DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 “preset portion” and “connection portion” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “elastic assembly” in claims 1 and 14.
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 § 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1,12-14,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (CN208958000U; attached machine translation).
Hu et al. disclose a collision detection apparatus 4 comprising a base 1; a switch 42 in the base 1; an elastic assembly 43,44 in the base 1 (shown in Fig.1), wherein one end 432 (end of rod 432) of the elastic assembly 43,44 is connected with the base 1 (connected through connection to base 41), and another end 431 of the elastic assembly 4344 is connected with the switch 42 (shown in fig.4); and a cover 2 movably connected with the base 1 to move within a set range (distance between the cover not contacting obstacle to the distance the cover 2 moves when the cover 2 comes in contact with an obstacle), wherein the cover 2 has an abutting part (inner surface of cover 2 which contacts rod 432), and the abutting part is clamped with a preset portion 43 of the elastic assembly 43,44 (inner surface of cover is attached to the base 1 as is the collision branch 43 of the elastic assembly to be in contact); wherein under a state that the cover 2 has a collision and moves in a set direction, the abutting part is forced to push the preset portion 43, so as to drive the other end 431 of the elastic assembly to trigger the switch 42, and the switch 42 is configured to report a collision event when being triggered (pg.5, lines 1-27 of the attached machine translation). Claim 1
Hu et al. disclose wherein the switch 42 comprises a trigger structure 421,422, and the other end 431 of the elastic assembly is in abutting connection with the trigger structure 421,422 (shown in fig.4). Claim 12
Hu et al. the switch 42 comprises a light emitting part 421 and a light receiving part 422, and a light path of the light emitting part is opposite to a light path of the light receiving part (shown in fig.4); and under the state that the cover 2 has a collision and moves in the set direction, the other end 431 of the elastic assembly moves to a position between the light emitting part 421and the light receiving part 422 so as to cut off the light path (pg.4, ln.13 thru pg.5, ln.14 of attachment). Claim 13
Hu et al. disclose a cleaning device (background section of attachment), comprising a collision detection apparatus 4, the collision detection apparatus comprises: a base 1; a switch 4 in the base 1; an elastic assembly 43,44 in the base 1, wherein one end (end of rod 432) of the elastic assembly is connected with the base 1, and an other end 431 of the elastic assembly is connected with the switch 42 (shown in fig.4); and a cover 2 movably connected with the base 1 to move within a set range, wherein the cover 2 has an abutting part, and the abutting part (inner surface of cover 2 which contacts rod 432) is clamped with a preset portion 43 of the elastic assembly (inner surface of cover is attached to the base 1 as is the collision branch 43 of the elastic assembly to be in contact); wherein under a state that the cover 2 has a collision and moves in a set direction, the abutting part is forced to push the preset portion 43, so as to drive the other end 431of the elastic assembly to trigger the switch 42, and the switch 42 is configured to report a collision event when being triggered (pg.5, lines 1-27 of the attached machine translation). Claim 14
Hu et al. the switch 42 comprises a light emitting part 421 and a light receiving part 422, and a light path of the light emitting part is opposite to a light path of the light receiving part (shown in fig.4); and under the state that the cover 2 has a collision and moves in the set direction, the other end 431 of the elastic assembly moves to a position between the light emitting part 421and the light receiving part 422 so as to cut off the light path (pg.4, ln.13 thru pg.5, ln.14 of attachment). Claim 20
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11,15-19 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A REDDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1276. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00-2:00 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, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached on 313-446-6546. 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.
/David Redding/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights