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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-12 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
Claims 1-12 are rejected herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 09/06/2024 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 17 “a rotating structure/arm” should be amended to -at least one of a rotating structure and an arm.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Specifically in light of the disclosure it is unclear what defines the blocking means and the means of locking and sealing.
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 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 is indefinite for the following reasons:
It is not clear and concise, as required by MPEP 2173.02, due to an excessively long and complex preamble that obscures the scope of the claimed invention for example, the preamble require modules as a functional language, however later describes it further in the body of the claim as structural limitations.
It is unclear what scope the recitation of claim 1 wherein “…a third module of interfacing responsible for the constraining switching of functional blocks intends to entail.
In light of the disclosure, it is unclear what defines the functional blocks.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the shelter" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The recitation “columns with guide channels” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the Applicant intend to recite “a plurality columns each with a respective channel” or a plurality of columns defining a plurality of channels in combination.
It is unclear what scope the recitation “hospitalization” intends to entail. Claim 6 contains similar issue.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the mast" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the integral-sensor means" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “colliding” renders the claim indefinite because the recitation requires physical parts to collide, thus, making it unclear how the axis would collide. The Examiner has interpreted term as “intersect”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the telescopic tower" in line 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the top flange" in line 40. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The recitation “may” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what movements performed can or cannot cause collisions.
Claims 2 and 4 recite the limitation "the two constituent module" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear what scope the recitation “solidary” intends to entail.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 is indefinite because it is unclear how many first and second modules are being claimed. In other words, it is unclear whether the first module and the second module recited in claim 10 are referring to the modules of claim 1 or to some other element because they are given the same designation “a first module” and “a second module”.
Claims 10 recites the limitation "the container" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12 recites the limitation "the lower flange" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims not cited above are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Appropriate correction/explanation is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
The allowability of the claims cannot be determined at this time due to outstanding issues noted above under 35 USC § 112(b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD IJAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am-10:00 pm.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
MUHAMMAD IJAZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3631
/Muhammad Ijaz/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631