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 because of the following:
Figs. 4A-4C, 5A-5B, 7A-7B and 8A-8B: Each figure should be embraced by brackets to distinguish the figures from another. In addition, figs. 4A-4B should be separated from one another. As presented, it is not entirely clear as to the boundaries of each figure.
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 Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “an RF (Reciprocal Frame)” should be --a Reciprocal Frame (RF)-- when defining the acronym.
With regard to claim 2: Lines 1-2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “an RF (Reciprocal Frame)” should be --a Reciprocal Frame (RF)-- when defining the acronym. Line 5 of the claim, it appears “parallel nexors to non-parallel nexors” should be –the parallel nexors to the non-parallel nexors-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 2: Lines 5-6 of the claim, it appears “parallel nexors to non-parallel nexors” should be –the parallel nexors to the non-parallel nexors-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 5: Line 1 of the claim, it appears the limitation “rollable framework” should be --the rollable framework-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 6: Line 1 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the rollable framework” should be --the rollable framework-- for consistency of the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 3-8 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.
With regard to claim 1: Line 7 of the claim, the limitation “the mentioned modules” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Note the a singular module was previously recited. Line 8 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “neighboring modules” is referencing the previously recited module(s). Line 11 of the claim, the limitation “the vault form” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 11-12 of the claim, it’s unclear as how the lengths of the non-parallel nexors is lengthened and shortened. Note that on pg. 1, lines 16-17 of the original specification, the nexor is a bar. While the positioning of the non-parallel nexors can be adjusted such as shown in fig. 7A, it does not appear the length of the respecitve bar itself changes. Lines 12-13 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “joined nexors” is referencing the previously recited parallel nexors and/or non-parallel nexors.
With regard to claim 5: Line 2 of the claim, the limitation “the diagonals” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Further, it’s unclear if the limitation is referring to the non-parallel nexors hav prismatic joints. Line 3 of the claim, the limitation “the other two” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Further, it’s unclear if the limitation is referring to the parallel nexors having cylindrical joints.
With regard to claim 6: Line 2 of the claim, the limitation “the modules” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 3 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a vault form” is referencing the previously recited vault form of claim 1. Line 3 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “an arch form” is referencing the previously recited arch form of claim 1. Line 3 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “joined nexors” is referencing the previously recited joining nexors of claim 1.
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.
Claims 8 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.
The subject matter of claim 8 can be found in claim 1.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Upon overcoming the claim objection, claim 2 would be allowable.
Claims 1 and 3-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 1: The combination of all the steps of the claimed method of obtaining a rollable framework based on a reciprocal frame (RF) system, which takes the form of a vault in its most open state and becomes a roll in its most close state, in particular obtaining modules by connecting a non-parallel nexors to parallel nexors with cylindrical joints and the parallel nexors to the non-parallel nexors with prismatic joints is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record.
With regard to claim 2: The combination of all the elements of the claimed rollable framework based on a reciprocal frame (RF) system, which takes the form of a vault in its most open state and becomes a roll in its most close state, in particular a module each with two degrees of freedom obtained by connecting a non-parallel nexors to parallel nexors with cylindrical joints and the parallel nexors to the non-parallel nexors with prismatic joints is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record.
As understood, the prismatic joint refers to joint that comprises a prism.
Note that allowability of the claims are subject to reconsideration should the scope of the claim change.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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 Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights