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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/10/02026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1,15 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 14 and 16 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-13,15 and 17-30 are pending:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference characters 100, 200, 210, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, in figs. 1, 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively, are underlined without a proper justification under either 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) or (q). The underlines should be removed, and in their place, a lead line with an arrow as per 37 CFR 1.84(r)(1) should be used appropriately.
The drawing is objected to because reference character 1000 does not have a lead line with an arrow. A lead line with an arrow for reference character 100,as per 37 CFR 1.84(r)(1), should be used appropriately.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶3 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "circuitry configured to: receive sensor readings from a sensing element ...; and evaluate the stability of the flow rate."
¶7 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "the examples and figures are illustrative only and do not limit the invention."
¶10 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "In particular, the controller"
¶10 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "activate any of the functions."
¶10 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "output[[s]] one or more evaluation results."
¶10 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "the flow rate of the gas [[flow]] 106" (three times).
¶11 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "an 'on' or 'off' signal."
¶13 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "The one or more memories may also be [[also]] used."
¶14 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "programmable logic controllers (PLCs)."
¶15 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "controller [[102]] 104" (twice).
¶16 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "the operating range 202."
¶21 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "In this illustrated embodiment[[s]]."
¶26 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "controller [[300]] 104A."
¶29 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "sensing element 802 and the controller 804 are mounted."
¶32 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "The robotic equipment 1000 may be [[as] a torch cleaner or reamer."
¶33, point 5, of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "at the desired flow rate."
¶33, point 5, of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "nozzle [[1000]] 1004."
¶33, point 6, of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "turn P1 (e.g., clockwise)."
¶33, point 11, of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "to bring the nozzle out of the flow cone."
¶34 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite "[[NFGA]] NFGS."
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 and 15 and 17-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 12, should be amended to recite "a flow rate of a shielding gas."
Claim 1, line 13, should be amended to recite "evaluate the stability of the flow rate of the shielding gas within a window of operation."
Claim 2, line 3, should be amended to recite "a status of the flow rate of the shielding gas."
Claim 2, line 4, should be amended to recite "a supply of operational power."
Claim 12, line 3, should recite "the sensor readings."
Claim 18, line 2, should recite "[[the]] debris."
Claim 20, line 15, should be amended to recite "a flow rate of a shielding gas."
Claim 20, line 16, should be amended to recite "evaluate the stability of the flow rate of the shielding gas within a window of operation."
Claim 20, line 21, should be amended to recite "within the window of operation."
Each of claims 21–29 depend from independent claim 20. Each begins with the indefinite article ("A method"). While either the indefinite article or the definite article are suitable for dependent claims, for stylistic conformity, one should be chosen. Preferably, claims 21–29 should be amended to recite "The method" much as the apparatus claims depending from claim 1 recite "The nozzle gas flow sensor."
Claim 22, lines 2–3, should be amended to recite "a minimum flow rate and a maximum flow rate."
Claim 23 recites "operating on an indicator." The language "operating on" is unusual and ungrammatical, as there is no indication of what would operate on the indicator and how it would operate on the indicator. Replacing "operating on" with "actuating" or "controlling" would be suitable.
Claim 23, line 3, should be amended to recite "the determination."
Like claim 23, claim 24 recites "operating on an indicator," and warrants the same correction.
Claim 27, lines 2–3, should be amended to recite "a flow rate band."
Claim 29, line 4, should be amended to recite "the sensor readings."
Claim 30 is objected to due to incorporation of claim 20.
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:
First manual operation member, a second manual operation member, a third manual operation member and fourth manual operation member in claim 5.
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.
The written specification defines the manual operation members to be a potentiometer knob (paragraph 0041, lines 1-3), switches (paragraph 0028) and push/pull buttons (paragraph 0012).
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 19 and 25 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 19 recites the limitation " the inner space of the housing," in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation " the first status indicator" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 1-13, 15,17,18,20-24 and 26-30 are allowable because the prior art does not disclose or teach a roll spring assembly and a vertical spring assembly coupled to the housing and configured to provide controlled movement of the housing in multiple axes when the nozzle is received in the flow cone.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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, EDWARD LANDRUM can be reached at 5712725567. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights