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 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: “countermeasure dispensing system” in claims 13-20.
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.
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 Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5: “corresponding first set firing lines” should read “a corresponding first set of firing lines”.
Claim 1, line 7: “corresponding second set firing lines” should read “a corresponding second set of firing lines”.
Claim 1, line 14: “selected” should be omitted.
Claim 1, line 15: “set” should read “sets”.
Claim 1, line 17: “set firing lines” should read “set of firing lines”.
Claim 1, line 19: each instance of the term “set” should read “sets”.
Claim 1, line 22: “pair of” should read “paired”.
Claim 2, line 3: “pair of” should read “paired”.
Claim 5, lines 3-4: “pair of” should read “paired”.
Claim 6, line 3: “the second” should read “a second”.
Claim 6, line 3: “pair of” should read “paired”.
Claim 7, line 2: “the set” should read “the second set”.
Claim 7, line 3: “the at least” should read “at least”.
Claim 7, line 3: “pair of” should read “paired”.
Claim 12, line 1: “set of firing pins” should read “sets of firing pins each”.
Claim 12, line 3: “the firing pins” should read “each firing pin”.
Claim 13, line 9: “set” should read “sets”.
Claim 13, line 11: “corresponding first set firing lines” should read “a corresponding first set of firing lines”
Claim 13, line 15: each instance of the term “set” should read “sets”.
Claim 13, line 20: “pair of” should read “paired”.
Claim 14, line 2: “the second” should read “a second”.
Claim 14, lines 2-3: “pair of” should read “paired”.
Claim 14, line 4: “pair of” should read “paired”.
Claim 17, line 4: “the at least” should read “at least”
Claim 17, lines 4-5: “pair of” should read “paired”.
Claim 18, line 2: “the second” should read “a second”.
Claim 18, line 3: “the second firing” should read “a second firing”.
Claim 18, lines 3-4: “pair of” should read “paired”.
Claim 19, line 2: “the set” should read “the second set”.
Claim 19, line 3: “the at least” should read “at least”.
Claim 19, line 3: “pair of” should read “paired”.
Claim 20, lines 1-2: “set of firing pins” should read “sets of firing pins each”.
Claim 12, line 3: “the firing pins” should read “each firing pin”.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plurality of expendables housed inside the magazine" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider said limitation as reading “a plurality of expendables housed inside the magazine”
Claim 1, lines 19-20: the limitation reading “one or more switches that electrically couple at least one of the first and second set of firing lines to the first and second set of firing pins” is considered indefinite. The claim previously recites that the first set of firing lines is coupled to the first set of firing pins, and the second set of firing lines is coupled to the second set of firing pins. However, the limitation is question sets forth a configuration wherein the first and/or second set of firing lines is coupled to both the first and second sets of firing pins, which begs the question as to which firing lines are coupled to which firing pins, and what combinations of lines to pins are intended to be covered.
For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider said limitation as reading: “one or more switches that electrically couple at least one of the first and second sets of firing lines to the first and second sets of firing pins, respectively”. This language precludes the first set of firing lines from being coupled to the second set of firing pins, and precludes the second set of firing lines from being coupled to the first set of firing pins. Correction and/or clarification are required. The same rationale applies to claim 13, which also recites the limitation in question.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 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.
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 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 attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8229. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30am-8pm.
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, Troy Chambers can be reached at 571-272-6874. 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.
GABRIEL J. KLEIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3641
/Gabriel J. Klein/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641