DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing dated 10/2/2024. Claims 1-13 are pending.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/2/2024 is acknowledged and has been received by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/2/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
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: “holding mechanism” in claim 1, line 4; claim 11, line 1; and claim 13, line 4 and “the hooking mechanism” in claim 10, line 2.
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 1 recites the limitation “a holding mechanism” in line 4; claim 11 recites the limitation “a holding mechanism” in line 1; and claim 13 recites the limitation “a holding mechanism” in line 4. The recitation of “a holding mechanism” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. A review of the originally filed disclosure dated 10/2/2024 indicates that the recitation of “a holding mechanism” includes “a hook, clasp, gripping jaws, or other engagement means designed to interact with the hooking bracket of the container” (see paragraph [0031]).
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the hooking mechanism” in line 2. The recitation of “the hooking mechanism” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. A review of the originally filed disclosure dated 10/2/2024 indicates that the recitation of “the hooking mechanism” includes “a hooking bracket” (see paragraph [0035]).
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 5, 6, and 10-12 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 5 recites the limitation “the chain retaining hook” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that this limitation should be “a chain retaining hook” to provide appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the chain guide” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that this limitation should be “a chain guide” to provide appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the hooking mechanism” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should this limitation be “the hooking bracket” or “a hooking mechanism”? It appears that this limitation should be either “the hooking bracket” or “a hooking mechanism” in order to provide appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a holding mechanism” in line 1. Claim 11 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a holding mechanism” in line 4. Does the recitation of “a holding mechanism” in claim 11 refer to the same structural element as the recitation of “a holding mechanism” in claim 1? Does the recitation of “a holding mechanism” in claim 11 refer to a different structural element than the recitation of “a holding mechanism” in claim 1? It appears that the recitation of “a holding mechanism” in claim 11 refers to the same structural element as the recitation of “a holding mechanism” in claim 1. Therefore, it appears that the recitation of “a holding mechanism” in claim 11 should be “the holding mechanism”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the hooking bracket” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that this limitation should be “a hooking bracket” to provide appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the hook” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that this limitation should be “a hook” to provide appropriate antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Babbitt, III (US 6494065).
Regarding claim 1, the Babbitt, III reference discloses a system for controlling an industrial valve (chain wheel 12 operates a valve; see col. 2, lines 4-6) actuated by a chain loop (14), the system comprising:
a container (20) configured to retain the chain loop (it is considered that the container 20 holds the chain loop 14 within the boundary of the container to prevent the chain loop 14 from widening), the container having an opening (it is considered that the end of the container 20 at the end 24 includes an opening through which the chain loop 14 is received; see figure 1) and a peripheral funneling lip (it is considered that the rim around the opening of the container 20 at the end 24 provides a lip that would perform the function of funneling the chain loop 14 into the container 20) around the opening; and
a holding mechanism (it is considered that the securing portions 42 of the hasp 40 constitutes a holding mechanism in as much as the securing portions 42 provide “engagement means designed to interact with the hooking bracket 30 of the container 20”) configured to removably secure the container (it is considered that the securing portions 42 of the hasp 40 are able to be removed and are able to secure the chain loop 14 to the container 20).
In regards to claim 2, the Babbitt, III reference discloses wherein the container further comprises locking holes (34) configured to receive a lock (it is considered that the hasp 40 and the lock 50 are secured to the locking holes).
In regards to claim 3, the Babbitt, III reference discloses wherein the container further comprises a hooking bracket (30) configured to releasably engage a hook (it is considered that the hook / securing portions 42 constitute a hook of the holding mechanism).
In regards to claim 5, the Babbitt, III reference discloses wherein [a] chain retaining track (it is considered that the track surrounding the chain wheel 12 constitutes a chain retaining track) is curved (see figure 1 for the chain wheel 12 being curved around the periphery).
In regards to claim 6, the Babbitt, III reference discloses wherein the hook (it is considered that the hook / securing portions 42 constitute a hook of the holding mechanism) engaged by the hooking bracket (30) is located on [a] chain guide (it is considered that the inner wall of the container 20 constitutes a chain guide).
Regarding claim 7, the Babbitt, III reference discloses a container (20) for retaining a chain loop (14) used to actuate an industrial valve (chain wheel 12 operates a valve; see col. 2, lines 4-6), the container comprising:
an opening (it is considered that the end of the container 20 at the end 24 includes an opening through which the chain loop 14 is received; see figure 1);
a peripheral funneling lip (it is considered that the rim around the opening of the container 20 at the end 24 provides a lip that would perform the function of funneling the chain loop 14 into the container 20) around the opening;
an interior chain retaining track (it is considered that the inner wall of the container 20 constitutes a chain retaining track that provides the structure to provide a passage for the chain loop to transverse within the container 20); and
a hooking bracket (30).
In regards to claim 8, the Babbitt, III reference discloses locking holes (34) configured to receive a lock (it is considered that the hasp 40 and the lock 50 are secured to the locking holes).
In regards to claim 10, the Babbitt, III reference discloses a cover plate (it is considered that the sidewall of the container 20 constitutes a cover plate in as much as the cover plate would cover the passage / chain retaining track through which the chain loop 14 extends) covering the chain retaining track, [a] hooking mechanism (it is considered that the hooking bracket 30 constitutes a hooking mechanism) fixedly attached to the cover plate (the hooking bracket 30 is secured to the cover plate / sidewall of the container 20 by the fastener 32).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babbitt, III (US 6494065) in view of Beaudoin et al. (US 7000292).
In regards to claim 4, the Babbitt, III reference does not disclose wherein the container has a generally triangular prism shape.
However, the Beaudoin et al. reference teaches a container (chain keeper 1) for supporting and retaining a chain (3) wherein the container (1) includes a pair of plates (7) that are slanted relative to the longitudinal axis of the container (see col. 4, lines 39-46) such that the container (1) has a generally triangular prism shape (see figure 1) wherein the container is shaped and sized to slidably and removably receive therein a segment of the chain (see at least col. 4, lines 46-59).
The substitution of one known element (the container being shaped to have a generally triangular prism shape as shown in Beaudoin et al.) for another (the shape of the container as shown in Babbitt, III) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the shape of the container having a generally triangular prism shape shown in Beaudoin et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a shape for the container which narrows from the top in order to support the chain in a slidable and removable manner of the Babbitt, III.
In regards to claim 9, the Babbitt, III reference does not disclose wherein the container has a generally triangular prism shape.
However, the Beaudoin et al. reference teaches a container (chain keeper 1) for supporting and retaining a chain (3) wherein the container (1) includes a pair of plates (7) that are slanted relative to the longitudinal axis of the container (see col. 4, lines 39-46) such that the container (1) has a generally triangular prism shape (see figure 1) wherein the container is shaped and sized to slidably and removably receive therein a segment of the chain (see at least col. 4, lines 46-59).
The substitution of one known element (the container being shaped to have a generally triangular prism shape as shown in Beaudoin et al.) for another (the shape of the container as shown in Babbitt, III) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the shape of the container having a generally triangular prism shape shown in Beaudoin et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a shape for the container which narrows from the top in order to support the chain in a slidable and removable manner of the Babbitt, III.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is allowed.
Claims 11 and 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “a pole having a holding mechanism at its distal end” with “the holding mechanism configured to engage with the container for maneuvering the container between a stored position and an operational position” and in combination with the other limitations of claim 1.
Claim 12 depends from claim 11, and, therefore, claim 12 is allowable for containing the indicated allowable subject matter of claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest:
“a method” comprising:
“using a pole with a holding mechanism to remove the container from a hook, allowing the chain loop to extend from the container”;
“using the pole to maneuver the container back to the hook, with the funneling lip guiding the chain loop back into the container”; and
in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sutton et al. (US 9422751), Semke (US 7523920), Christensen (US 4883191), Adamson, Jr. (US 4114855), Robins et al. (US 2859937), Smith (US 2286388), Knutson (US 1239110), and Hopkins (US 1450176) disclose various lockout devices for storing a chain.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/MICHAEL R REID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753