatus, for example: does claim 6 require any of a “conventional manual type,” a “necessary space such as a burying depth,” or an “automation method”? Does claim 6 preclude a “separate modification work” or a “civil engineering part”?
The last 5 lines of claim 6 do not provide a clear-cut view of the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim 7 line 4 recites “and the like,” which is not clear. What other, unspecified, structures fit within this limitation?
Claim 7 line 9 recites “and the like,” which is not clear. What other, unspecified, structures fit within this limitation?
Claim 7 line 13 requires that the control device is configured to “control set initial” securing tension. This doesn’t make sense. Does the control device control the tension, or set the tension?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 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 prior art of record fails to anticipate or make obvious the entire combination of claim recitations set forth in claim 1. Specifically, claim 1 requires:
“a stowage module… operated by a driving source including a thruster and engaged with a pin cup installed at a bottom of a pier so that resistance to horizontal pushing caused by storm wind is applied thereto;” in conjunction with: “a tiedown module installed at the lower structure of each of the land-side leg and the sea-side leg of the crane, length-adjusted by an expansion/contraction device, and having a twist lock pin and a nut configured to be turned by a turning device;” and
an encoder module consisting of a traveling idle wheel, an idle shaft, and a connection coupling for mounting an encoder for controlling a traveling device to accurately stop the crane at a securing position; …the twist lock pin moves over the inclined surface at a predetermined angle and sufficiently enters the long socket hole via the stepped portions; …when pre-tension set by a load cell is reached, the contraction stops and a fastening task is completed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such references show various forms of apparatus which comprise at least one similar feature to the present application.
CN 104210959 B (to “Feng”) teaches a tiedown module (see fig. 3) with an expansion/contraction device (at 312) with a twist lock pin (32) which engages a socket anchor module (316) similarly to Applicant’s claim 1, albeit without the inclined surface presently claimed.
JP 2000177982 A (to “Kawase”) teaches a teaches a tiedown module (see fig. 4) with an expansion/contraction device (25) moving a twist lock pin (27) which engages a socket anchor module (40) similarly to Applicant’s claim 1. Kawase further teaches a stowage module (fig. 8) similar to that recited in instant claim 1, but the stowage module (fig. 8) is a prior art (i.e. “conventional”) crane mooring system, not a component used in additional to the disclosed tiedown module (fig. 4).
US 2019/0185296 A1(to “Zhang”) teaches a wind protection anchoring system for a bridge crane, the system comprising a tiedown module having an expansion/contraction device (see fig. 2) which actuates a (non-twisting) locking pin (23) which engages a socket anchor module (3; figs. 4-5).
JP 2006160456 A (to “Inoue”) teaches a wheel-mounted encoder (at 23) for controlling a traveling device to accurately stop the crane (albeit with brake shoe 25).
KR 101173143 B1 (to “Jeong”) teaches (see fig. 3) a system similar to Applicant’s claimed “stowage system.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time.
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, Victoria P Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/NATHANIEL L ADAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654