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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-12 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 09/12/2024 and 01/28/2025 has/have been taken into account.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a rotatably mounted deflection pulley is arranged in the region of the free end of the first spreading arm”. This should read “a rotatably mounted deflection pulley is arranged in a region of the free end of the first spreading arm” (emphasis added).
Claim 3 recites “in the region of the second hinge point, a traction means, in particular a traction cable or telescopic tube, is fastened, with which the region of the second hinge point can be subjected to a tensile force acting in the direction of the first hinge point, wherein the distance between the second hinge point and the first hinge point is reduced by subjecting the region of the second hinge point to the tensile force”. This should read ““in a region of the second hinge point, a traction means, in particular a traction cable or telescopic tube, is fastened, with which the region of the second hinge point can be subjected to a tensile force acting in the direction of the first hinge point, wherein a distance between the second hinge point and the first hinge point is reduced by subjecting the region of the second hinge point to the tensile force” (emphasis added).
Claim 4 recites “with which actuating means the distance between the first hinge point and the second hinge point can be changed”. This should read “with which actuating means a distance between the first hinge point and the second hinge point can be changed” (emphasis added).
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a traction means” in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the first spreading lever is connected with its free end in an articulated manner to the first spreading arm at a first pivot point…the second spreading lever is connected with its free end in an articulated manner to the second spreading arm at a second pivot point” (emphasis added). – It is unclear how an end of each spreading lever can be connected to the spreading arm but also be free.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first angle" in line(s) 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first angle" in line(s) 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the outer sides" in line(s) 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 contains a limitation directed towards the molded body, but as the preamble of claim 1 indicates that the invention being claimed is the device and not the device and body, it is unclear if the body is being positively claimed. For purposes of examination, it has been interpreted as not being positively claimed.
Claims 3-5 and 8-11 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patterson, Jr. (US 4,801,127).
In regards to Claim 1, Patterson discloses a deflection device for deflecting an elongated, flexible molded body from a manhole into a sewer branching off therefrom, wherein the deflection device comprises - a first spreading arm (Patterson: Fig. 1; 12) and a second spreading arm (Patterson: Fig. 1; 28), the two spreading arms being connected to one another in an articulated manner at a first hinge point (Patterson: Fig. 1; 32), and - a first spreading lever (Patterson: Annotated Fig. 2; L1) and a second spreading lever (Patterson: Annotated Fig. 2; L2), the two spreading levers being connected to one another in an articulated manner at a second hinge point (Patterson: Annotated Fig. 2; H2), wherein - the first spreading lever is connected with its free end in an articulated manner to the first spreading arm at a first pivot point (Patterson: Annotated Fig. 2; P1), the first pivot point being arranged on the first spreading arm between the first hinge point and the free end of the first spreading arm,- the second spreading lever is connected with its free end in an articulated manner to the second spreading arm at a second pivot point (Patterson: Annotated Fig. 2; P2), the second pivot point being arranged on the second spreading arm between the first hinge point and the free end of the second spreading arm, and a rotatably mounted deflection pulley (Patterson: Fig. 1; 36) is arranged in the region of the free end of the first spreading arm.
In regards to Claim 2, Patterson discloses the deflection device according to claim 1, wherein the position of the first pivot point (Patterson: Annotated Fig. 2; P1) on the first spreading arm (Patterson: Fig. 1; 12), the position of the second pivot point (Patterson: Annotated Fig. 2; P2) on the second spreading arm (Patterson: Fig. 1; 28), the length of the first spreading lever (Patterson: Annotated Fig. 2; L1) and the length of the second spreading lever (Patterson: Annotated Fig. 2; L2) are coordinated with one another such that an increase in the first angle formed by the two spreading levers causes an increase in the second angle formed by the two spreading arms (Patterson: Fig. 4 to Fig. 1; shows claimed angular relationship).
In regards to Claim 9, Patterson discloses the deflection device according to claim 1, wherein a hook (Patterson: Fig. 1; 71) is arranged on the free end of at least one spreading arm (Patterson: Fig. 1; 12), which hook preferably projects at a right angle from the spreading arm.
In regards to Claim 10, Patterson discloses the deflection device according to claim 1, wherein at least one spreading arm (Patterson: Fig. 1; 12) comprises two segments spaced apart from one another and coupled to one another, wherein the deflection pulley (Patterson: Fig. 1; 36) is arranged between the two segments.
In regards to Claim 11, Patterson discloses the deflection device deflection device according to claim 1, wherein a guiding means (Patterson: Fig. 1; 42) is provided radially outside the deflection pulley and at a certain distance from the deflection pulley, wherein the elongated, flexible molded body can be guided between the guiding means and the deflection pulley.
In regards to Claim 12, Patterson discloses the deflection device according to claim 1, wherein the molded body is a hose or a cable (intended use).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson, Jr. (US 4,801,127) in view of Lo (US 2016/0319600).
In regards to Claim 6, Patterson discloses the deflection device according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein stopping means are arranged on at least one of the spreading arms (10a;-10b)-and/or on at least one of the spreading levers and prevent an increase in the first angle, formed by the two spreading levers, beyond the dead center of the spreading levers.
However, Lo teaches stopping means (Lo: Fig. 3; 422, 442) that are arranged on at least one of the spreading arms and/or on at least one of the spreading levers and prevent an increase in the first angle, formed by the two spreading levers, beyond the dead center of the spreading levers.
Patterson and Swiderski are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. collapsing/expanding supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the levers in Patterson with the stopping means from Lo, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means on the spreading levers that prevents separation of the levers due to an external force, thereby increasing the structural strength of the levers (Lo: [0021]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson, Jr. (US 4,801,127) in view of Swiderski et al. (US 5,279,387).
In regards to Claim 7, Patterson discloses the deflection device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose the two spreading arms have a corrugated surface on the outer sides in the region of their end portions.
However, Swiderski teaches two spreading arms (Swiderski: Fig. 3; 3) that have a corrugated surface (Swiderski: Fig. 3; 43) on the outer sides in the region of their end portions.
Patterson and Swiderski are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. collapsing/expanding supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end portions in Patterson with the corrugated surface from Swiderski, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide end portions of the arms that have a surface which enhances and stabilizes the arms when they contact an external surface, thereby ensuring they have a desirable type of surface contact (Swiderski: Col. 7, Ln. 16-23; Patterson: Col. 5, Ln. 11-15).
In regards to Claim 8, Patterson, as modified, teaches the deflection device according to claim 7, wherein the corrugated surface (Swiderski: Fig. 3; 43) is formed by transverse grooves or a sawtooth profile.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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.
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
415
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Patterson; Fig. 2 (Detail)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM EST.
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 (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631