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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/13/2024 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 09/13/2024 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 1, 9 and 11 has /have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-15 are pending in the application with claims 9-13 and 15 previously withdrawn. An action on the merits for claims 1-8 and 14 are as follow. The previous 112 (b) Claim Rejections are withdrawn in accordance with applicant's amendment to the claim with no new matter added.
Claim Limitation
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim limitation “a programmable processing component” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “component” coupled with functional language “processing” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. Page 9 line 11, Fig. 2, a programmable processing component 204.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
6. Claims 1-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation “a programmable processing component configured to analyze the detection data and provide exceptional situation data in response to the detection data indicating an exceptional situation defined in the programming of the programmable processing component,”. Although applicant's Fig. 2 appears to be a stove guard including sensors 102 and 103 for detecting events on a stove and for providing detection data, and a programmable processing component 204 for analysing the detection data and for providing exceptional situation data in response to the detection data indicating an 15 exceptional situation defined in the programming of the processing component 204 (see Spec. Page 9 line 6-16), but fails to disclose any structural details and algorithm information in the specification and drawings, it is unclear how this recites can be made.
When determining whether "undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention the following factors, MPEP 2164.01 (a), are considered: (A) The breadth of the claims- a programmable processing component configured to analyze the detection data and provide exceptional situation data in response to the detection data indicating an exceptional situation defined in the programming of the programmable processing component; (B) The nature of the invention- a stove guard arrangement which is able to recognize at least an induction stove; the recognition of the induction stove may be performed regardless of the location or distance of installation of the stove guard in relation to the stove; the recognition of the induction stove may be performed without significant need for additional space or power in the stove guard arrangement; (C) The state of the prior art- Dembo et al. (EP 1 962 408 A2) disclose a stove guard arrangement (cooker 3402… to notify danger, [0204], Figs 33A-33B), comprising one or more sensors (radio field intensity detector… a warning light 3400, [0204], Figs 33A-33B) configured to detect events on a stove (cooker 3402, [0204], Fig 33B) and provide detection data (radio field intensity measurement device 100… a signal processing circuit 120, [0029], Fig 1), a programmable processing component (a signal processing circuit 120, [0029], Fig 1) configured to analyze the detection data and provide exceptional situation data in response to the detection data (compare a potential of the direct signal with an output potential, [0012]) indicating an exceptional situation defined in the programming of the programmable processing component (cooker is broken… the color of the warning light is changed to notify danger, [0204]; clearly, the warning condition is already defined in the programming of the programmable processing component), and a receiver (an antenna 110, [0029], Fig 1, [0013], rectifier circuit 111 and an amplifier circuit 114, [0029], Fig 1) connected to the programmable processing component (110, 111 and 114 connected to a control circuit 112 of 120, [0029], Fig 1) and configured to receive radio-frequency interference and to provide corresponding reception data (the radio wave received by the antenna 110 is converted into an induction signal and input into the rectifier circuit 111, [0030], Fig 2); wherein the programmable processing component is configured to recognize regular changes back and forth in said reception data and configured to derive, on the basis of the recognized regular changes back and forth, a conclusion that the stove is an induction stove (warning light 3400… like this is incorporated in … an induction heating cooker 3402… is broken and emits dangerous electromagnetic wave around ... notify danger, [0204], Fig 33A; clearly the signal processing circuit 12 is capable of “recognize regular changes back and forth in said reception data and configured to derive, on the basis of the recognized regular changes back and forth, a conclusion that the stove is an induction stove” as claimed); (D) The level of one of ordinary skill- an individual in the electric heating arts having the necessary and relevant means to make and use the invention. In the instant case the disclosure as originally filed: “a programmable processing component” does not provide any structural or algorithmic details necessary for one of ordinary skill in the art to be reasonably apprised of how to make and use the invention; (E) The level of predictability in the art- As shown under the prior art- Dembo et al. (EP 1 962 408 A2) is known in the art provides evidence of a programmable processing component (a signal processing circuit 120) configured to analyze the detection data and provide exceptional situation data in response to the detection data (compare a potential of the direct signal with an output potential, [0012]) as claimed; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor- Spec. Page 9 line 11, Fig. 2,
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a programmable processing component 204 for analysing the detection data and for providing exceptional situation
data in response to the detection data indicating an exceptional situation defined in the programming of the processing component 204; (G) The existence of working examples- applicant only mentioned in Spec. Page 10 line 27-29: “the stove may for example automatically turn up or down the power for a specific cooking area according to some programmed routine”.
Independent claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement for all of the reasons discussed above. As a result of not complying with the enablement requirement, the disclosure also necessarily fails the written description requirement since it cannot be determined what applicant had possession of at the time of filing.
7. 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.
Claims 1-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a programmable processing component configured to analyze the detection data and provide exceptional situation data in response to the detection data indicating an exceptional situation defined in the programming of the programmable processing component” rendering the claim indefinite; while turning to the specification and drawings for guidance, one finds, Spec. Page 9 line 6-16, Fig 2, mentioned the recited limitation. However, there isn’t any structural details and algorithm information to enable one ordinary skill in the art to comprehend how this limitation can be made. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Kosanovic Helena can be reached on 571/272-9059, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571/273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761