DETAILED ACTION
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:
“first clamping component” recited in claims 1 and 6
“second clamping component” recited in claims 1 and 6
“fixing component” recited in claims 1 and 6
“rotation component” recited in claims 1 and 6
“first upper clamping member” recited in claims 4 and 9
“first lower clamping member” recited in claims 4 and 9
“second upper clamping member” recited in claims 4 and 9
“second lower clamping member” recited in claims 4 and 9
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 “first clamping component” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
The limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“component”).
The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“clamping” or ‘for clamping’ and “configured to clamp an object”).
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “second clamping component” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
The limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“component”).
The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“clamping” or ‘for clamping’ and “configured to clamp the object”).
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “fixing component” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
The limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“component”).
The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“fixing” or ‘for fixing and “configured to clamp the object”).
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “rotation component” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
The limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“component”).
The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“rotation” or ‘for rotation’).
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “rotation component” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a pulley or rotating wheel,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 26), or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation “first upper clamping member” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
The limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“member”).
The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“clamping” or ‘for clamping’ and “configured to clamp the object”).
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “second upper clamping member” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
The limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“member”).
The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“clamping” or ‘for clamping’ and “configured to clamp the object”).
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “second upper clamping member” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
The limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“member”).
The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“clamping” or ‘for clamping’ and “configured to clamp the object”).
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “second lower clamping member” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
The limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“member”).
The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“clamping” or ‘for clamping’ and “configured to clamp the object”).
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.
As explained above, each of the claim limitations “first clamping component,” “second clamping component,” “fixing component,” “first upper clamping member,” “first lower clamping member,” “second upper clamping member,” and “second lower clamping member” 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 “first clamping component,” Examiner recognizes that the Specification teaches the limitation as comprising ‘a first seat member, first upper clamping member, a first lower clamping member movably connected to the first upper clamping member and connected to the first seat member, wherein the first upper clamping member and the first lower clamping member are configured to clamp the object’ (paragraphs 21 – 22). However, as explained above, each of “first upper clamping member” and “first lower clamping member” also invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Furthermore, the Specification fails to teach sufficient structure of the ‘first upper clamping member’ and the ‘first lower clamping member’ required to perform the function of ‘configured to clamp the object.’ Regarding the limitation “second clamping component,” Examiner recognizes that the Specification teaches the limitation as comprising ‘a second seat member, second upper clamping member, and a second lower clamping member movably connected to the first upper clamping member and connected to the first seat member, wherein the second upper clamping member and the second lower clamping member are configured to clamp the object’ (paragraphs 23 – 24). However, as explained above, each of “second upper clamping member” and “second lower clamping member” also invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Furthermore, the Specification fails to teach sufficient structure of the ‘second upper clamping member’ and the ‘second lower clamping member’ required to perform the function of ‘configured to clamp the object.’ Regarding the limitation “fixing component,” the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation and the limitation performing the claimed function (paragraph 35). However, the Specification does not teach sufficient structure of the limitation required to perform the claimed function. Regarding the limitation “first upper clamping member,” the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation and the limitation performing the claimed function (paragraph 21). However, the Specification does not teach sufficient structure of the limitation to perform the claimed function. Regarding the limitation “first lower clamping member,” the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation and the limitation performing the claimed function (paragraph 21). However, the Specification does not teach sufficient structure of the limitation to perform the claimed function. Regarding the limitation “second upper clamping member,” the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation and the limitation performing the claimed function (paragraph 23). However, the Specification does not teach sufficient structure of the limitation to perform the claimed function. Regarding the limitation “second lower clamping member,” the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation and the limitation performing the claimed function (paragraph 23). However, the Specification does not teach sufficient structure of the limitation to perform the claimed function. 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.
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, each of the limitations “first clamping component,” “second clamping component,” “fixing component,” “first upper clamping member,” “first lower clamping member,” “second upper clamping member,” and “second lower clamping member” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As further explained above, the Specification does not teach sufficient structure for each of the limitations required 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 inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Troutman (U.S. Patent Number 7,815,178) teaches a fixing module comprising: a first clamping component; a second clamping component; a fixing component; a rotation component; and an elastic component.
Kolvick (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0101012) teaches a fixing module comprising: a first clamping component; a second clamping component; a fixing component; and a rotation component.
Donaldson (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0258663) teaches a fixing module comprising: a first clamping component; a second clamping component; a fixing component; and a rotation component.
Kwon (Korean Patent Number KR 10-1475187 B1) teaches a fixing module comprising: a first clamping component; a second clamping component; a fixing component; and a rotation component.
Lee (U.S. Patent Number 8,910,927) teaches a fixing module comprising: a first clamping component; a second clamping component; a fixing component; and a rotation component.
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