DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites, “he” in line 1 and it appears intended to recite, “the.” 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 either use the word “means,” or 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: “A horizontal movement means” and “a vertical movement means” in claim 1. “A first retaining means” in claim 8. “A second retaining means” in claim 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. The specification identifies the horizontal movement means as trolleys and guides. The specification identifies the vertical movement means as lifting devices including mechanical, such as spiral lifts or linear spindles and/or hydraulic lifting devices. The specification identifies the first retaining means as feature 9, shown in detail in Fig. 3a-3c. The specification identifies the second retaining means as feature 9, shown in detail in Fig. 3a-3c.
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 § 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 1-20 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.
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites, “it” in line 12 and “it” in line 14. Numerous elements are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear as to which this language refers. It appears this language refers to “the first platform” and “the second platform” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 5, claim 5 recites, “it” in line 2 and “it” in line 3. Numerous elements are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear as to which this language refers. It appears this language refers to “the first platform” and “the second platform” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 8, claim 8 recites, “it” in line 4. Numerous elements are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear as to which this language refers. It appears this language refers to “the first platform” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 9, claim 9 recites, “it” in line 4. Numerous elements are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear as to which this language refers. It appears this language refers to “the second platform” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 14, claim 14 recites, “it” in line 2. Numerous elements are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear as to which this language refers. It appears this language refers to “the second level” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 16, claim 16 recites, “it” in line 5. Numerous elements are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear as to which this language refers. It appears this language refers to “the mobile part” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 20, claim 20 recites, “the self-supporting unit” in line 8 and in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this language refers to “a self-supporting unit of the plurality of self-supporting units” and will be interpreted as such.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 10-13, 15, 17-19 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 13-14, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray (US 5,319,895) in view of Vaia (US 5,974,743).
Re claim 1, Ray discloses a sports stadium (1) comprising:
a first level (7) on which, in a playing position (Fig. 1), a pitch (30) is arranged (Fig. 1), the pitch (30) including a plurality of self-supporting units (21-25; 32/34);
a second level (14-18) arranged under (Fig. 1) the first level (7) which houses (Fig. 1), in a storage position (Fig. 1), the plurality of self-supporting units (21-25), the second level (14-18) being arranged in communication with (Fig. 1) the first level (7) through a pit (the area which receives 55);
a horizontal movement means (96/98/137; Col 5 lines 17-35; a functional equivalent of that described above) associated with one or more of the plurality of self-supporting units (21-25; 32/34) that is configured to horizontally move (Col 5 lines 17-35) the one or more of the plurality of self-supporting units (21-25; 32/34) along (“along” not requiring disposition therein) the first level (7) and along the second level (14-18); and
a vertical movement means (55) that is configured to move (Abstract; see also Col 5 line 10-line 51) each of the one or more of the plurality of self-supporting members (21-25; 32/34) between the first (7) and second levels (14-18, the vertical movement means (55) including a first platform (57) movable in the pit (the area which receives 55) between a first position (Fig. 1) in which it is aligned with (Fig. 1) the first level (7), closing (Fig. 1) the pit (the area which receives 55), and an end position (any lowered position),
but fails to disclose a second platform which is movable in the pit between an initial position in which it is vertically aligned with the first platform when the first platform is located in the end position, and an end position in which the second platform is vertically aligned with the second level.
However, Vaia discloses a second platform (right 34) which is movable in the pit (12) between an initial position (Fig. 1) in which it is vertically aligned with (Fig. 1) the first platform (left 34) when the first platform (left 34) is located in the end position (Fig. 1), and an end position (Fig. 2) in which the second platform (right 34) is vertically aligned with (Fig. 2) the second level (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sports stadium of Ray with a second platform which is movable in the pit between an initial position in which it is vertically aligned with the first platform when the first platform is located in the end position, and an end position in which the second platform is vertically aligned with the second level as disclosed by Vaia in order to reduce the size of the platform by separating into 2 individual platforms, saving material costs as well as space, or to provide two independent platforms so that an individual unit my be raised or lowered independently of an adjacent individual unit.
Re claim 5, Ray as modified discloses the sports stadium according to claim 1, wherein when the first platform (57) is aligned with the first level (7) it is aligned with (Fig. 1) the horizontal movement means (96/98/137), and when the second platform (57; as modified) is aligned with the second level (14-18) it is aligned with the horizontal movement means (96/98/137; or any pulley / wheel thereof).
Additionally, the language “when” is language that suggests or makes optional/contingent the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
Re claim 6, Ray as modified discloses the sports stadium according to claim 1, wherein the vertical movement means (55) comprises a first one or more lifting devices (61) that support the first platform (57), and second one or more lifting devices (61) that support the second platform (57; as modified).
Re claim 7, Ray as modified discloses the sports stadium according to claim 6, wherein the first and second one or more lifting devices (61) are hydraulic lifting devices (Col 4 lines 63-66).
Re claim 13, Ray as modified discloses the sports stadium according to claim 1, wherein the second level (14-18) has a surface equal to or larger than (Fig. 1) a surface of the pitch (7).
Re claim 14, Ray as modified discloses the sports stadium according to claim 13, wherein the second level (14-18) has a surface larger than (Fig. 1) a surface of the pitch (7) that it enables the plurality of the self-supporting units (21-25; 32/34) to be stored separated from one another (Fig. 1) for maintenance thereof (Fig. 1).
Re claim 17, Ray as modified discloses the sports stadium according to claim 1, wherein he pitch (7) has a first side (Fig. 2, length thereof) having a first length (Fig. 2) and a second side (Fig. 2, width thereof) having a second length (Fig. 2) shorter than (Fig. 2) the first length (Fig. 2), but fails to disclose each of the plurality of self-supporting units having a length at least equal to the second length (due to 39 and 41 having a shorter length than the overall structure of Fig. 2).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sports stadium of Ray to with each of the plurality of self-supporting units having a length at least equal to the second length in order to increase the overall size of the pitch. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 20, Ray discloses a method for converting (Abstract) the sports stadium (1) according to claim 1 (see above) into a multi-space, multifunctional infrastructure (Abstract, Fig. 1 disclosing multiple spaces), the method comprising the steps of:
horizontally moving (Col 2 line 35-40) each of the plurality of self-supporting units (21-25; 32/34) through the use of the horizontal movement means (96/98/137; Col 5 lines 17-35; a functional equivalent of that described above) along the first level (7) until being arranged on the first platform (57) of the vertical movement means (55);
vertically moving (Abstract; see also Col 5 line 10-line 51) the first platform (57) downwards along a first path (along 61) to the end position (any other position) of the first platform (57);
horizontally moving (Col 2 line 35-40) the self-supporting unit (21-25; 32/34) from the first platform (57) to the second platform (as modified above, as at least one unit must be disposed on the platform);
vertically moving (Abstract; see also Col 5 line 10-line 51) the second platform (57; as modified) downwards along a second path (Fig. 1; along another 61) different than (due to 61 being offset horizontally from one another) the first path (along 61) to the end position (any other position) of the second platform (57; as modified); and
horizontally moving (Col 2 line 35-40) the self-supporting unit (21-25; 32/34) from the second platform (57; as modified) to a storage position (Fig. 1) on the second level (14-18) using the horizontal movement means (96/98/137; Col 5 lines 17-35).
Claim(s) 8-10, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray (US 5,319,895) in view of Vaia (US 5,974,743) and Saltveit et al (“Saltveit”) (US 2015/0354240).
Re claim 8, Ray as modified discloses the sports stadium according to claim 6, but fails to disclose further comprising a first retaining means at least partially embedded in the pit for retaining the first platform, the first retaining means being configured to be moved between a retracted position in which the first platform can move vertically along the pit, and an extended position in which the first retaining means blocks the first platform in its first position and/or end position.
However, Saltveit discloses further comprising a first retaining means (9) at least partially embedded (Fig. 8) in the pit (50) for retaining the first platform (8), the first retaining means (9) being configured to be moved between a retracted position (disposed all the way into 14) in which the first platform (8) can move vertically along the pit (50), and an extended position (Fig. 8) in which the first retaining means (9) blocks the first platform (8) in its first position and/or end position (Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sports stadium of Ray further comprising a first retaining means at least partially embedded in the pit for retaining the first platform, the first retaining means being configured to be moved between a retracted position in which the first platform can move vertically along the pit, and an extended position in which the first retaining means blocks the first platform in its first position and/or end position as disclosed by Saltveit in order to maintain the first platform flush with the surrounding structure ([0056]).
Re claim 9, Ray as modified discloses the sports stadium according to claim 8, but fails to disclose further comprising a second retaining means at least partially embedded in the pit for retaining the second platform, the second retaining means being configured to be moved between a retracted position in which the second platform can move vertically along the pit, and an extended position in which the second retaining means blocks the second platform in its initial position and/or end position.
However, Saltveit discloses further comprising a second retaining means (9) at least partially embedded (Fig. 8) in the pit (50) for retaining the second platform (8; as modified), the second retaining means (9) being configured to be moved between a retracted position (disposed all the way into 14) in which the second platform (8; as modified) can move vertically along the pit (50), and an extended position (Fig. 8) in which the second retaining means (9) blocks the second platform (8; as modified) in its first position and/or end position (Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sports stadium of Ray further comprising a second retaining means at least partially embedded in the pit for retaining the second platform, the second retaining means being configured to be moved between a retracted position in which the second platform can move vertically along the pit, and an extended position in which the second retaining means blocks the second platform in its initial position and/or end position as disclosed by Saltveit in order to maintain the first platform flush with the surrounding structure ([0056]).
Re claim 10, Ray as modified discloses the sports stadium according to claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein each of the first and second retaining means is hydraulically operated.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sports stadium of Ray disclose wherein each of the first and second retaining means is hydraulically operated in order to automatically, non-manually activate and de-activate the locking mechanism, as it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 (E). Moreover, hydraulic operation of features such as locks are both well-known and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Re claim 19, Ray as modified discloses the sports stadium according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein one or more of the plurality of self- supporting units comprises artificial turf.
However, Saltveit discloses wherein one or more of the plurality of self- supporting units (1) comprises artificial turf ([0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sports stadium of Ray wherein one or more of the plurality of self- supporting units comprises artificial turf as disclosed by Saltveit in order to provide a surface for particular events such as soccer that is permanent and does not requiring maintenance such as watering or sunlight.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray (US 5,319,895) in view of Vaia (US 5,974,743) and Estopinal (US 2016/0008700).
Re claim 11, Ray as modified discloses the sports stadium according to claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a first guide in the pit and a second guide in the first platform, the first and second guides collaborating with one another to facilitate guided vertical movement of the first platform along the pit.
However, Estopinal discloses further comprising a first guide (44) in the pit (Fig. 2) and a second guide ([0022]; the securement elements to the platform) in the first platform (40), the first and second guides (44; [0022]) collaborating with one another to facilitate guided vertical movement ([0022]) of the first platform (40) along the pit (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sports stadium of Ray further comprising a first guide in the pit and a second guide in the first platform, the first and second guides collaborating with one another to facilitate guided vertical movement of the first platform along the pit as disclosed by Estopinal in order to maintain proper level of the elements during raising and lowering ([0022]).
Re claim 12, Ray as modified discloses the sports stadium according to claim 11, but fails to disclose further comprising a third guide in the pit and a fourth guide in the second platform, the third and fourth guides collaborating with one another to facilitate guided vertical movement of the second platform along the pit.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sports stadium of Ray as modified further comprising a third guide in the pit and a fourth guide in the second platform, the third and fourth guides collaborating with one another to facilitate guided vertical movement of the second platform along the pit in order to provide additional manners of maintaining level movement during raising and lowering, better ensuring the platform remains level. In general, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray (US 5,319,895) in view of Vaia (US 5,974,743) and Silberman et al (“Silberman”) (US 2002/0129561).
Re claim 18, Ray as modified discloses the sports stadium according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein one or more of the plurality of self- supporting units comprises natural turf and irrigation means.
However, Silberman discloses wherein one or more of the plurality of self- supporting units (18) comprises natural turf ([0022]) and irrigation means ([0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sports stadium of Ray wherein one or more of the plurality of self- supporting units comprises natural turf and irrigation means as disclosed by Silberman in order to provide and grow a surface for particular events such as soccer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-4, 15-16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571)270-3238. 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights