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 .
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 1-11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22-26, 31, 34 and 40 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the limitation “at least one of at least a pair of locking recesses and at least one of a pair of locking latches” on lines 4 and 5 thereof is vague as to the number of locking recesses and locking latches required. Said a little differently with respect to the locking rceesses, is the minimum number of recesses claimed one or two (the pair)? Same for the locking latches.
Claim 1 is also indefinite in view of the indefiniteness described above because line 5 thereof recites “said locking recesses and locking latches”, and thereafter, the claim recites additional features on the recesses and latches (plural recesses and latches). In this case, the claim does not appear to take into account that applicant specifically drafted it to recite at least one of the recesses and at least one of the latches, limitations that include the possibility of one and only one of the recesses and latches.
Claim 1 is also indefinite because the phrase “the locking plate entails corresponding angular displacement of the respective locking recesses and locking latches about a circular arc-shaped locking/unlocking path....” is unclear as to it’s intended meaning. It does not appear to be drafted in proper idiomatic English. Same thing for the follow on phrase “from other one”.
Finally, claim 1 is also indefinite because the issue discussed above appears again on lines 9-10 thereof.
Claim 2 is indefinite because it is not clear whether the locking latches and locking recesses recited therein are the same ones recited in claim 1 or not. Claim 2 is also indefinite because in view of the indefiniteness of claim 1 as well as the way claim 2 is worded, it is not clear how many locking latches and locking recesses are recited in the claim. Finally claim 2 is indefinite because it is not clear how it further limits claim 1.
Claim 3 is indefinite for reasons similar to one or more of those discussed above in relation to claim 2. Claim 3 is further indefinite because the phrase therein of “at the same locking/unlocking path” suggests that the applicant’s intention might be to encompass more than one path although if this is the case then such should be clearly done.
Claim 5 is indefinite because the limitations therein contradict those in claim 4 from which claim 5 depends. For example, in claim 4 the second positioning member is on a mounting face of the second utility module, and in claim 5 the same second positioning member can be on the base face of the first utility module.
Claim 6 is further indefinite because the phrase “neither locking couple” therein lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 6 is also indefinite because the element referred to by the phrase “it is rotatably arrested” on line 3 thereof is not clear. It is noted that the word “module” appears to be missing after the second “utility” on the same line.
Claim 10 is indefinite because the phrase “the mounting face of the first utility module” lacks antecedent basis and it is not clear how it would be attachable to the first utility module.
Claim 11 is indefinite because the phrase “the mounting face” therein lacks antecedent basis. The structure sought to be claimed is not clear.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it is not clear what locking latch and locking recess are the ones referred to therein. See the reasons claim 1 is considered indefinite as pointed to above. Claim 13 is also indefinite because the phrase “the axis of rotation” therein lacks antecedent basis. Same for the phrase “the axis of rotation of the locking plate”.
In view of the numerous instances of indefiniteness described herein, the claims have not been reviewed further for indefiniteness. However, the applicant is requested to review the remaining claims in order to correct similar defects therein not specifically pointed out above. Failure to do so may result in an unnecessary extension of prosecution in the subject application. The examiner notes that independent claim 40 has similar limitations as claim 1, and therefore, contains similar indefiniteness to that in claim 1 pointed out above.
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) 1-11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22-26, 31, 34 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutschenritter et al. (2016/0212869) cited by the applicant. The prior art is applied only to the extent the claims are understood. Gutschenritter reads on the claims as set forth in the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority filed by applicant in the subject application. Thus, it would have been obvious in view of Gutschenritter to provide the apparatus therein with all of the elements of the claims, for the purpose of providing a more economical coupling system or one that was better adapted for specific utility modules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB K ACKUN whose telephone number is (571)272-4418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 11am-7pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/JACOB K ACKUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
