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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(lines 7-8) “at least one second bracing element” should be changed to “at least one second actuating element”.
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 soil removal device” in claim 1, “a holding device for holding the diaphragm wall device” in claim 1, “at least two opposite bracing elements…for bracing” in claim 1, “at least one actuating element” in claim 1, and “a pressing-on 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. Therefore, the limitation “at least one soil removal device” is being interpreted as either at least one cutting wheel or grabber blades, the limitation “a holding device for holding the diaphragm wall device” is being interpreted as a shaft, the limitation “at least two opposite bracing elements…for bracing” is being interpreted as plates, the limitation “at least one actuating element” is being interpreted as a cylinder, and the limitation “a pressing-on device” is being interpreted as a cylinder.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "its upper region" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear, based on the claim language, whether the holding device is on an upper region of the base frame or the diaphragm wall device. It appears that the limitation should be changed to “an upper region of the diaphragm wall device”. Clarification is needed.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "actuating elements" in line 4. It is unclear, based on the claim language, whether applicant is referring to the at least one actuating element in claim 1, or the at least two actuating elements in claim 3. Clarification is needed.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the at least one receptacle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear, based on the claim language, whether applicant is referring to the two receptacles in claim 5. Clarification is needed.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the first actuating elements" in line 4 and “the second actuating elements” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear, based on the claim language, whether applicant is referring to the at least one actuating element in claim 1, or the at least one first actuating element and the at least one second actuating element in claim 5. Clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 recites the limitation "each pressing-on cylinder" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that the limitation should be changed to either “the pressing-on cylinder” or “each of the pressing-on cylinders”. Clarification is needed.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "pressing-on cylinders" in line 5. It is unclear, based on the claim language, whether applicant is referring to the multiple pressing-on cylinders in claim 8, or introducing additional pressing-on cylinders. It appears that the limitation should be changed to “the pressing-on cylinders”. Clarification is needed.
Claims 2-4 and 11-13 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 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 does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious a diaphragm wall device for creating a trench in the ground, comprising a base frame which extends in a longitudinal direction, at least one soil removal device, which is arranged on a lower end region of the base frame, a holding device for holding the diaphragm wall device on an upper region of the diaphragm wall device, a bracing device with at least two opposite bracing elements displaceable laterally, transversely to the longitudinal direction and with at least one actuating element, by means of which the bracing elements can be extended laterally in the trench for bracing at least a part of the diaphragm wall device, an intermediate frame, on which the bracing device with the at least two bracing elements and the at least one actuating element is arranged, and a pressing-on device, by means of which the at least one soil removal device can be applied with a pressure force, wherein the pressing-on device is arranged between the intermediate frame and the base frame, so that the base frame is displaceable relative to the intermediate frame by means of the pressing-on device, wherein the holding device is fixedly connected with the intermediate frame, and wherein the base frame with the soil removal device is displaceable with respect to the holding device, wherein the intermediate frame is displaceably mounted in a lower region of the base frame along the base frame and the holding device is fixedly connected to the intermediate frame via one or multiple longitudinal beams, which extend along the base frame.
Tavernier et al. (EP 0811724) and Cascarino et al. (US 10,480,147) each show a diaphragm wall device for creating a trench in the ground, comprising a base frame which extends in a longitudinal direction, at least one soil removal device, which is arranged on a lower end region of the base frame, a holding device for holding the diaphragm wall device on an upper region of the diaphragm wall device, a bracing device with at least two opposite bracing elements displaceable laterally, transversely to the longitudinal direction and with at least one actuating element, by means of which the bracing elements can be extended laterally in the trench for bracing at least a part of the diaphragm wall device, an intermediate frame, on which the bracing device with the at least two bracing elements and the at least one actuating element is arranged, and a pressing-on device, by means of which the at least one soil removal device can be applied with a pressure force, wherein the pressing-on device is arranged between the intermediate frame and the base frame, so that the base frame is displaceable relative to the intermediate frame by means of the pressing-on device, wherein the holding device is fixedly connected with the intermediate frame, and wherein the base frame with the soil removal device is displaceable with respect to the holding device. However, Tavernier and Cascarino do not show wherein the intermediate frame is displaceably mounted in a lower region of the base frame along the base frame and the holding device is fixedly connected to the intermediate frame via one or multiple longitudinal beams, which extend along the base frame.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rodriguez et al. (US 12,252,863) and Cascarino et al. (US 10,697,147) each show an anchoring device for a drilling machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights