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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 18, line 1, “claim 8” should be --claim 15--.
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.
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: “control mechanism” in claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16.
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 § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzella et al. (20040262015) in view of Taskinen et al. (20120279726). Mazzella et al. discloses (claims 1, 8, and 15) an apparatus and a method for controlling an operation of the apparatus comprising a travel plate 45, a jack leg mechanism 11 connected to the travel plate 45 including a plurality of jack legs 13a,13b, a control valve 55 for controlling operation of the plurality of jack legs 13a,13b within the jack leg mechanism, and three modes of operation based on the position of the control valve 55 selected by the user (paragraphs [0037]-[0038]. Mazzella et al. does not disclose a plurality of control valves, a central control panel for generating a mode control signal, and a control mechanism for selectively activating and deactivating selected ones of the plurality of control valves responsive to the mode control signal from the central control panel and a position of the travel plate.
Taskinen et al. teaches for an apparatus comprising a travel plate 24, a jack leg mechanism including a plurality of jack legs 2, and that there are a plurality of control valves controlling operation of the plurality of jack legs (paragraph [0047], “hydraulic valves”), a central control panel (paragraph [0050], “…display means … to inform an operator…”) for generating a mode control signal, and a control mechanism (Fig. 1, paragraph [0036], “control system (100)”) for selectively activating and deactivating selected ones of the plurality of control valves responsive to the mode control signal from the central control panel and a position of the travel plate (paragraph [0044], sensed by a position sensor) for the purposes of automating the control of the jack legs in a safer manner (paragraph [0004]).
Since Mazzella et al. and Taskinen et al. are both in the same field of endeavor the purpose disclosed by Taskinen et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Mazzella et al. It would have been obvious at a time before the invention was effectively filed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Mazzella et al. to include a plurality of control valves, a central control panel for generating a mode control signal, and a control mechanism for selectively activating and deactivating selected ones of the plurality of control valves responsive to the mode control signal from the central control panel and a position of the travel plate for the purposes of automating the control of the jack legs in a safer manner.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Taskinen et al. teaches that the control mechanism further selectively activates and deactivates the select ones of the plurality of control valves (hydraulic valves) responsive to the mode control signal from the central control panel 100 and the travel plate being located in a lowered position (Figs. 1B, 2, and 3, paragraphs [0036]-[0040])
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17, Mazzella et al. discloses a selection of one of a four-leg mode of operation, a first two-leg mode of operation for activating a first pair of the plurality of jack legs and a second two-leg mode of operation for activating a second pair of the plurality of jack legs (paragraph [0037] “…The arrangement of FIG. 4 allows two cylinders to be employed, or all four cylinders to be employed…”).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, Taskinen et al. further teaches that the control mechanism comprises a logic manifold (interface 110) for receiving the mode control signals and generating hydraulic control signals responsive thereto, and a valve manifold (paragraph [0040] “…the actuation of the slips may be initiated by an operator…”) for generating control signal to the plurality of control valves (hydraulic valves) responsive to the hydraulic control signals.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Taskinen et al. teaches that the logic manifold further comprises hydraulic circuitry to generate the hydraulic control signals to provide a selected jack leg mode by the jack leg mechanism (paragraphs Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 19, Taskinen et al. teaches that the logic manifold uses weight generated by a weight of the traveling plate to control the hydraulic circuitry (paragraph [0059], “…The load sensors associated with the traveling heavy slips will sense and detect the load, generate a signal representative of the load, and transmit the signal to the control system for processing and analysis..”).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzella et al. and Taskinen et al., as applied to claim 1 and 8 above. Mazzella et al. discloses all of the claimed subject matter except that the plurality of control valves comprise poppet valves.
Since the applicant has not disclosed that the plurality of control valves comprise poppet valves solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that poppet valves open or close to allow or stop flow and it appears that the control valves of Mazzella et al. would perform equally well as poppet valves as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of engineering expedience to further modify the control valves of Mazzella et al. to be poppet valves as claimed for the purposes of controlling flow to the jack legs.
Prior Art
Prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure for showing other apparatus with travel plates, jack legs, control valves, and control panels (Beaufort (4,494,376), console 43).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Lazo whose telephone number is (571) 272-4818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Nathaniel Wiehe, can be reached on (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for this Group 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.
/THOMAS E LAZO/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3745
January 24, 2026