DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 1 “tilting angle” in line 10.
Further, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the following parts as described in the specification including:
“an upper surface of the drum”; “a bottom surface”; “a pump” in ph 0023; “a guide rail” in ph 0027; “a fluid detection sensor”, “a pair of insertion grooves”, “an outer surface of the head part” in ph 0029; “a housing” in ph 0030; “guide rails or ball bushes” in ph 0036; “a universal joint”, “a horizontal rotation axis”, “a rotation axis, which is different…” in ph 0038; “a driving pulley, driven pulley or a belt” in ph 0039; “a cap attaching/detaching unit” in ph 0046;
there are no corresponding numerals for these elements which makes it extremely difficult to correlate the written description to the drawings, especially considering the density of the figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: Claim 1, “the coupler transport unit transports…” in line 3 interpreted as means for transporting…; Claim 2 “slide member coupled to allow sliding” interpreted as means for sliding…where in ph 0049; Claim 3 “stopper to allow or prevent sliding” interpreted as means for controlling sliding; Claim 4 “configured to adjust a rotation angle of the tilting joint” interpreted as means for adjusting…;
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 1-7 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 “configured to discharge a liquid…” in line 2. It is unclear and/or uncertain (i.e. there appears to be a zone of uncertainty) from a reading of the claim as to what is intended by the term/phrase/idea and how such a term/phrase/idea should be interpreted. In other words, it is unclear what is being further limited, the -coupler supporting module-, -the coupler – or the -coupler transport unit – so as to discharge the liquid. In the interest of compact prosecution, the term/phrase will be given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1`recites “the coupler transport unit transports the coupler supporting module” in line 3, but it is unclear how or in what way the transportation occurs especially considering that there is a lack of disclosure as to the transportation features (i.e. transfer of any transport force/motive force and out this occurs from transport unit to supporting module…) and the interpretation under 112 6th paragraph;
Claim 4 “the tilting joint is installed on the second slide member of the slide frame to be rotatable around a vertical rotation axis” where there is a lack of objective meaningful reference as to how or in what way the features are assembled to accomplish the rotation especially without improper importation from the written description;
Claim 4 “configured to adjust a rotation angle of the tilting joint” where there is a lack of objective meaningful reference as to how or in what way the rotation is accomplished especially without improper importation from the written description;
The Claim limitations below have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because while the claim language has generic nonce style terms connected to functional language, the written description has merely functional language that does not provide for adequate structural support. The boundaries of these claim limitation are ambiguous:
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the coupler transport unit transports…” in line 3 interpreted as means for transporting…; Claim 2 “slide member coupled to allow sliding” interpreted as means for sliding…; Claim 3 “stopper to allow or prevent sliding” interpreted as means for controlling sliding; Claim 4 “configured to adjust a rotation angle of the tilting joint” interpreted as means for adjusting…; where in each case there is a lack of description as to how the means are accomplished;
therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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.
(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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ko (KR 20160021372);
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko and further in view of Seiver (US 6863092.)
Ko discloses in claim 1: A coupler supporting module (120 figure 1) for a drum container (10) that supports a coupler (300) coupled to a coupler transport unit (500/200 where the coupler is transported relative to the drum in the x,y and z directions via slidable movement in the x,y directions via 500/200 relative positioning, and z movement via 510) and configured to discharge a liquid contained inside a drum container (10), wherein the coupler transport unit transports the coupler supporting module (relatively) forward, backward, left, and right and raises or lowers the coupler supporting module vertically, the coupler supporting module comprising: a base frame (at 460) coupled to the coupler transport unit and transported in a vertical direction (via 510) and a horizontal direction (via 520/521 and relatively via 110); a slide frame (the frames of 110/125) installed to allow horizontal sliding with respect to the base frame (as shown); a tilting joint (universal joint 440/433/434) including a tilting support part (445 and 443) connected to the slide frame, and a tilting part (434/431/430/421/411) connected to the tilting support part so as to be supported while allowing a tilting angle (see figure 9) to be adjusted in multiple directions (the joint is universal so provides multiple angular directions…) with respect to the tilting support part; and a coupler holder (part of 411/415) coupled to and formed to support the coupler and coupled to the tilting part of the tilting joint, the coupler being inserted into a discharge port of the drum container and discharging the liquid contained inside the drum container (see pp. 10 ph 3.)
If it could be argued at some future unforeseen date that Ko does not explicitly disclose: the slide frame only installed above the drum; Seiver teaches: the slide frame (17/18/29/30) installed above the drum (1) with both x and y horizontal axis control (via motor 19/31 driven remote control), with a first slide rail (18) along the x axis and a second slide rail (29) along the y axis, provided for the purpose of for example, Cartesian coordinate alignment of the coupler with the drum;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Ko as taught in Seiver with the slide frame being installed above the drum and with both x and y horizontal axis control thereat as taught in Seiver, with a first slide rail along the x axis and a second slide rail along the y axis, provided for the purpose of for example, Cartesian coordinate alignment of the coupler with the drum, and to provide accurate alignment without moving the drum itself as taught in Seiver.
Ko discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 2: The coupler supporting module of claim 1, wherein the slide frame includes a first slide member coupled to allow sliding in a first direction (via 110 in it’s x direction or via 29 of Ko/Seiver), which is a horizontal direction, with respect to the base frame, and a second slide member coupled to allow sliding in a second direction (via 125 in its Y direction or via 18 of Ko/Seiver), which is a horizontal direction and perpendicular to the first direction, with respect to the first slide member (providing x-y planar translation.)
Ko discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 3: The coupler supporting module of claim 2, wherein the slide frame further includes a first stopper (the motor/actuator of 242) that operates to allow or prevent the sliding of the first slide member in the first direction (as discussed pp 4 ph 3), and a second stopper (motor actuator 522) that operates to allow or prevent the sliding of the second slide member in the second direction (as discussed in pp 8 ph 5.)
Ko discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 4: The coupler supporting module of claim 2, wherein the tilting joint is installed on the second slide member (125) of the slide frame to be rotatable around a vertical rotation axis, and the coupler supporting module further comprises a coupler rotation module (436) installed on the second slide member and configured to adjust a rotation angle of the tilting joint with respect to the second slide member (per pp 10 ph 2.)
Ko discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 5: The coupler supporting module of claim 4, wherein the coupler rotation module rotates the tilting joint according to a control signal so that the coupler coupled to the coupler holder is placed at an angle corresponding to the discharge port of the drum container (via controller 800 as discussed in claim 4 above.)
Ko discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 6: The coupler supporting module of claim 1, wherein the tilting support part and the tilting part of the tilting joint are connected to each other in a form of a universal joint (440 is a universal joint.)
Ko discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 7: The coupler supporting module of claim 6, wherein the tilting joint includes a first joint (that of 440) installed to allow tilting around a horizontal rotation axis (see pp 8 ph 1 where the tilting is relative to the horizontal plane) with respect to the tilting support part, and a second joint (that of 434/433) installed to allow tilting around a rotation axis different from the horizontal rotation axis (per rotational alignment via 433 pp 6 ph 3, rotation about the central axis thereof) of the first joint with respect to the first joint and coupled to the tilting part, wherein the tilting part is coupled to the second joint (its coupled to both for universal rotational/tilting angular control.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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 W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753