DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “extensible power source extension distance” (lines 30-31) appears to have a grammatical error because the word -an- appears needed before the word “extensible”. Did Applicant mean -an extensible power source extension distance-?
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “anchoring a sheave proximate the trailing edge of the base section” (see line 10) appears to have a grammatical error because a semi-colon -;- appears to be missing at the end. Did Applicant mean -anchoring a sheave proximate the trailing edge of the base section;-?
A similar issue appears present with the limitation of “n is the number of the section being extended” (line 31). A semi-colon -;- may be need to be added to the end of this limitation as well.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Step 1, Claim 1 is directed to a system. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
For Steps 2A and 2B of each of the limitations, please see below.
First, the claim recites:
“wherein
to be calculated for each extending section, the variable X represents the number of
sections the at least one rope must traverse to achieve synchronous extension and is
determined through solution of the equation
X=n-[n-(N+1)]
wherein, in the formula
n represents the section number that is being extended;
N represents the number of parts of line acting on the extended section; wherein
only if the value of n-X is less than one, then calculate the value of Z which
determines the number of times the rope for that extended section must be rerouted between
the sheave mounted proximate the trailing edge of the base section and the sheave anchored
to the body portion of the extensible power source
Z=Y*[X-(n-1)]” (see lines 18-27).
Regarding Step 2A, prong one, The limitations as discussed above, as drafted, is a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers calculating of the limitations in the mind.
That is nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “calculated” and “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the designer manually selecting the values of n, N, and Y.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For example, the claim does not set forth what is done with the calculations with respect to the rest of the claimed system. All the claim requires is the calculations to made and nothing more.
Regarding Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There does not appear to be an integration of the calculations with respect to the structure of the claimed system. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
What is being done with the calculations X=n-[n-(N+1)] and Z=Y*[X-(n-1)] after the calculations are made?
Second, the claim recites:
“Y is the selected stroke ratio of the second section extension distance to extensible power source extension distance, such that for each extensible section, the extend rope for that section must span between the sheave proximate the trailing edge of the base section and the sheave anchored to the body portion of the extensible power source the number of times as determined by the value of Z” (see last paragraph of the claim)
Regarding Step 2A, prong one, the limitation of ““Y is the selected stroke ratio of the second section extension distance to extensible power source extension distance, such that for each extensible section, the extend rope for that section must span between the sheave proximate the trailing edge of the base section and the sheave anchored to the body portion of the extensible power source the number of times as determined by the value of Z” (see last paragraph of the claim)”, as drafted, is a method (i.e. a process) that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers selecting of the limitation in the mind.
That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “designated” in the context of this claim encompasses the designer designating (or choosing) a stroke ratio of the second section extension to the extension of the extensible power source.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For example, the claim does not set forth what is done with the calculations with respect to the rest of the claimed system. All the claim requires is the calculations to made and nothing more.
Regarding Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There does not appear to be an integration of the calculations with respect to the structure of the claimed system. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, this claim does not resolve the above issues with claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Step 1, Claim 3 is directed to a process. Therefore, claim 3 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
This claim recites:
“at a second step, calculating for each rope extended section of the boom a result for the formula,
X=n-[n-(N+1)]
wherein,
X is the number of sections the second end of the rope must traverse to achieve synchronous extension;
N is the number of parts of line acting on the extended section;
n is the number of the section being extended; at a third step, only if the value of n-X is less than one calculating for each rope extended section of the boom the formula,
Z=Y*[X-(n-1)]
wherein,
Z is the number of times the extend rope must be routed between the base section and the sheave mounted to the unanchored body portion of the extensible power source;
Y is the designated stroke ratio of the second section extension to the extension of the extensible power source;
n is the number of the section being extended
to achieve synchronous extension, the extend rope for each section must be reeved between the sheave proximate the trailing edge of the base section and the sheave anchored to the body portion of the extensible power source the number of times as determined by the value of Z, and
and must be reeved between the sheave proximate the trailing edge of the base section and the sheave anchored to the body portion of the extensible power source the number of times as determined by the value of Z if n=2.” (see lines 17-38).
Regarding Step 2A, prong one, the limitation as discussed above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers assigning of the limitation in the mind.
That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses the designer selecting the values of n, N, and Y.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For example, the claim does not set forth what is done with the calculations with respect to the rest of the claimed system. All the claim requires is the calculations to made and nothing more.
Regarding Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There does not appear to be an integration of the calculations with respect to the structure of the claimed system. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
What is being done with the calculations X=n-[n-(N+1)] and Z=Y*[X-(n-1)] after the calculations are made?
Second, the claim recites “Y is the designated stroke ratio of the second section extension to the extension of the extensible power source” (see lines 29-30).
Regarding Step 2A, prong one, the limitation of “Y is the designated stroke ratio of the second section extension to the extension of the extensible power source”, as drafted, is a method (i.e. a process) that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers specifying of the limitation in the mind.
That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “designated” in the context of this claim encompasses the designer designating (or choosing) a stroke ratio of the second section extension to the extension of the extensible power source.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For example, the claim does not set forth what is done with the calculations with respect to the rest of the claimed system. All the claim requires is the calculations to be made and nothing more.
Regarding Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There does not appear to be an integration of the calculations with respect to the structure of the claimed system. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “an extensible power source disposed within the open interior space of the base section for translating the rope extended boom sections” (lines 6-7) renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear as to what claimed structure is being referred to by the phrase “the rope extended boom sections”. Is Applicant referring to the rope extend tip section and the at least one rope extended boom section?
Applicant may want to amend the limitation to -an extensible power source disposed within the open interior space of the base section for translating the rope extend tip section and the at least one rope extended boom section-.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation of “at least one rope operable upon each rope extended section of the telescopic boom,” (line 12) renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear as to what claimed structure is being referred to by the phrase “each rope extended section”. Is Applicant referring to the rope extend tip section and the at least one rope extended boom section?
Applicant may want to amend the limitation to -at least one rope operable upon the rope extend tip section and the at least one rope extended boom section of the telescopic boom-.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation of “the first and second ends of the at least one rope anchored within the open interior space of each rope extended section of the extensible telescopic boom;” (lines 15-16) renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear as to what claim structure is being referred to by the phrase “each rope extend section”. Is Applicant referring to the rope extend tip section and the at least one rope extended boom section?
Applicant may want to amend the limitation to -the first and second ends of the at least one rope anchored within the open interior space of the rope extended tip section and the at least one rope extended boom section-.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation of “to be calculated for each extending section” (line 19) renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear as to what claim structure is being referred to by the phrase “each extending section”. Is Applicant referring to the rope extend tip section and the at least one rope extended boom section?
Applicant may want to amend the limitation to -to be calculated for the rope extend tip section and the at least one rope extended boom section-.
Further regarding claim 1, “the number of sections” (lines 19-20) lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 1, “the section number” (line 22) lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 1, “the number of parts of line” (line 23) lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 1, “the extended section” (line 23) lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation of “Y is the selected stroke ratio of the second section extension distance to extensible power source extension distance, such that for each extensible section, the extend rope for that section must span between the sheave proximate the trailing edge of the base section and the sheave anchored to the body portion of the extensible power source the number of times as determined by the value of Z” (see last paragraph of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because the stroke ratio Y can be any arbitrary value selected by a designer or user of the claim. As the stroke value of Y can be any value selected by a designer or user, the scope of the claim is unclear. If the stroke ratio of Y is selected, how does that selection not render the claim indefinite?
Further regarding claim 1, “the second section extension distance” (line 30) lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 1, “the extend rope” (line 31) lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 2, “the second section” (line 2) lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3, “the plurality of rope extended boom sections” (lines 7-8) lacks antecedent basis. Did Applicant mean -the tip section and the at least one boom section-?
Further regarding claim 3, “the body portion” (line 11) lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 3, “the open interior space” (lines 12-13) lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 3, the limitation of “at the second step, calculating for each rope extended section of the boom” (line 17) renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear as to what claim structure is being referred to by the phrase “each rope extend section”. Is Applicant referring to the tip section and the at least one boom section?
Applicant may want to amend the limitation to -at the second step, calculating for the tip section and the at least one boom section of the boom-.
Further regarding claim 3, “the number of sections” (line 20) lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 3, “the number of parts of line” (line 22) lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 3, “the number of the section” (line 23) lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 3, the limitation of “at a third step, only if the value of n-X is less than one calculating for each rope extended section of the boom” (lines 24-25) renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear as to what claim structure is being referred to by the phrase “each rope extend section”. Is Applicant referring to the tip section and the at least one boom section?
Applicant may want to amend the limitation to -at a third step, only if the value of n-X is less than one calculating for the tip section and the at least one boom section of the boom-.
Further regarding claim 3, “the number of time” (line 27) lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 3, “the extend rope” (line 27) lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 3, the limitation of “Y is the designated stroke ratio of the second section extension to the extension of the extensible power source” (see lines 29-30) renders the claim indefinite because the stroke ratio Y can be any arbitrary value designated by a designer or user of the claim. As the stroke value of Y can be any value designated by a designer or user, the scope of the claim is unclear. If the stroke ratio of Y is designated, how does that selection not render the claim indefinite?
Please review all claims before the formal response is submitted, as any new 112(b) rejections introduced in the response may be grounds for a Final Rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation of “wherein two units of extension for the second section to one unit of stroke of the extensible power source yields a stroke ratio of two” does not further the limitations of claim 1 because the limitation of this claim does not appear to further define the structure of claim 1. What structure is being further defined by this claim?
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Status of the Prior Art
Curb (US Patent 4,133,411) is considered the closest prior art reference to claims 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 1, Curb discloses:
A system for design of a synchronous rope extended telescoping boom, the system comprising:
a base section (19, see figure 2), a rope extended tip section (21), and at least one rope extended boom section (20) disposed between the base section and the tip section, each section further comprising an open interior space (see figures 2-3);
an extensible power source (41 and 42, see figures 2-3) disposed within the open interior space of the base section for translating the rope extended boom sections, the power source comprising an extensible first end (41) and an unanchored body portion (42), wherein the extensible first end is anchored to the base section proximate a trailing edge of the first section (see figure 2);
a sheave (54 and/or 54a) anchored proximate the trailing edge of the base section (as 54 and 54a are proximate the trailing edge of the base section see figure 2);
a sheave (49 and/or 50) mounted to the unanchored body portion of the extensible power source; and
at least one rope (50, see figure 2) operable upon each rope extended section of the telescopic boom, the at least one rope disposed within the open interior space and comprising a first end and a second end (see figure 2).
Curb does not disclose nor teach 1) “the first and second ends of the at least one rope anchored within the open interior space of each rope extended section of the extensible telescopic boom”, 2) “at least one sheave anchored within the open interior space of each section to achieve an increase in a parts-of-line and thereby lower the tension in the at least one rope”, and 3) the use of the equations in the rest of the claim, in conjunction with the remaining limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Curb discloses:
A method (see figures 2-3) for synchronous extension of a telescoping boom, the method
comprising:
assembling telescoping boom sections to include a base section (19, see figure 2), a tip section (21) and at
least one boom section (20) disposed between the base section and the tip section, each telescoping boom section comprising an open interior (see figures 2-3);
anchoring a first end (41) of an extensible power source (41 and 42) within the open interior space of
the base section proximate the trailing edge of the first section (see figure 2) for translating the plurality of rope extended boom sections, the extensible power source comprising an unanchored body portion (42);
anchoring a sheave (54 and/or 54a) proximate the trailing edge of the base section (as 54 and 54a are proximate the trailing edge of the base section see figure 2);
anchoring a sheave (49 and/or 50) to the body portion of the extensible power source (see figure 2); and
installing a plurality of ropes (50) each with a first end and a second end within the open interior space (see figure 2).
Curb does not disclose nor teach 1) “each rope operable to rope extend only one section”, 2) “at a first step anchoring at least one sheave within the open interior space of each section to achieve an increase in a parts-of-line and thereby lower the tension in the at least one rope”, and 3) the use of the equations in the rest of the claim, in conjunction with the remaining limitations of claim 3.
Thus, the prior art does not appear to disclose nor teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 3. However, no indication of allowability can be provided until the 101 rejections and 112(b) rejections to claims 1-3 have been overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN J CAMPOS, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5229. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Robert W. Hodge can be reached on phone number (571)272-2097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JJC/
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights