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 Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: There appears to be a typo “n” in line 18. This appears to be an extraneous letter and could be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17, the limitation “”wherein said computer is set up to calculate at least one parameter from the sensor data recorded during a work sequence” was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. The calculation of the at least one parameter is not explained in sufficient detail for one skilled in the art to know the steps or procedure taken to perform the function claimed. See MPEP 2161.01 I. Therefore, claim 17 does not meet the comply with the written description requirement.
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 16-18, 20-27 and 29-31 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.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations “a monitor for monitoring said work unit, said monitor recording the sensor data at a lower sampling rate than said data acquisition module; and a computer, said data acquisition module connected to said computer for calculating result data from the sensor data” renders the claims unclear. It is unclear if the sensor data in the last line is intended to be the sensor data directly from the sensors or the sensor data at the lower sampling rate that said data acquisition module. The broadest reasonable interpretation would appear to only require the computer to be connected to the data acquisition module, which would mean the data was the sensor data directly from the data acquisition module. If this were the case it would be unclear what or how the monitor monitored the work unit given the only function is to record the sensor data at a lower sampling rate than the data acquisition module. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear to such a degree that art is unable to be applied.
Claims 17-18, 20, 22-26 depend from claim 16 and inherit this issue therefrom.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “The system according to claim 19” renders the claim unclear because claim 19 has been cancelled. As best understood from the disclosure, it is believed that claim 21 should now depend from claim 16. A possible correction would read - - The system according to claim 16 - -.
Regarding claim 27, the limitations “calculating result data from the sensor data by means of said computer; monitoring the work unit via the monitor, the monitor recording the sensor data at a lower sampling rate than the data acquisition module;” “calculating parameters of a work sequence as the result data and transmitting the parameters to the machine controller” render the claims unclear. It is unclear if the sensor data in the last line is intended to be the sensor data directly from the sensors or the sensor data at the lower sampling rate that said data acquisition module. The broadest reasonable interpretation would appear to only require the computer to be connected to the data acquisition module, which would mean the data was the sensor data directly from the data acquisition module. If this were the case it would be unclear what or how the monitor monitored the work unit given the only function is to record the sensor data at a lower sampling rate than the data acquisition module. It is further unclear if the calculating parameters step is intended to be a separate calculation or a further description of the calculation performed in the calculating result data step. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear to such a degree that art is unable to be applied.
Claims 29 and 31 depend from claim 27 and inherit this issue therefrom.
Regarding claim 30, the limitation “The method according to claim 28” renders the claim unclear because claim 28 has been cancelled. As best understood from the disclosure, it is believed that claim 30 should now depend from claim 27. A possible correction would read - - The method according to claim 27 - -.
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 JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853