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
Claims 13 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 13, line 5, “plate e” should be –plate--.
Regarding claim 22, line 6, “t lateral” should be –lateral--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 13-22 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.
Regarding claim 13, the recitations of the first plate and the third plate “being annular and fixed with respect to said axis of extension” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear exactly what the limitation means and covers. The plates of the present invention have the ability to move away from and toward one another which doesn’t appear to be “fixed”, therefore it is unclear how to interpret “fixed with respect to said axis of rotation”. The claims as written have been interpreted as meaning that the plates are arranged in order along the axis of extension.
Claims 14-22 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 13.
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) 13, 14, 17, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,447,201 B1 to McCracken.
Regarding claim 13, McCracken discloses a device (10) for forming/stripping props for castings of concrete floor slabs, comprising, along an axis of extension (central axis through 50, 10, 52, Fig.3 and 4) thereof, in the following order: a first plate (12), which is annular and fixed with respect to said axis of extension (fixed between 50 and 52 along the axis of extension, Fig.3), and which has a plurality of first protrusions (28); a second plate (16), said first protrusions being directed toward said second plate e (Fig.7A and 7B), said second plate being configured to rotate and/or translate on a plane that is perpendicular to said axis of extension (capable of rotating around plane in which it lies) and being substantially parallel to said first plate (Fig.7A), said second plate having a plurality of second protrusions (lower 38) which are directed toward said first plate and are shaped at least partially complementarily to said first protrusions, said second plate having a plurality of third protrusions (upper 38), a third plate (14), said third protrusions being directed toward said third plate (Fig.7A), said third plate being annular and fixed with respect to said axis of extension (fixed between 50 and 52 along the axis of extension, Fig.3) and being substantially parallel to said first plate (Fig.7A and 7B), said third plate having a plurality of fourth protrusions (28) which are directed toward said second plate and are shaped at least partially complementarily to said third protrusions (Fig.7A and 7B).
Regarding claim 14, wherein said second plate has: a portion with a substantially annular contour (donut shaped portion of 16), at the region comprising said second protrusions and said third protrusions, a handle (20, not labeled; portion in Figure 1 between 18 and 22), which extends radially from said portion, in a single piece therewith (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 17, further comprising means for the automatic forming of said device (24).
Regarding claim 23, wherein said second protrusions and said third protrusions each have a surface for contact respectively with said first plate and with said third plate in a forming configuration, which have an angle of circumferential inclination with respect to a plane that is parallel to a plane of arrangement of said handle (Fig.5-7)
Regarding claim 24, wherein said second protrusions and said third protrusions each have a surface for contact respectively with said first plate and with said third plate in a forming configuration, which have an angle of radial inclination with respect to a plane that is parallel to a p[lane of arrangement of said handle (angle of protrusions shown in Fig.5-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 16, and 18-22 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:
The prior art of record fails to disclose a device for forming/stripping props wherein the plates have the additional structural limitations according to claim 15 and also wherein the means for automatic forming is a spring arranged within the hole of the first plate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights