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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 11/26/2025 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 1-15 has /have been amended, claims 16-18 has /have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-18 are pending in the application. An action on the merits for claims 1-18 are as follows.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Under page 16, last to the sixth line contains the information “a single gear set (32)”; under page 17, line 1 contains the information “the gear set (32)”; under page 17, line 3 contains the information “the gear box (32)”. Numerical 32 been objected to because it been used to identify different items in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
A. Claim limitation “regulated by control means” 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 “means” coupled with functional language “regulated” 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 16 line 3, Fig 1, control means (4) are adapted so that can apprehend data of a plurality of operation parameters.
B. Claim limitation “actuation monitoring means” 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 “means” coupled with functional language “actuation monitoring” 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, claims 9-12 and 15 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 18 line 14, Fig 2, actuation monitoring means (34) operatively associated with the driving came (33).
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.
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.
Claims 1-18 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “regulated by control means”. There is a written description issue regards to this limitation. Although the applicant disclosed in the specification, under page 16 line 3, Fig 1: Said control means (4) are adapted so that can apprehend data of a plurality of operation parameters; but did not disclose of any particular physical structure capable of performing this function, and as such the limitation could be exclusively software. As such the written description fails to disclose what applicant had possession of at the time of filing.
Claims 9-12 and 15 recite the limitations “actuation monitoring means” respectively. There is a written description issue regards to this limitation. Although the applicant disclosed in the specification, under page 18 line 14, Fig 3, actuation monitoring means (34) operatively associated with the driving came (33); but did not disclose of any particular structure capable of performing this function. As such the written description fails to disclose what applicant had possession of at the time of filing.
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.
Claims 1-18 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 “regulated by control means” rendering the claim indefinite. While turning to the specification and drawings for guidance, one finds under Spec. page 16 line 3: Said control means (4) are adapted so that can apprehend data of a plurality of operation parameters, and shown only with a box figure under Fig 1; it is unclear what kind of structure is required to perform this function and/or how this control means can be functioning as claimed? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the driving axis” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “it is preferred” in line 5 rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following “preferred” are part of the claimed invention? (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)).
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the driving direction” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a driving direction” in line 11 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “a driving direction” and the driving direction mentioned in line 8 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the electric motor and gear box” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-12 and 15 recite the limitations “actuation monitoring means” respectively rendering the claim indefinite. While turning to the specification and drawings for guidance, one finds under Spec. page 18 line 14: actuation monitoring means (34) operatively associated with the driving came (33), and shown only with a figure under Fig 3; it is unclear what kind of structure is required to perform this function and/or how this actuation monitoring means can be functioning as claimed? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “said second fixation support” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the gear box” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the gravitational force” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 13-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Bonacci et al. (US 2017/0007066 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Bonacci et al. disclose an apparatus comprising a beverage preparation device (machine 1, [0099], Figs 1-10) comprising a mobile part (mobile part 10, 20-21b, 30-33b, [0101], Figs 1-10) adapted to be driven by an actuation disposition (see Figs 3a-3b) and to be regulated by control means (control unit 3, [0101], Fig 1) in a movement path between open position, where the beverage preparation device can collect an individual portion of edible substance, and closed position, and in a reverse movement path (the handling device is provided with an electric motor and is open and closed, respectively, [0094], Figs 9-10),
wherein
the actuation disposition includes a movement generating device comprising an electric motor (motor 30, [0099], Figs 9-10), a velocity and binary conversion device comprising a gear set (a travel stop arrangement, [0138], Figs 8-10) operatively connected to the electric motor and disposed above the electric motor (operatively connected to 30 and disposed above 30, Figs 9-10), and a driving transmission disposition of final rotation movement to the mobile part (mobile part 10, 20-21b, 30-33b, [0101], Figs 1-10) of linear movement of the beverage preparation device (see Figs 9-10); and
wherein an output of the electric motor rotates about a first axis that is vertically oriented (an output of 30 rotates about a first axis that is vertically oriented, Figs 9-10) and an output of the gear set rotates about a second axis that is orthogonal to the first axis (an output of the gear set rotates about a second axis that is orthogonal to the first axis, see Figs 8-10), and
wherein the electric motor is disposed below the gear set (30 is disposed below the gear set, see Figs 9-10).
Claim 2, wherein: the electric motor is operatively connected by direct movement transmission to the gear set (details see Figs 8-10), whereby the gear set is adapted for direct transmission of rotational movement of a driving member (a common transmission 30’, [0141], Figs 9-10) that drives the mobile part (mobile part 10, 20-21b, 30-33b, [0101], Figs 1-10) of the beverage preparation device, and whereby all components of the movement transmission of the actuation disposition are provided encapsulated (encapsulated in machin1, [0099]) so that they are not exposed to dusts or corrosive agents.
Claim 3, wherein the actuation disposition includes a driving member (a common transmission 30’, [0141], Figs 9-10) adapted to provide direct movement transmission between a transmission exit of the gear set (details see Figs 9-10) and an actuation part (see Figs 3a-3b) of the beverage preparation device, whereby the driving member extends along a whole width of the actuation disposition and along at least most part of a transversal extension of the beverage preparation device (guide path can have symmetric portions or asymmetric portions extending into the different directions to cause the same displacement or a different displacement of the first part depending on the direction taken by the driving guide, [0047], Figs 3a-3b).
Claim 4, wherein the electric motor is operatively connected to the gear set (see Figs 9-10), the electric motor and the gear set jointly occupy a reference volume with a height that is bigger than a reference width thereof, with reference to a direction of gravitational force, inside of the apparatus, whereby said reference volume occupied by the electric motor and the gear set is disposed laterally and in an edge region with relation to the beverage preparation device (details see Figs 9-10).
Claim 5, wherein the electric motor (motor 30, [0099], Figs 9-10) is disposed completely below or completely above, with reference to a direction of gravitational force, a level of at least one of: central axis of a driving member (a common transmission 30’, [0141], Figs 9-10), central axis of the beverage preparation device (see Figs 9-10).
Claim 6, wherein the electric motor (motor 30, [0099], Figs 9-10) is disposed in the proximity of the beverage preparation device (Figs 9-10) so that the driving axis associated with the electric motor extends in a direction orthogonal to the direction of a movement path of the mobile part of the beverage preparation device (Figs 9-10), whereby it is preferred when the driving axis associated with the electric motor extends along one of: a vertical direction with reference to a direction of gravitational force in case that the driving direction of the mobile part along a direction transversal to the direction of the gravity force;
a horizontal direction with reference to the direction of the gravitational force in case that a driving direction of the mobile part extends along a direction parallel to the direction of the gravity force (details see Figs 9-10).
Claim 7, wherein the gear set presents one movement entry oriented along a first direction and directly operatively connected with a movement exit from the electric motor (motor 30, [0099], details see Figs 9-10), and presents one movement exit oriented along a second direction that is orthogonal relative to the first direction, whereby the gear set presents a volume that is similar or smaller than a volume of the electric motor, and whereby a joint volume of the electric motor and gear box is similar or smaller than a volume of the beverage preparation device, at least in the case that the beverage preparation device is in the open position (the handling device is provided with an electric motor and is open and closed, respectively, [0094], Figs 9-10).
Claim 8, wherein the actuation disposition is adapted so that a linear movement path between initial and destination positions, that is, between the open position and the closed position of the beverage preparation device, and vice-versa, (the handling device is provided with an electric motor and is open and closed, respectively, [0094], Figs 9-10) requires only a rotation movement of the driving member by a rotation angle of at most 110°, in a clockwork direction and reverse (a cam arrangement 31a, 11a that may comprise a driving guide member 31a driven by actuator 30,300, e.g. in rotation about a distant axis 31', along a guide path 11a of first part 10 e.g. in a support 11 of first part 10, [0142], Figs 9-10).
Claim 13, wherein the actuation disposition is configured to detect at least one end of movement path, including the end of movement path corresponding to the open position of the beverage preparation (Control unit 3 may also be connected to position or motion sensors associated with any movable part 10, 20-21b, 30-33b of machine 1, e.g. of the machine's capsule handling device 1", [0101], Figs 9-10).
Claim 14, wherein the actuation disposition includes a first fixation support (a support 11, [0118], Figs 9-10) disposed laterally with relation to the movement path associated with the actuation disposition (see Figs 9-10), whereby only a gear box (a first part 10, [0109], Figs 8a-10) is fixed to said first fixation support (see Figs 8a-10), and whereby the beverage preparation device is supported by a structural support different from the first fixation support (a structural support different from 11, that can holding all the other parts of machine 1, Abstract, Figs 8a-10).
Claim 15, wherein the actuation disposition includes a fixation support (a support 11, [0118], Figs 9-10), whereby an actuation monitoring means (position or motion sensors associated with any movable part 10, 20-21b, 30-33b of machine 1, [0101], Figs 8a-10) are fixed directly to said second fixation support (see Figs 8a-10).
Claim 17, wherein the required rotation movement of the driving member is a rotation angle of at most 95° (a cam arrangement 31a, 11a that may comprise a driving guide member 31a driven by actuator 30,300, e.g. in rotation about a distant axis 31', along a guide path 11a of first part 10 e.g. in a support 11 of first part 10, [0142], Figs 9-10).
Claim 18, wherein the gear set is contained within a gearbox (a first part 10, [0109], Figs 8a-10) and the electric motor and the gear box extend in an alignment parallel to direction of the gravitational force (see Figs 9-10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9, 11-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonacci et al. (US 2017/0007066 A1) in view of Burrows (US 2021/0315411 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Bonacci et al. disclose wherein the actuation disposition includes actuation monitoring means (position or motion sensors associated with any movable part 10, 20-21b, 30-33b of machine 1, [0101], Figs 9-10) adapted so that can monitor of at least one movement parameter associated with a circular movement of the driving member in an interval of quadrant with an angular extension of less than 110° (a cam arrangement 31a, 11a that may comprise a driving guide member 31a driven by actuator 30,300, e.g. in rotation about a distant axis 31', along a guide path 11a of first part 10 e.g. in a support 11 of first part 10, [0142], Figs 9-10).
Bonacci et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: whereby the actuation monitoring means are adapted so that, in each movement path of the beverage preparation device, can apprehend at least one of the following parameters: direction of rotation, number of rotations and speed of rotation of the driving member.
Burrows further teaches a beverage preparation device (beverage brewer 10, see Title), and whereby the actuation monitoring means (Note: “the actuation monitoring means” taught by Bonacci et al. already) are adapted so that, in each movement path of the beverage preparation device, can apprehend at least one of the following parameters: direction of rotation, number of rotations and speed of rotation of the driving member (processor 512 may increase or decrease the speed of rotation of motor 52, [0154], Fig 11. Note: “the driving member” taught by Bonacci et al. already).
Regarding Claim 11, Bonacci et al. disclose wherein the actuation disposition includes actuation monitoring means (position or motion sensors associated with any movable part 10, 20-21b, 30-33b of machine 1, [0101], Figs 9-10) associated with the driving member (details see Figs 9-10),
Bonacci et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: so that can apprehend at least one of the following movement parameters: direction of rotation, number of rotations between edges of the movement path, velocity of rotation of the driving member.
Burrows further teaches a beverage preparation device (beverage brewer 10, see Title), the actuation disposition includes actuation monitoring means associated with the driving cam (Note: “the actuation disposition includes actuation monitoring means associated with the driving cam” taught by Bonacci et al. already) and so that can apprehend at least one of the following movement parameters: direction of rotation, number of rotations between edges of the movement path, velocity of rotation of the driving member (processor 512 may increase or decrease the speed of rotation of motor 52, [0154], Fig 11. Note: “the driving member” taught by Bonacci et al. already).
Regarding Claim 12, Bonacci et al. disclose wherein the actuation disposition includes actuation monitoring means (position or motion sensors associated with any movable part 10, 20-21b, 30-33b of machine 1, [0101], Figs 9-10) adapted so that can apprehend, a relative position of the driving member (the cam arrangement comprises a driving guide member driven by the actuator, e.g. in rotation about a distant axis, along a guide path of the first part, [0047]) with relation to previously defined references of operation thereof (when the first part is in its transfer position, the guide member can be movable along two different directions of the guide path so as to drive the first part to its extraction position when the guide member is moved along either direction of the guide path, [0047]),
Bonacci et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: the actuation disposition includes actuation monitoring means adapted so that can apprehend, by an optical way, or by an electromagnetic way, whereby the actuation monitoring means are in the form of optical monitoring device of successive positions in a mobile support.
Burrows further teaches a beverage preparation device (beverage brewer 10, see Title), and the actuation disposition includes actuation monitoring means (“the actuation disposition includes actuation monitoring means” taught by Bonacci et al. already) adapted so that can apprehend, by an optical way, or by an electromagnetic way (an optical plug 1806 with brushes may be coupled to an optical sensor 1808, [0213], Fig 16A), whereby the actuation monitoring means are in the form of optical monitoring device (an optical sensor 1808, [0213]) of successive positions in a mobile support (disk 1804, which is coupled to inlet nozzle 44, also rotates in direction 1802, [0207]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bonacci et al. with Burrows’s further teaching of Claim 9, whereby the actuation monitoring means are adapted so that, in each movement path of the beverage preparation device, can apprehend at least one of the following parameters: direction of rotation, number of rotations and speed of rotation of the driving member; Claim 11, so that can apprehend at least one of the following movement parameters: direction of rotation, number of rotations between edges of the movement path, velocity of rotation of the driving member; Claim 12, the actuation disposition includes actuation monitoring means adapted so that can apprehend, by an optical way, or by an electromagnetic way, whereby the actuation monitoring means are in the form of optical monitoring device of successive positions in a mobile support; because Burrows teaches, in Para. [0154], of providing a beverage brewer system with specific speed control over the motor for different beverage result during processing.
Claim 16, Bonacci et al. disclose wherein the interval of quadrant has an angular extension of between 90° and 100° (a cam arrangement 31a, 11a that may comprise a driving guide member 31a driven by actuator 30,300, e.g. in rotation about a distant axis 31', along a guide path 11a of first part 10 e.g. in a support 11 of first part 10, [0142], Figs 9-10).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record by itself or in combination does not disclose the limitations under Claim 10: wherein the actuation disposition ~includes actuation monitoring means including a mobile part provided so that can be moved together with the driving member and that presents a plurality of openings arranged along an angular alignment, as well as a fixed part provided so that can emit a beam of electromagnetic radiation, said beam being oriented so that intersects said angular alignment of openings of the mobile part; and there is no motivation found to modify the prior art to obtain the claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action as stated above. (for minor modify). The same prior art used under the Non-Final Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of the amended claims.
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