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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “holding unit” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to mean any device capable of grabbing or securing an external object.
Regarding claim 1, the term “movement unit” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to mean be any device capable of affecting the location of a handling head.
Regarding claim 5, the term “locking part” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to mean be any device capable of preventing movement or rotation.
Regarding claim 13, the term “sensor device” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to mean be a device capable of detecting relative position.
Regarding claim 14, the term “trigger element” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to mean be a device that interacts with the sensor device to relay a position.
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.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/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 "rear side of the formwork panel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "outside to a longitudinal frame part" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "outside to a cross frame part" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "main plane" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "handling head" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9-16, 18-21 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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(s) 1-2, 5-9, 12, 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Morton (US Pub. 2021/0292144 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Morton discloses a handling device for handling a frame formwork element with a formwork panel and a circumferential support frame at the rear side of the formwork pane (See Fig. 7B), comprising:
a handling head (Fig. 1, wrist assembly 152) with a holding unit (Fig. 1, hand assembly 154) for holding the frame formwork element, a movement unit for moving the handling head (Fig. 1, first arm 124, second arm 128), wherein the holding unit of the handling head is furthermore configured to hold the frame formwork element both in a lying position and in an upright position (Fig. 2 demonstrates the various planes 202, 204, 206 in which the device is configured to orient the panel).
Regarding claim 2, Morton discloses wherein the holding unit of the handling head is configured to grip the circumferential support frame at the rear side of the formwork panel (Fig. 7B, the hand assembly grips the panel on opposing edges of the panel).
Regarding claim 5, Morton discloses wherein the holding unit comprises a locking part, for locking with a longitudinal or cross frame parts of the circumferential support frames of the frame formwork element (Pg. 3, [0033]: “Referring again to FIG. 3, the backing plate 362 is fitted with an optional rotation regulation mechanism 366 to prevent, slow, or otherwise regulate rotational movement between the backing plate 362 and the pivot plate 364. In the illustrated embodiment, the rotation regulation mechanism 366 includes a removable pin that extends through the backing plate 362 and the pivot plate 364 in order to lock rotational movement. In some embodiments, the rotation regulation mechanism 366 includes a screw- or cam-actuated friction mechanism to slow and/or prevent rotational movement”).
Regarding claim 6, Morton discloses wherein the locking part is designed to engage behind an inwardly directed projection of the longitudinal or cross frame parts of the circumferential support frame (See id. The locking part is received in a recess in the handling unit).
Regarding claim 7, Morton discloses wherein a locking drive is provided for moving the locking part (Pg. 3, [0033], lines 8-11: “In some embodiments, the rotation regulation mechanism 366 includes a screw or cam-actuated friction mechanism to slow and/or prevent rotational movement”).
Regarding claim 8, Morton discloses wherein the movement unit comprises a swivel joint for rotating the handling head about an axis extending substantially perpendicular to the main plane of the formwork panel (Fig. 3, second pivot point 330).
Regarding claim 9, Morton discloses wherein the movement unit comprises a handling arm for lifting the handling head and/or pivoting the handling head about at least one horizontal pivot axis (Fig. 1, second arm 128).
Regarding claim 12, Morton discloses wherein the movement unit is arranged on a vehicle (Pg. 1, [0002]: “The present disclosure provides panel manipulation vehicles and panel manipulation assemblies configured to facilitate to safe and precise movement and placement of material panels, such as panel products including but not limited to wood-bamboo hybrid panels, wood panels, structural insulated panels, and the like. The present disclosure further provides methods of using the same”).
Regarding claim 17, Morton discloses a frame formwork element, in particular a ceiling formwork element, which is detachably connected to the handling head of the handling device (Pg. 1, [0016], lines 1-5: “FIG. 1 shows one representative and non-limiting panel manipulation vehicle 100 that greatly facilitates the movement and placement of material panels, e.g., bamboo wood hybrid panels, other wood panels, structural insulated panels, and the like”).
Regarding claim 18, Morton discloses a formwork supports with a column head for connection to the frame formwork element configured as a ceiling formwork element (Fig. 3, panel securement structure 356).
Regarding claim 19, Morton discloses a method of handling a frame formwork element, comprising the steps of:
providing a handling device according to claim 1 (See citations for claim 1);
provisioning the frame formwork element in a waiting position detached from the handling device (Fig. 1, the formwork panel is not yet attached to the device);
connecting the handling head of the handling device to the frame formwork element in the waiting positio--n (See Figs. 8A, 8B);
and lifting the frame formwork element from the waiting position using the handling device (See Figs. 7A, 7B).
Regarding claim 20, Morton discloses wherein the frame formwork element is aligned substantially vertically in the waiting position (See Fig. 9A, 9B).
Regarding claim 21, Morton discloses wherein the frame formwork element is moved with the handling device from the waiting position to a substantially horizontal position of use (See Fig. 7A, 7B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton (US Pub. 2021/0292144 A1) in view of Hovenier (US Pub. 2013/0269284 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Morton discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Hovenier, similarly drawn to a wall lifting device, wherein the holding unit comprises at least one first guide bar for connection on the outside to a longitudinal frame part of the circumferential support frame of the frame formwork element (Fig. 10, a plurality of vertical bars are shown) and/or at least one second guide bar for connection on the outside to a cross frame part of the circumferential support frame of the frame formwork element (Fig. 10, a plurality of horizontal bars are shown).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handling device of Morton to include the guide bars of Hovenier to better encapsulate the formwork.
Regarding claim 4, Morton in view of Hovenier discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Hovenier, wherein the holding unit comprises two first guide bars for connection on the outside to the longitudinal frame parts of the circumferential support frame of the frame formwork element and/or two second guide bars for connection on the outside to the cross frame parts of the circumferential support frame of the frame formwork element (See id).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton (US Pub. 2021/0292144 A1) in view of Harrelson (US Pub. 2005/0062655 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Morton discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Harrelson, similarly drawn to a panel lifting and positioning device, wherein the handling head comprises a bearing frame, wherein the holding frame is movable in at least one direction (Fig. 10, support rods 92, 94 are received into receiver tubes 96, 98. Pg. 2, [0031]: “The views of FIGS. 10 and 12 provide further details with regard to left support arm and right support arm, generally indicated as 88 and 90, respectively. The support arms 88 and 90 are removably and adjustably attachable to material-engaging head 68 as by inserting their respective support rods, 92 and 94, into corresponding receiver tubes 96 and 98. Support rods 92 and 94 are held in position by respective pins 100 and 102, and the distance that the rods 92 and 94 extend outwardly from material-engaging head 68 is adjustable, independently. In fixed and substantially transverse relation to the distal end of each of the support rods 92 and 94 are corresponding padded arms 104 and 106. Use of support arms 88 and 90, though not required, will increase the stability of a sheet of material being lifted and positioned by device 20”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handling device of Morton to include the bearing frame and handling frame of Harrelson to allow for adjustment of the width of the holding member to account for varying widths of formworks.
Claim(s) 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton (US Pub. 2021/0292144 A1) in view of Pietila (US Pub. 2021/0180345 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Morton discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Pietila, similarly drawn to a machine for manipulating a formwork, wherein the handling head comprises a sensor device for detecting an intended position of use of the frame formwork element (Pg. 7, [0073]: “During operation of the machine, the controls may limit the propel speed of the wheeled support if the scissor lift mechanism is raised, such as, for example, in response to a sensor at the lift mechanism. The controls may also limit the propel speed of the wheeled support if the machine is on an angled drive or support surface, for example such as in response to a level sensor at the wheeled support. The controls may also limit the raising speed of the lift mechanism as it gets close to the ceiling and approaches its working height, for example such as in response to a distance-sensing sensor (such as an ultrasonic sensor or the like) at an upper part of the lift mechanism or other sensor that determines when the lift mechanism is nearing the appropriate working height. The controls may also disable the raise function of the lift mechanism if the machine is at an angled support surface, for example such as in response to a level sensor at the wheeled support”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handling device of Morton to include the sensor of Pietila as an improved safety measure.
Regarding claim 15, Morton in view of Pietila discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the sensor device is provided at a corner region of the handling head. However, where the only difference between the prior art and claimed invention is a mere rearrangement of parts, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the prior art unless a new and unexpected result is produced. The sensor of Pietila can be relocated to a corner region of the handling head so as to be placed at the furthest vertical and horizontal location of the head for spatial navigation purposes. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 14, 16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights