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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference to specific claims, for example, claim 1 in ¶0002 and 0009, is improper and should be avoided.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 3-4 of claim 17, “a locking device” should read ---the locking device---.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“at least one bolt return element” in claim 1, line 6.
“at least one blocking element” in claim 1, line 10.
“at least two bolt return elements” in claim 1, line 15.
“at least one yoke return element” in claim 5, lines 2-3.
“yoke return elements” in claim 14, lines 2-3.
“yoke return element” in claim 16, line 4.
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 1-19 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 telescopic cylinder" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9, and 15 recites the limitation "the bolt" in lines 5, 10, 12, and 15 of claim 1, lines 2 and 5 of claim 4, line 3 of claim 6, line 3 of claim 7, line 3 of claim 9, and line 3 of claim 15. How does the “bolt” in lines 5, 10, 12, and 15 of claim 1, lines 2 and 5 of claim 4, line 3 of claim 6, line 3 of claim 7, line 3 of claim 9, and line 3 of claim 15 relate to the “at least one bolt” in line 4 of claim 1? Is there another bolt being claimed that differs from the “at least one bolt”? Suggestion to change “bolt” to read ---at least one bolt---. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 11, 15-16, and 18-19 recites the limitation "the blocking element" in lines 11-12 and 16 of claim 1, line 3 of claim 3, line 4 of claim 4, line 2 of claim 6, line 3 of claim 7, line 3 of claim 8, line 4 of claim 11, line 2 of claim 15, line 2 of claim 16, line 1 of claim 18, and line 2 of claim 19. How does the “blocking element” lines 11-12 and 16 of claim 1, line 3 of claim 3, line 4 of claim 4, line 2 of claim 6, line 3 of claim 7, line 3 of claim 8, line 4 of claim 11, line 2 of claim 15, line 2 of claim 16, line 1 of claim 18, and line 2 of claim 19 relate to the “at least one blocking element” in line 10 of claim 1? Is there another blocking element being claimed that differs from the “at least one blocking element”? Suggestion to change “blocking element” to read ---at least one blocking element---. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, the phrase “designed” in line 2 of claim 2 and line 3 of claim 16 renders the claim indefinite because the phrase is unclear as to whether or not the action after the phrase actually occurs. Applicant may want to consider using ---configured--- instead.
Claims 8-9 recites the limitation "the yoke return element" in line 2 of claim 8 and line 2 of claim 9. How does the “yoke return element” in line 2 of claim 8 and line 2 of claim 9 relate to the “at least one yoke return element” in lines 2-3 of claim 5? Is there another yoke return element being claimed that differs from the “at least one yoke return element”? Suggestion to change “yoke return element” to read ---at least one yoke return element---. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the yoke actuator" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the bolt actuator" in line 2 of claim 10. How does the “bolt actuator” in line 2 of claim 10 relate to the “at least one bolt actuator” in line 7 of claim 1? Is there another bolt actuator being claimed that differs from the “at least one bolt actuator”? Suggestion to change “bolt actuator” to read ---at least one bolt actuator---. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, “of the latter” in line 6 of claim 11 and “by the latter” in line 3 of claim 19 renders the claim indefinite because the claim is unclear as what claimed structure “of the latter” or “by the latter” refers to in the claim.
Claim 11, recites “wherein at least one blocking element” in line 3 – however claim 1, line 10 already set forth an “at least one blocking element” – therefore it is unclear if the second recitation is meant to refer to the first recitation or introduce an additional blocking element. For purposes of examination, the second recitation is being interpreted as “the at least one blocking element”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the spring receptacle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the yoke return element" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-19 are rejected because they are dependents of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 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:
Claim 1 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the entire combination of elements set forth including for disclosing wherein the blocking element is arranged between the bolt return elements as seen in the direction of displacement of the yoke.
Aros (DE202016003618U1) is the closest prior art and further teaches a locking device (1; Figures 1-3b) for the telescopic cylinder of a telescopic boom comprising a plurality of telescopic stages, comprising: - a housing (10), - at least one bolt (3) displaceably mounted in the housing (10) for locking the telescopic cylinder with a telescopic stage (Abstract), wherein the bolt (3) is preloaded into a locking position via at least one bolt return element (14) and can be displaced into an unlocking position via at least one bolt actuator (4), - a yoke (7) displaceably mounted in the housing (10), which can be moved into an unlocking position to release a locking bolt of the telescopic boom (Abstract), - at least one blocking element (8) which blocks a movement of the bolt (3) into its unlocking position when the yoke (7) is in the unlocking position, wherein the blocking element (8) and the bolt (3) are at least partially displaceable into a common insertion space (11) of the housing (10), but fails to teach wherein the bolt is preloaded into the locking position via at least two bolt return elements, wherein the blocking element is arranged between the bolt return elements as seen in the direction of displacement of the yoke. Shan (CN105923555A) teaches a similar locking device and further teaches wherein the bolt (5; Figures 3-4) is preloaded into the locking position via at least two bolt return elements (8, upper and bottom springs), but fails to teach wherein the blocking element is arranged between the bolt return elements as seen in the direction of displacement of the yoke.
Claims 2-19 would be allowable because they are dependents of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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 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.
/HENRIX SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights