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 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.
Claim 1 thus dependent claims 2-4 ,11-20 and 24-27 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 wherein “a table, the table indicating a pressure level, etc.….”
It appears the table is found in Fig. 5. In view of MPEP 2111, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. More importantly, BRI does not mean importing limitations from the specification into the claims, the claims are interpreted based on their own language, guided by the specification only to clarify the meaning. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. The use of the term “table” does not appear to be consistent with the interpretation in those skilled in the art, because the table appears to have data points, i.e. pressure level, temperature and state of charge. A table can have various definitions and therefore, the term table as claimed is considered to be indefinite.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should amend the claim language which defines the parameters to be claimed, i.e. pressure level, temperature and state of charge.
The term “finely” in claim 25 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “finely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term finely is considered to be vague and can not be given a reasonable interpretation in view of the specification. Applicant should be amend to provide clarity to the claimed language and use terms that are clear and consistent to those in this field of endeavor.
Response to Amendment
The amendment received 04/23/2026 (“Amendment”) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1, however as noted above, the newly added limitations are rejected under §112, therefore the arguments presented are moot. Given the 35 USC §112 issues, the Examiner is unable to formulate and apply any meaningful prior art rejections at this time. Once the §112 issues are resolved such that the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are clear, the Examiner will be able to evaluate the claimed invention under 35 USC §102,103 on the merits.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights