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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement has not been submitted by applicant; therefore, an information disclosure statement has not been considered. For an information disclosure statement to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), the information disclosure statement requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. See MPEP § 609.04(a).
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
Driving device in Claim 1 (Lines 8-10)
Auxiliary mechanism in Claim 1 (Line 11)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 limitations recite 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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites the limitation "the length or width" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wild (EP0638400A1), hereinafter "Wild Reference 1" in view of Yamamoto et al. (US5564199A), hereinafter "Yamamoto". For text citation of Wild Reference 1 refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 1, Wild Reference 1 discloses a panel member pressurization construction device (Fig. 1; ¶0001, Lines 1-2), comprising a working machine (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Wild Reference 1 reproduced below) and at least one set of processing units (Fig. 1, Elements 5 and 10), wherein: said working machine comprises at least one working space (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Wild Reference 1 reproduced below); said at least one set of processing units is respectively disposed in said at least one working space of said working machine (Fig. 1), each said processing unit comprising a processing space (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Wild Reference 1 reproduced below), a stopper (Fig. 1, Elements 2 and 3) and a pusher ( Fig. 1, Elements 4 and 9) disposed on at least one side of said processing space (Fig. 1), at least one driving device (Fig. 1, Elements 7 and 11) for driving said pusher to reciprocate in said processing space (¶0012 and ¶0014), a plurality of partition grooves (Fig. 1, Element 8) disposed in said processing space.
Wild Reference 1 fails to disclose at least one auxiliary mechanism disposed above each of said partition grooves.
Nonetheless, Yamamoto discloses at least one auxiliary mechanism (Fig. 3, Element 7) disposed above (see annotated Fig. 3 of Yamamoto) each partition grooves (Fig. 3, Element 3).
Wild Reference 1 and Yamamoto are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of pressurization construction devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto of using at least one auxiliary mechanism disposed above partition grooves into the device disclosed by Wild Reference 1 to provide at least one auxiliary mechanism disposed above each of said partitions grooves to provide the device with an opening and closing mechanism and enable transfer of the panel member into a space between a pair of partition grooves (Column 5, Lines 46-64).
PNG
media_image1.png
710
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1st annotated Fig. 1 of Wild Reference 1
PNG
media_image2.png
710
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Wild Reference 1
PNG
media_image3.png
698
503
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Yamamoto
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art combination of Wild Reference 1 and Yamamoto renders the panel member pressurization construction device as claimed in Claim 1 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Wild Reference 1 and Yamamoto further teaches wherein each said auxiliary mechanism disposed above each said partition groove in said processing space of said at least one set of processing units comprises a power unit (Fig. 3, Element 8), a first push member (Fig. 3, Element 7D) driven by said power unit to move toward each said partition groove (Column 6, Line 51 - Column 7, Line 17), a second push member (Fig. 3, Element 7C) pushed by each said first push member (Column 6, Line 51 - Column 7, Line 17), and a third push member (Fig. 3, Element 7A) pushed by each said first push member and each said second push member (Column 6, Line 51 - Column 7, Line 17).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wild Reference 1 and Yamamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wild (DE4428768A1), hereinafter "Wild Reference 2". For text citation of Wild Reference 2 refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art combination of Wild Reference 1 and Yamamoto renders the panel member pressurization construction device as claimed in Claim 1 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Wild Reference 1 and Yamamoto fails to teach wherein said at least one working space of said working machine is provided with an adjustable base for assembling and installing said at least one set of processing units, so that said adjustable base can be used to adjust the length or width of said at least one working space.
Nonetheless, Wild Reference 2 teaches wherein at least one working space (see annotated Fig. 1 of Wild Reference 2 reproduced below) of a working machine (see annotated Fig. 1 of Wild Reference 2 reproduced below) is provided with an adjustable base (Fig. 1, Element 8) for assembling and installing at least one set of processing units (Fig. 1, Elements 1-3), so that said adjustable base can be used to adjust the length (Fig. 2; ¶0014) or width of said at least one working space.
Wild Reference 1, Yamamoto, and Wild Reference 2 are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of pressurization construction devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Wild Reference 2 wherein said at least one working space of said working machine is provided with an adjustable base for assembling and installing said at least one set of processing units, so that said adjustable base can be used to adjust the length or width of said at least one working space into the device disclosed by Wild Reference 1 and modified by Yamamoto to provide to provide the working machine with stackable sections that can be stacked several times on top of each other (¶0014).
PNG
media_image4.png
664
572
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Wild Reference 2
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wild Reference 1 and Yamamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moore (US2586474A), hereinafter "Moore".
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art combination of Wild Reference 1 and Yamamoto renders the panel member pressurization construction device as claimed in Claim 1 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Wild Reference 1 and Yamamoto further teaches said processing space formed at an inner side (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Wild Reference 1 reproduced below) relative to said pusher and said stopper.
Wild Reference 1 and Yamamoto fail to teach wherein each said processing unit further comprises a holder base; said at least one driving device is assembled on said holder base; said pusher is assembled on said holder base and driven by said at least one driving device; said stopper is arranged on said holder base at an opposite side relative to said pusher.
Nonetheless, Moore teaches a holder base (see annotated Fig. 4 of Moore reproduced below); at least one driving device (Fig. 4, Elements 30 and 31) assembled on said holder base; a pusher (Fig. 4, Element 32) assembled on said holder base and driven by said at least one driving device (Column 4, Lines 3-16); a stopper (Fig. 4, Element 35) arranged on said holder base at an opposite side relative to said pusher (Fig. 4).
Wild Reference 1, Yamamoto, and Moore are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of pressurization construction devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Moore and provide each said processing unit of the device disclosed by Wild Reference 1 and modified by Yamamoto with a holder base; said at least one driving device assembled on said holder base; said pusher assembled on said holder base and driven by said at least one driving device; said stopper arranged on said holder base at an opposite side relative to said pusher to provide the device with a base and vertical tension columns that carry the at least one driving device (Column 2, Lines 17-22).
PNG
media_image5.png
662
471
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Moore
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art combination of Wild Reference 1, Yamamoto, and Moore renders the panel member pressurization construction device as claimed in Claim 3 unpatentable as explained above. The prior art combination of Wild Reference 1, Yamamoto, and Moore further teaches wherein said working machine further comprises a power unit (Moore - Fig. 4, Element ) provided at said at least one working space to limit and tighten said holder base (by its upward and downward movement), said power unit being selectively a motor, a hydraulic cylinder, or a pneumatic cylinder (Column 2, Lines 17-22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US2792777A, US5634398A - Auxiliary Mechanism
Horizontal Multistage Pressurization Construction Device with Auxiliary Mechanism - US4863552A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM ET.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/A.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights