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 .
Drawings
The drawings (Figs. 1 and 2) are objected.
The objected drawings contain no descriptive/concise legends/titles to convey the scope and facilitate understanding of the invention without constantly referring back to the Specification.
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 16-19 and 21-34 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 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.
With regards to Claims 16, 21, and 22, the amended limitation “pulse frequency of the regulating device” and “the pulse frequency is in the range from 1 kHz to 20 kHz” are 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.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (p.8-9): the Examiner suggestion that additional descriptive legends are required would, if followed, compel Applicant to violate the governing regulations by inserting impermissible textual explanations directly into the drawings.
The Examiner disagrees with “impermissible explanation” definition as argued because the “governing regulations” allows the Examiner to issue such request to improve understanding of the drawings, as presented below:
37 CFR 1.84(o): "Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing."
MPEP 1.84: Standards for drawings. (o) Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible.
The Examiner additionally submits that adding short legends to 5 methods steps such as, for example, detection information 200, frequency analysis 102, selecting frequency range 103, recognizing peak 104, and determination of speed 105, in Fig.1 or 4 terms (for example, regulating device 3, asynchronous machine 2, work machine 1, processing device 10) in Fig. 2 would equate to adding impermissible “descriptive matter” as interpreted by the Applicant. On the other hand, it would help to “visualize” a method or schematics of parts of an embodiment of the invention (as stated in the instant Specification [0043, 0044], as published).
In Examiner’s opinion, short legends in Figs. 1 and 2 would significantly improve understanding of the invention and that is why the arguments is unpersuasive.
35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 10/28/2026, with respect to Claim 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112 rejection of Claims 16-34 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. 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.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863