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 limitation(s) is/are: “stiffening structures” in claim 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 1-10 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 line 3 recites “it,” which is unclear. To which element does this recitation have reference? For example, the plant, the engineering works, or the main structure?
Claim 2 lines 3-4 recite “vertical development,” which is vague and ambiguous. Does this mean something moves vertically? That it extends in a vertical direction? Has a vertical thickness?
Claim 2 line 4 recites “constrained to the main structure,” which is vague and ambiguous. Does this infer direct/indirect attachment? Fixation? That the support structure is within a certain distance from the main structure? There are insufficient metes and bounds placed on this recitation.
Claim 3 line 2 recites “in particular,” and line 3 recites “more in particular,” which are both vague and ambiguous recitations. Are the words following these recitations meant to limit the claims, or provide exemplary and unrequired elements?
Claim 4 line 2 recites “stiffened to said main structure,” which is vague and ambiguous. Is the support structure affixed to the main structure? Attached? Supported by? Strengthened by? It is unclear how something can be “stiffened” to something else.
Claim 5 line 2 recites “it,” which is unclear. To which element does this recitation have reference?
Claim 5 line 2 recites “one, or more preferably a pair of” which is vague and ambiguous. Are one or a pair of gantry cranes required?
Claim 8 line 8 recites “the transverse movement,” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8 line 10 recites “longitudinal development,” which is vague and ambiguous. Does this mean something moves longitudinally? That something extends in a longitudinal direction? Has a longitudinal thickness?
Claim 9 line 2 recites “which provides, on site, to position,” which is vague and ambiguous. How does something provide to position something? Is the method meant to provide the ability to position a main structure? Does the engineering works provide a site on which to position the main structure? What does this recitation mean?
Claim 9 line 3 recites “it,” which is unclear. To which element does this recitation have reference?
Claim 9 line 3 recites “it provides to erect/build,” which is vague and ambiguous. How does something provide to erect or build? Does the method include a step of building permanent bearing structures? Does the engineering work provide the capability to build the bearing structures? What is meant by this recitation?
Claim 10 line 1 recites “it,” which is unclear. To which element does this recitation have reference?
Claim 10 lines 1-2 recite “it provides to make,” which is vague and ambiguous. How does something provide to make something? Does the method include a step of making the main structure? Does a component provide the capability to make the main structure? What is meant by this recitation?
Claims 6-7 depend from rejected claims 2 and 1, respectively.
The claims are treated as best understood below.
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 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,511,268 A (hereinafter “Albus”).
Regarding claim 1 Albus discloses [a plant] (50) for the cantilevered construction of engineering works (overpass)[, the plant comprising:]
a main structure (48) configured to rest, during use, on at least part of said engineering work (overpass), wherein [the plant] comprises a derrick crane (50) constrained to, and integrated with, said main structure (48).
Regarding claim 2 Albus discloses the above crane, and further discloses wherein said derrick crane (50) comprises an arm (A; see annotated fig. below) provided with a lower end associated with (in assembly with) the main structure (48) and with an opposite free upper end (see fig.), at least one support structure (72) with vertical development (thickness) constrained to the main structure (48), and swing cables (66) that associate (at least indirectly) said arm (A) with the at least one support structure (72).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3 Albus discloses the above crane, and further discloses wherein said arm (A) is associated with said main structure (48) by connection means (M, see annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image2.png
377
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4 Albus discloses the above crane, and further discloses wherein said at least one support structure (72) is stiffened to said main structure (48) by means of stiffening structures (62) (i.e. rear cables 62 provide rigidity).
Regarding claim 5 Albus discloses the above crane, and further discloses wherein it comprises [at least one gantry crane] (70) associated, so as to be sliding, with said main structure (48).
Regarding claim 6 Albus discloses the above crane, and further discloses wherein said arm (A) and said at least one support structure (72) have a gantry-type geometry so as to provide a gap (right of 72) to allow the passage of said [gantry crane] (70).
Regarding claim 7 Albus discloses the above crane, and further discloses wherein said main structure (48) is configured to be mobile with respect to the engineering work (overpass).
Regarding claim 8 Albus discloses the above crane, and further discloses wherein said main structure (48) comprises two or more rest and slide units (SU, see annotated fig. below) to be associated with at least two permanent bearing structures (B) of said engineering work (overpass),
PNG
media_image3.png
521
881
media_image3.png
Greyscale
each of said two or more rest and slide units (SU) comprising at least upper roller units (68 are wheels) which can be associated with said main structure (48) in correspondence with sliders (portion upon which 68 rolls) and configured for the longitudinal movement of said main structure (48), rotation bases (portion holding wheels 68) configured to vary the angle between said main structure (48) and said engineering work (overpass) under construction (i.e. by longitudinal movement), and under-roller units (UR) configured for [a] transverse movement (capable of moving transversely relative to something else; i.e. this is a functional recitation), which can be associated with (are capable of being associated with; i.e. this is a functional recitation) a rest beam in correspondence with respective sliders (i.e. rest beams are not required by claim 8), wherein said rest beam (with which the roller units are useable) is disposed transversely along the longitudinal development of said main structure (48) and is associated with at least said one permanent bearing structure (B, above) (i.e. Albus is useable with such rest beams).
Regarding claim 9 Albus discloses [a method] for the cantilevered construction of engineering works (overpass) which provides (allows), on site, to position a main structure (48) cantilevered with respect to said engineering work (overpass), wherein it (the method) provides (allows) to erect/build permanent bearing structures (B) by means of a derrick crane (50) constrained to, and integrated with, said main structure (48).
PNG
media_image3.png
521
881
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10 Albus discloses the above method, and further discloses wherein it (the method) provides to make (allows) said main structure (48) [to] slide (via 68) on said permanent bearing structures (B).
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.
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
Prosecution Insights