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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 16, 18 and 22.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the dynamic reference value determinator of claims 1 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The claimed dynamic reference value determinator and boundary of claim 1.
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.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 limitations are:
“Dynamic reference value determinator” as recited in claim 1 (first, “for” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “determining the reference value”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “dynamic reference value determinator” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the determinator).
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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, 3-7, 10, 14, 16, 18-19 and 22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim states “a dynamic reference value determinator for dynamically determining the reference value from the stroke lengths of a number of preceding strokes” in lines 12–13 of the claim and “the determination unit utilizes the dynamic reference to determine an average of the stroke lengths of the two or more preceding strokes or a sliding average as specified over a predetermined time period” in lines 15-17 of the claim. The claim includes the term “dynamic reference value determinator” which is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as the claim refers to the function of the limitation while failing to provide structure for the term. There is no disclosure of structure for the claimed “dynamic reference value determinator” in the claim, the specification does not identify any additional structure, and the drawings do not show a dynamic reference value determinator as to show possession of the claimed 112(f) invoked means plus function interpretation. As such, claim 1 is rejected for failing to provide sufficient written description to provide structure to the 112(f) invoked interpretation of a dynamic reference value determinator.
Regarding claims 3-7, 10, 14, 16, 18-19 and 22, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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, 3-7, 10, 14, 16, 18-19 and 22 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim states a dynamic reference value determinator for dynamically determining the reference value from the stroke lengths of a number of preceding strokes” in lines 12–13 of the claim and “the determination unit utilizes the dynamic reference to determine an average of the stroke lengths of the two or more preceding strokes or a sliding average as specified over a predetermined time period” in lines 15-17 of the claim. It is unclear as to what the “dynamic reference value determinator” is as the term is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as the claim describes the dynamic reference value determinator by its function. The specification and drawings lack further disclosure of what structure(s) define the dynamic reference value determinator such that the Examiner can determine the scope of the claim. As such, it is unclear as to what the dynamic reference value determinator is as it is only vaguely defined by the recited functions in the claim and by other structures which, as disclosed in the specification and drawings, are defined by a function.
Additionally, the claim includes the term “boundary” but it is unclear as to what the boundary is as the term is not defined or included in the specification. A boundary is commonly defined as the limit or extent of an area or as the different between two areas. Further, it is unclear from the claim if the claimed boundary is a calculation or a physical structure somehow formed by the device as limitation “forming” could refer to the collection of data points or to the shaping of a physical structure.
Regarding claims 3-7, 10, 14, 16, 18-19 and 22, the claims are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 has insufficient antecedent basis for the noted limitations in the claims. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the reference value” in line 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the dynamic reference” in line 15.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10, 14, 16, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuellgrabe et al. (US 11,027,442 B2), hereafter known as Fuellgrabe, in view of Mulder et al. (EP 3,782,509 A1), hereafter known as Mulder.
Regarding claim 1, Fuellgrabe teaches a personal care device (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 1-7, 1), comprising an elongated handle (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 1 and 4-6, 2) for manually moving the personal care device in a short and/or a long stroke along a body surface (Fuellgrabe, Col. 16, lines 9-10), a working head (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 1 and 4-6, 3) attached to said handle for effecting a personal care treatment to said body surface, and a determination unit (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 1 and 4-6, 80) including at least one sensor for determining a stroke length (Fuellgrabe, Col. 9, lines 20-28, Fig. 1, 48) to differentiate between short and long strokes, characterized in that said determination unit is configured to determine velocity of the working head and/or the handle (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 1, 43), to determine beginning and end points of strokes when the determined velocity gets zero and/or changes signs (Fuellgrabe, Col. 9, lines 20-28 and 29-39), as best understood the device as disclosed by Fuellgrabe would be capable of determining the starting and beginning of a stroke due to the acceleration of the device as the device has all the required structure and is capable of making such a calculation, and to determine stroke length from the distance between pairs of beginning and end points next to each other (Fuellgrabe, Col. 9, lines 20-28 and 29-39), as the device of Fuellgrabe is capable of determining the position, acceleration, and speed while also being able to calculate the derivates of these quantities it is the device is capable of performing the stated function, an acceleration sensor (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 3, 43), wherein the determination unit includes a dynamic reference value determinator for dynamically determining the reference value from the stroke lengths of a number of preceding strokes, as best understood the reference value determinator may be anything capable of determining a value as such the acceleration sensor (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 3, 43, Col. 16, lines 15-17) meets the instant limitation, wherein the determination unit compares the determined stroke lengths to a reference value forming a boundary between long strokes and short strokes (Fuellgrabe, Col. 13, lines 33-47), and the determination unit utilizes the dynamic reference to determine an average of the stroke lengths of the two or more preceding strokes or a sliding average as specified over a predetermined time period (Fuellgrabe, Col. 18 line 38 – Col. 19 line 3), while Fuellgrabe does not specifically mention a sliding average for the stroke the prior art shows that it is well known in the art to compare different variables during use of a personal care device and then compare them using a variety of methods.
Fuellgrabe does not teach wherein the determination unit comprises a filter for removing influences of gravity onto the acceleration signal of the acceleration sensor. It should be noted that Fuellgrabe does teach that it is well known in the art to use a filter to process a signal (Fuellgrabe, Col. 8, lines 26-32).
Mulder teaches a personal care device (Mulder, Fig. 1-9, 10, P. 0010), in particular a hair removal device (Mulder, P. 0035), wherein the determination unit (Mulder, Fig. 1 and 7, 20) comprises a filter (Mulder, P. 0057) for removing influences of gravity onto the acceleration signal of the acceleration sensor (Mulder, Fig. 1 and 7, 19, P. 0057). This allow for the signal to free of accelerations caused by slow accelerations or movements (Mulder, P. 0057).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the filter of Fuellgrabe such that the filter removes the influences of gravity onto the acceleration signal as taught by Mulder as it allows for the acceleration signal to be free of accelerations caused by slow accelerations or movements caused by gravity or the user.
Regarding claim 3, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder teaches a personal care device according to claim 1, wherein the acceleration sensor (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 3, 43) is configured to determine velocity (Fuellgrabe, Col. 16, lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 4, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder teaches a personal care device according to claim 1, wherein a sensor of the at least one sensor of the determination unit comprises a rotation sensor (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 3, 44) for detecting rotational movements of the handle (Fuellgrabe, Col. 16, lines 13-14).
Regarding claim 5, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder teaches a personal care device according to claim 4, wherein the rotation sensor is configured to provide a correction signal to the determined velocity (Fuellgrabe, Col. 13, lines 1-15), while Fuellgrabe does not specifically teach modifying the velocity value based on a signal from the rotation sensor Fuellgrabe does teach adjusting a setting of the device in response to the velocity. This shows that it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the functioning of the device dependent on data provided by sensor and therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder such that the device modifies the determined velocity dependent on a signal from the rotation sensor.
Regarding claim 6, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder teaches a personal care device according to claim 5, wherein the evaluation unit (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 1 and 4-6, 80) includes a low pass filter for performing a mathematical integration for determining the velocity based on an acceleration signal, and/or said low pass filter having a cut-off frequency set at a value below expected frequencies of short and long strokes to perform the mathematical integration for frequencies above the cut-off frequency (Fuellgrabe, Col. 18 line 60 – Col. 19 line 3).
Regarding claim 10, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder teaches a personal care device according to claim 1, wherein said filter for removing influences of gravity (Mulder, P. 0057) is a high pass filter (Mulder, P. 0057)
Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder does not teach the filter having a cut-off frequency ranging from 0.8 Hz to 2.0 Hz. However, Mulder does teach that it is well known in the art of high-pass filters to vary the frequency range (Mulder, P. 0057). As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter taught by Mulder such that the frequency range such that it was any desirable range for any desirable reason as it is well known in the art of electric shaving devices to use high pass filters to filter out the influences of gravity.
Regarding claim 14, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder teaches a personal care device according to claim 1.
Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder does not teach wherein the determination unit is configured to disregard stroke lengths exceeding a predetermined maximum value.
However, Fuellgrabe does teach different characteristics for a user’s behavior including detecting speed, acceleration, length, direction, orientation, frequency, pattern, repetitive strokes over the same area, and all derivatives of these quantities, and/or device orientation and/or movement, such as position, acceleration, speed, movement frequencies, movement pattern and derivatives of these quantities (Fuellgrabe, Col. 9, lines 17-28) and to limit the device in some way when the device detects exceeding a predetermined maximum value (Fuellgrabe, Col. 7, lines 35-60). The combination of these teaches show that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder such that the determination unit was configured to disregard stroke lengths exceeding a predetermined maximum value.
Regarding claim 16, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder teaches a personal care device according to claim 1, wherein the acceleration sensor is configured to measure accelerations along at least one of a first axis extending in a longitudinal handle direction, a second axis extending perpendicular to the first axis and through a front and back side of the handle and /or a third axis perpendicular to the first and second axis (Fuellgrabe, Col. 20, lines 20-22).
Regarding claim 19, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder teaches a personal care device according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit is configured to issue a signal to a user regarding the function of the device (Fuellgrabe, Col. 13 line 53 – Col. 14 line 11). While Fuellgrabe does not specifically teach issuing a stroke pattern change signal indicative of a change from a long stroke pattern to a short stroke pattern and/or from a short stroke pattern to a long stroke pattern when a predefined number of short strokes and/or a predefined number of long strokes has been counted, said predefined number being larger than one and lower than six, the device is capable of counting strokes (Fuellgrabe, Col. 9, lines 17-28) and determining a change in pattern (Fuellgrabe, Col. 9, lines 17-28). As such, the device as taught by Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder would be capable of the required function.
Regarding claim 22, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder teaches a personal care device according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit is provided for determining the stroke length during a body treatment operation (Fuellgrabe, Col. 9, lines 20-28 and Col. 20, lines 23-26).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuellgrabe (US 11,027,442 B2) in view of Mulder (EP 3,782,509 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nijdam (US 2019/0275687 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder teaches a personal care device according to claim 6, wherein the cut-off frequency of said low pass filter is 1 Hz (Fuellgrabe, Col. 18 line 60 – Col. 19 line 3).
Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder does not teach wherein the cut-off frequency of said low pass filter is within a range of 0.20 Hz to 0.40 Hz
Nijdam teaches two low pass filters (Nijdam, P. 0015 and 0023) with a cut-off frequency in a range of 2 Hz to 20 Hz (Nijdam, P. 0015) and 30 Hz to 50 Hz (Nijdam, P. 0023). While neither range is within or overlaps the claimed range these ranges show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know to adjust the range of a filter and as discussed by Nijdam would be motiviated to do so to filter high frequency noise from the signal being processed (Nijdam, P. 0015).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the low pass filter taught by Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder to be any within any range a worker in the art deemed desirable as such a modification would only require a level of general skill in the art as it is known in the art to adjust the signal of a low pass filter to filter high frequency noise from a signal being processed.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuellgrabe (US 11,027,442 B2) in view of Mulder (EP 3,782,509 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsegenidis et al. (US 11,504,866 B2), hereafter known as Tsegenidis.
Regarding claim 18, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder teaches a personal care device according to claim 1.
Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder does not teach wherein the determination unit includes a counter for counting the number of the short strokes and/or the long strokes, wherein said counter is configured to be reset to zero whenever a stroke exceeds a maximum accepted length and/or an average value of determined velocity is lower than a predefined threshold.
Tsegenidis teaches a determination unit (Tsegenidis, Fig. , 540, Col. 13, lines 41-64) include a counter (Tsegenidis, Fig. 6, 512) for counting the number of strokes. While Tsegenidis does not specifically teach resetting the counter to zero when the stroke exceeds a maximum accepted length and/or an average value of the determined velocity is lower than a predefined threshold, Tsegenidis does teach counting the number of strokes per session (Tsegenidis, Col. 13, lines 41-64) and is capable of determining if a stroke is too fast or too slow (Tsegenidis, Col. 14, lines 39-52). Thus, the device taught by Tsegenidis would be capable of resetting the stroke count to zero when the session is ended and the device is no longer in use which would be when the average value of the determined velocity is lower than a predefined threshold as the device is no longer moving. This allows for the stroke count to be collected as data across different sessions and for the data to be compared (Tsegenidis, Col. 25, lines 8-14). While the device of Tsegenidis is a razor and not an electric shaver like the instant invention the razor of Tsegenidis seeks to solve a similar problem as the instant invention in how to count the number of strokes taken during a shaving process and how to reset the counter once the device is no longer in use.
As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to modify the determination used taught by Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder as such to include a counter for counting the number of the strokes and capable of resetting when the device was no longer in used as doing so allows for the collection of strokes over several sessions and the comparison of strokes.
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the amendments to claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 16, 18 and 22 overcome the claim objections of record, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness type rejections of record, and antecedent basis objections of record. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the claim objections of record and the indefiniteness rejections of record from the non-final office action dated 11/25/2025.
The specification objection of record is maintained as the applicant has not amended the instant disclosure to overcome the objection of record or has not provided proof to overcome the objection, the applicant should consider either amending the specification, taking care to not include new matter, or cancel the limitation from the claim.
The applicant asserts that the amendment to claim 1 to include the claim limitations of cancelled claims 11 and 12 overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record. The Examiner disagrees.
First, cancelled claims 11 and 12 included subject matter not shown in the drawings, are missing proper antecedent basis from the specification for the claimed subject matter and are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as these limitations are defined by their function without providing structure capable of performing said function. As the specification also does not provide sufficient structure for carrying out the stated functions cancelled claims 11 and 12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement (see final office action dated 07/15/2025). These limitations were also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as it was unclear what the applicant considers a “dynamic reference value determinator” as the claim fails to provide structure for such a limitation. As the applicant has amended claim 1 to include these same limitations the specification objection of record, interpretation of record, indefiniteness rejection of record and written description rejection of record still apply and have been included above.
Second, as the applicant has not defined a “dynamic reference value determinator”, a “dynamic reference value”, or what the boundary is the Examiner must apply the broadest reasonable interpretation based on the claimed functions as found in the prior art rejection above. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
The applicant asserts that the prior art rejection of record of claim 18 is overcome by the amendments to claim 1 as the prior art of Tsegenidis does not cure the asserted deficiencies of Fuellgrabe and Mulder. The Examiner disagrees for the reasons as stated in the response to the assertion for claim 1. Further, the Examiner disagrees that Tsegenidis does not teach the deficiencies of Fuellgrabe and Mulder claimed in claim 18 as Tsengenidis teaches that counting strokes is known in the art and that it is known to use the strokes to collected data. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
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 Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 pm.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights