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 10 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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:
“limiting member” recited in claim 1
“first connecting member” recited in claim 1
“second connecting member” recited in claim 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.
The limitation “limiting member” has invoked interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“member”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“limiting” or ‘for limiting’ and “configured to rotate in unison with the first connecting member ... so as to drive each of the plate members to move towards or away from a neighboring plate member by means of translational movement”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “first connecting member” has invoked interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“member”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“connecting” or ‘for connecting’ and “a motion-transmission manner” or ‘for transmitting motion’).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “second connecting member” has invoked interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“member”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“connecting” or ‘for connecting’).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing 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 – 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 recites the limitation “two adjacent plate members” in the last paragraph of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to ‘two adjacent plate members’ of the ‘plurality of plate members’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to set forth ‘two adjacent plate members’ which are separate and independent from the ‘plurality of plate members’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “two adjacent plate members of the plurality of plate members.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the first actuating end drives the first connecting member ...” in the last paragraph of the claim. Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards a ‘clamping mechanism.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘the first actuating end driving the first connecting member,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of operating a clamping mechanism,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth a function of the ‘first actuating end,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘clamping mechanism’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the first actuating end is configured to drive the first connecting member ...”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “a neighboring plate member” in the last paragraph of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one of the ‘plurality of plate members’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘plate member’ which is separate and independent from the ‘plurality of plate members’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a neighboring plate member of the plurality of plate members.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “each plate member.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to each of the ‘plurality of plate members’ previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends to refer to ‘plate members’ other than the ‘plurality of plate members’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “each of the plurality of plate members.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a neighboring plate member.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘neighboring plate member’ previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second ‘neighboring plate member’ which is separate and independent from the ‘neighboring plate member’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to the ‘neighboring plate member’ previously set forth.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a plurality of first connecting members.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘first connecting member’ previously set forth in claim 1, such that the limitation sets forth a plurality of the ‘first connecting members’ of claim 1, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a plurality of ‘first connecting members’ which are separate and independent from the ‘first connecting member’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a plurality of the first connecting members.”
Claim 5 further recites the limitation “the remaining first connecting members.” The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Secondly, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘first connecting members’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second set of ‘first connecting members’ which are separate and independent from the ‘first connecting members’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “remaining first connecting members of the plurality of first connecting members.”
Claim 5 further recites the limitation “a rotation portion.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘rotation portion’ previously set forth in claim 4, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth a second ‘rotation portion’ which is separate and independent from the ‘rotation portion’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to the ‘rotation portion’ previously set forth.
Claim 5 further recites the limitation “remaining first connecting members [of the first connecting members have the] rotation portion ... and constitutes the limiting member.” The limitation is indefinite because it seems to require that the ‘limiting member’ is the ‘rotation portion’ of the ‘remaining first connecting members.’ However, claim 1 previously makes clear that the ‘limiting member’ is a separate and independent element from the ‘first connecting member.’ This can be found because claim 1 initially sets forth a ‘first connecting member’ (second paragraph of the body of claim 1) and separately sets forth the ‘limiting member’ without reference to the ‘first connecting member’ (last paragraph of the claim 1). Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the ‘limiting member’ to be part of the ‘rotation portion of the first connecting member,’ as required by the limitation, or whether Applicant intends the ‘limiting member’ to be separate and independent from the ‘first connecting member,’ as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the other end of the first connecting shaft.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 further recites the limitation “the other end of the second connecting shaft.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “two second actuating ends.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth two of the ‘second actuating ends’ previously set forth in claim 6, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a set of ‘second actuating ends’ which are separate and independent from the ‘second actuating end’ previously set forth in claim 6. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “two of the second actuating ends.”
As explained above, the claim limitations “limiting member,” “first connecting member,” and “second connecting member” each invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Regarding the limitation “limiting member,” while the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation and the claimed function of the limitation (paragraphs 37 and 40), the Specification does not teach sufficient structure of the limitation required to perform the claimed function. Examiner recognizes that the Specification teaches an embodiment in which the ‘limiting member’ is a ‘rotation portion’ of the ‘first connecting member’ (paragraph 52). However, it is the position of the Examiner that the ‘rotation portion’ cannot reasonably be considered to be the ‘limiting member’ of claim 1. This is because claim 1 clearly sets forth the ‘limiting member’ as being separate and independent from the ‘first connecting member,’ while paragraph 52 clearly recites that the ‘rotation portion’ is part of the ‘first connecting member.’ Therefore, the ‘limiting member’ of claim 1 cannot be the ‘rotation portion’ of the ‘first connecting member,’ as taught by paragraph 52. Furthermore, it is also the position of the Examiner that “rotation portion” invokes insufficient structure to perform the claimed functions of the limitation. Regarding the limitation “first connecting member,” while the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation and the claimed function of the limitation (paragraphs 37 – 54), the Specification does not teach sufficient structure of the limitation require to perform the claimed function. Regarding the limitation “second connecting member,” while the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation and the claimed function of the limitation (paragraphs 41 - 42), the Specification does not teach sufficient structure of the limitation require to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As explained above, the limitations “limiting member” and “first connecting member” each invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As further explained above, the Specification does not teach sufficient structure for the limitations to perform their claimed functions. Therefore, the limitations are not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tosaki (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0359580).
As to claim 1, Tosaki teaches a clamping mechanism (abstract), comprising: a first drive assembly, comprising a first frame and a first drive motor (figure 3, element 41 being the ‘first frame’ and element 34 being the ‘first drive motor’; paragraphs 49 and 51), the first drive motor being provided with a first fixed end and a first actuating end (figure 3, portion of element 34 connected to element 41 being the ‘first fixed end’ and portion of element 34 connected to element 31 being the ‘first actuating end’ paragraphs 50 and 51), the first fixed end being mounted on the first frame (figure 3, elements 34 and 41), and the first actuating end being rotatably in a horizontal plane (figure 3, element 34; paragraph 51, teaching that an end of the ‘first drive motor’ rotates so as to rotate element 31); a clamping assembly , comprising a first connecting member and a plurality of plate members (figure 3, element 31 being the ‘first connecting member’ and elements 37 and 38 being the ‘plurality of plate members’; paragraphs 49 – 50), the first connecting member being connected to the first actuating end in a motion-transmission manner (figure 3, elements 31 and 34; paragraph 51), the plurality of plate members being all connected to the first connecting member (figure 3, elements 37, 38, and 31), each of the plate members being mounted underneath the first connecting member along a height direction (figure 3, elements 37, 38, and 31), and the plurality of plate members being spaced apart from one another (figure 3, elements 37 and 38); wherein a limiting member is also provided between every two adjacent plate members of the plurality of plate members (figure 3, elements 32 and 33 being the ‘limiting members’; paragraph 49), the limiting member is spaced apparat from the first connecting member and is configured to rotate in unison with the first connecting member (figure 3, elements 32, 33, and 31; paragraph 49), and under the action of the first drive motor, the first actuating end is configured to drive the first connecting member to rotate, so as to drive each of the plate members to move towards or away from a neighboring plate member of the plurality of plate members by means of translational movement (figure 2, elements 34, 31, 37, and 38; paragraphs 49 – 52).
As to claim 2, Tosaki further teaches that the clamping assembly further comprises a second connecting member and a fastener, wherein the second connecting member passes through the first connecting member and is rotatably connected to the first connecting member (figure 1, element 39a being the ‘second connecting member,’ see below; paragraph 51); and each of the plurality of plate members are connected to the second connecting member by means of the fastener (figure 3, elements 37 and 38, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
435
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 10, the discussion of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights