DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the applicant states “Container door” to start the claim. It appears “Container door” should be “A container door”.
Regarding claim 2-12, the applicant starts each claim with “Container door”. Since claim 1 introduced “A container door”, claims 2-12 should state “The container door”.
Regarding claim 13, the applicant states “Cell door” to start the claim. It appears “Cell door” should be “A cell door”.
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:
“a device for rotatably coupling” in claim 1 [line 10]
“a device for locking” in claim 4 [line 2]
“means for returning” in claim 8 [line 2]
“locking means” in claim 10 [line 2]
“a device for locking” in claim 12 [line 2]
“connecting means” in claim 13 [line 4]
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.
“a device for rotatably coupling” in claim 1 is defined in claim 2 as “an impression”.
“a device for locking” in claim 4 is defined in claim 5 as “a pin slidably mounted in a recess”.
“means for returning” in claim 8 is defined in claim 9 as “an elastic element”.
“locking means” in claim 10 is defined in claim 11 as “axially recessed notches and/or axially projecting protrusions”.
“a device for locking” in claim 12 is defined later in claim 12 as “a tab projecting radially from the body”.
“connecting means” in claim 13 is defined in the specification [paragraph 13] as “a first square parallelepipedal impression”.
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 1-13 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 recites the limitation "the front face" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears “the front face” should be “a front face”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the coupling device" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears “the coupling device” of claim 2 and the “device for rotatably coupling” in claim 1 are intended to be the same thing. Examiner recommends amending either “the coupling device” of claim 2 or the “device for rotatably coupling” of claim 1 in order to keep the claim language consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the locking device" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears “the locking device” of claim 5 and the “device for locking” in claim 4 are intended to be the same thing. Examiner recommends amending either “the locking device” of claim 4 or the “device for locking” of claim 4 in order to keep the claim language consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the coupling device" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears “the coupling device” of claim 6 and the “device for rotatably coupling” in claim 1 are intended to be the same thing. Examiner recommends amending either “the coupling device” of claim 6 or the “device for rotatably coupling” of claim 1 in order to keep the claim language consistent throughout the claims.
Dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected as depending from rejected base claims since they inherently contain the same deficiencies therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Felix (US 20220178172) discloses a container door comprising a cylindrical body and a plate having a device for rotatably coupling with the plate.
Sacca (US 8,950,624) discloses a container door comprising a cylindrical body and a plate having a device for rotatably coupling with the plate.
Glachet (US 5,421,626) discloses a container door comprising a cylindrical body and a plate having a device for rotatably coupling with the plate.
Defour et al. (US 20160201382) discloses a container door comprising a cylindrical body and a plate having a device for rotatably coupling with the plate.
Maier et al. (US 20220184598) discloses a container door comprising a cylindrical body and a plate having a device for rotatably coupling with the plate.
Mottier et al. (WO 2022195200) discloses a container door comprising a cylindrical body and a plate having a device for rotatably coupling with the plate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER A PAGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 6:30am-4:30pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/JAVIER A PAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights