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 .
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 features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“vertical rectangular frame enclosed by a fourth standard section” (claim 19),
“Chinese character ‘ri’ frame” (claim 19),
“Japanese-shaped frame” (Claims 19-20 and 28-29),
“several fifth standard knots” (Claim 19).
Additionally, in figure 6, reference numeral 5003, which is identified in the specification as “fifth standard sections”, appears to be pointing to one of the mobile trolleys 5002.
No new matter should be entered.
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 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 19-36 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The following are some non-limiting examples of indefinite claim language:
Claim 19, lines 3-4, the limitation “a building chassis portion, consisting of three layers of ground, underground first layer and ground” is indefinite as it is not clear if the first recitation “of ground” is one of the three layers, or if it is setting the preface for the listing of these three layers, which would then leave only two layers listed. If the first recitation “of ground” is to be considered one of the three layers there is no distinction between the first layer “ground” in line 3 and the second layer of “ground” in line 4.
Claim 19, lines 7-8, it is unclear what the applicant is trying to claim with the limitation “and the ground directly reaches the high altitude”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the lifting platform" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that while an individual component lacking antecedent basis may not always be considered indefinite or unclear, this instance is just one of many throughout the claims, and is cited to bring the issue to the applicant’s attention. Additionally, with all of the other indefinite language it is critical that every component be recited properly for the best understanding throughout the claims.
Claim 19, lines 8-9, the limitation “so that the lifting platform portion disposed on the outer frame portion can be sequentially constructed from the bottom to the top” is indefinite and unclear. The limitation suggests that the lifting platform portion, (understood to be the two square shaped/wrap around platforms 2000 seen in figure 1, and 2001 in figure 2) is able to be construction from bottom to top by its location on the outer frame (1000). It is not clear from the specification how 2000 being disposed on 1000 results in 2000 being constructed, or that 2000 is constructed in a vertical fashion at all.
Claim 19, lines 10-12, the limitation “a transportation elevator part mounted on the building chassis part and composed of a vertical rectangular frame enclosed by a fourth standard section, wherein two construction elevators are arranged inside the vertical side of the vertical rectangular frame” contains multiple instances of indefiniteness. To start with, it’s not clear what the difference is between the vertical rectangular frame and the fourth standard section. Looking to figure 4, transportation elevator part 3000 references as a whole, with 3001 referencing the “fourth standard section”. However, the fourth standard section appears to also be a vertical rectangular frame, making it unclear if the vertical rectangular frame and the fourth standard section are one and the same despite being claimed separately and with one enclosing the other. Additionally, the two construction elevators are claimed as arranged “inside the vertical side of the vertical rectangular frame”, which again, looking at figure 4 appears to be what is identified as the fourth standard section.
Claim 19, line 21, it is not clear what a “Chinese character ‘ri’ frame” is or how it is related to the top adjusting part 5000 that it is claimed as being mounted on. No explanation or reference to this shape is made in the specification or drawings.
Claim 19, lines 22-23, similarly, it is unclear what the “Japanese-shaped frame” is. No explanation of reference to this shape is made in the specification or drawings. The forming of “a Japanese-shaped frame” is also referenced in claims 20, 28 and 29.
Claim 19, line 24, it is not clear what the applicant means by “formed by several fifth standard knots”.
Claim 19, line 26, it is unclear if “sinking system” is supposed to be “driving system”.
Claim 19, line 26, there is no antecedent basis for “the bearing tower body”, and no understanding of what this component is, as it is not discussed in the specification.
With respect to independent claim 19 as a whole the examiner notes there are numerous instances of inconsistency in referring back to components. For example, line 3 refers to “a building chassis portion”, and line 10 refers to “the building chassis part”. Similarly, in lines 15-16 the claim first refers to “three-layer concentric square shaped enclosure baffles” and then in lines 17 refers to “the three layer return type enclosure baffles”, making it unclear if they are the same components. -[Wingdings font/0xE0]Examiner asks that all pending claims (19-36) are reviewed for consistency when referencing components, from one claim to the next, and even within the same claim.
Regarding claims 19, 21-24, 26-28, 30-33 and 35-36, the use of "- type" on the end of named components renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Some examples of when this is used throughout the claims is in the limitations “hammering type”, “tower wall type”, “three-layer back type”.
With respect to method claim 28, line 4 the limitation “when the surface of the building is transported and constructed” renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear what surface the applicant is referring to, and what transportation and construction is being referenced, as no building surface, building transportation or building construction is claimed in claim 19. The transportation in claim 19 is with respect to the movement of the elevators on the elevator part of the platform; similarly, the reference to “construction” in claim 19 is with respect to the platform elevators being “construction elevators” and the platform being a “constructional aerial building platform”, and for use in a “construction area”. No transportation or construction of a building is set forth.
Lastly, it should be noted that the preamble for claim 19 is for an “extended multifunctional integrated construction aerial building platform”, yet in the body of the claims this “platform” comprises a building chassis portion consisting of three layers of ground, multiple different frames, the transportation elevator part including two construction elevators, a three layer enclosure portion, a top adjusting part including a gantry crane and moving trolley, a hammering pile system, and a tower wall concrete pouring system, among other components and construction. As the claim is directed to more than just a construction building platform, it appears the preamble should be amended to reflect that accordingly.
Again, the claims are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors, resulting in an extensive amount of indefinite and unclear claim limitations. The above examples are non-limiting examples. Applicant is required to thoroughly review all of claims 19-36 and make sure they conform with US practice.
While no prior art is applied at this time, this is a direct result of the numerous instances of indefinite and unclear claim limitations throughout the claims. A determination of allowability will be made after review and examination of amendments filed to address the above issues, as well as those not explicitly listed.
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 COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
COLLEEN M. CHAVCHAVADZE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3634
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634