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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 6/3/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As to any rejection that is repeated below from the prior Office Action, no specific arguments are presented for any repeated rejection, and an explanation as to why the rejection is raised is expressly explained below, in light of applicant’s disclosure. To the extent that applicant identifies locations in the disclosure for support, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant cites many different locations spanning many pages, and, respectfully, does not identify the specific locations and sentences that provide support. The Examiner therefore respectfully directs applicant’s attention to those rejections found below.
No prior art is being applied because the prior art does not disclose the feature of “determine the peculiar point as the rail seem point or the rail fracture point, based on a distance calculated using the position signal, the distance pulse signal, and a length of a gap between rails in a travel direction based on a magnetic flux change indicated by the cosine signal, the sine signal, and the amplitude signal recited from each of the plurality of detection devices” as found in Claims 1 and 11, as currently presented, in the combination, and as best understood.
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 and 5-11 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
480
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
760
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “the processing device of the detection device” on line 1 of page 2 of the claim introduces new matter.
As seen in the above marked up figures, no detection device includes a processing device. Further, the above phrase is indented under what each detection device includes, and applicant is therefore claiming that each detection device includes a processing device. However, this is not originally disclosed, as the detection devices are disclosed to connect to a processing device that is distinct and separately disclosed from any detection device. As explained on pages 11-14 of page 5, “In this case, the detection device 2 detects a state of the rail 100, and a signal representing a detection result is sent to the processing device 3 via a connection cable 64” (emphasis added). The processing device is therefore a separate and distinct element from any detection device, and reciting that there is a processing device “of” the detection device, especially where each detection device therefore includes a processing device, introduces new matter as this was not originally disclosed.
The phrase “determine the peculiar point as the rail seem point or the rail fracture point, based on a distance calculated using the position signal, the distance pulse signal, and a length of a gap between rails in a travel direction based on a magnetic flux change indicated by the cosine signal, the sine signal, and the amplitude signal recited from each of the plurality of detection devices” on lines 1-5 of page 3 of the claim introduces new matter.
1) The original disclosure does not disclose the determination of the a distance from each of the above features. For example, the original disclosure does not disclose that the above distance is determined based upon a length of a gap between rails in a travel direction based on a magnetic flux change indicated by the cosine signal, the sine signal, and the amplitude signal recited from each of the plurality of detection devices. No length of the gap is reasonably disclosed to be part of any distance determination. Furthermore, the length of the gap is not “based on a magnetic flux change” as explained, further introducing new matter.
2) Furthermore, as previously explained the original disclosure does not state that the processing device is configured to discriminate (determine) whether the peculiar point is the rail seem or fracture point based on a distance calculated using the position signal, the distance pulse signal, and a magnetic flux as claimed. The process applicant is claiming refers to step S10 in Figure 11, but as seen in this figure, the pulse signal (SP/SK) is not used during the discrimination process. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
The phrase “wherein the position signal is transmitted to the processing device of the rail state monitoring apparatus when an onboard detector passes over the ground element installed in one of the left and right railroad rails on the track, wherein the processing device is further configured to determine an absolute position on the track of one of the first vehicle and the second vehicle in which the onboard detector is installed based on the known installation position of the ground element on the track as detected by the onboard detector, wherein the distance pulse signal is a one-shot pulse signal that is received by the processing device of the rail state monitoring apparatus each time the train wheel rotates through the rotation angle of the train wheel, wherein the processing device is further configured to count a number of the distance pulse signals received by the processing device since receiving a last position signal, and to determine distance data on the track of the one of the first vehicle and the second vehicle to which the train wheel is attached based on the absolute position associated with the last position signal and the count of the number of the distance pulse signals” in the last four paragraphs of page 3 of the claim introduces new matter.
1) Applicant initially expressly claims that it is the analog to digital converter, a device separate and distinct from the processing device, that is configured to receive the position signal and distance pulse signal (see the bottom of page 2 of the claim). As such, it is the analog to digital converter, and not the processing device that receives the above signals. While the processing device may receive digitized or otherwise altered version of these signals from the analog to digital converter, that is not the same as actually reciting the same signals that the analog to digital converter is claimed to receive, as is now currently claimed. Because the processing device does not receive the same signals that the analog to digital converter receives, as is now expressly claimed, this phrase introduces new matter.
2) The original disclosure does not state that the processing device is configured “to determine distance data on the track of the one of the first vehicle and the second vehicle to which the train wheel is attached based on the absolute position associated with the last position signal and the count of the number of the distance pulse signals,” because it is not originally disclosed to make such a determination “based on the absolute position associated with the last position signal” as claimed. While a previous position may be used, there is a difference between a position and an absolute position.
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “determining distance data on the track of the one of the first vehicle and the second vehicle to which the train wheel is attached based on the counted number of the distance pulse signals received and the absolute position on the track of the one of the first vehicle and the second vehicle as indicated by the last received position signal” on lines 7-10 of page 3 of the claim introduces new matter.
The original disclosure does not state that the processing device or any device to determine a distance “based on the counted number of the distance pulse signals received and the absolute position on the track of the one of the first vehicle and the second vehicle as indicated by the last received position signal,” because it is not originally disclosed to make such a determination “based on the absolute position associated with the last position signal” as claimed. While a previous position may be used, there is a difference between a position and an absolute position.
The phrase “determining, by the processing device, the peculiar point as the rail seem point or the rail fracture point, based on a distance calculated using the position signal, the distance pulse signal, and a length of a gap between rails in a travel direction based on a magnetic flux change indicated by the cosine signal, the sine signal, and the amplitude signal recited from each of the plurality of detection devices” on lines 13-17 of page 3 of the claim introduces new matter.
1) The original disclosure does not disclose the determination of the a distance from each of the above features. For example, the original disclosure does not disclose that the above distance is determined based upon a length of a gap between rails in a travel direction based on a magnetic flux change indicated by the cosine signal, the sine signal, and the amplitude signal recited from each of the plurality of detection devices. No length of the gap is reasonably disclosed to be part of any distance determination. Furthermore, the length of the gap is not “based on a magnetic flux change” as explained, further introducing new matter.
2) Furthermore, as previously explained the original disclosure does not state that the processing device is configured to discriminate (determine) whether the peculiar point is the rail seem or fracture point based on a distance calculated using the position signal, the distance pulse signal, and a magnetic flux as claimed. The process applicant is claiming refers to step S10 in Figure 11, but as seen in this figure, the pulse signal (SP/SK) is not used during the discrimination process. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
As to Claims 5-10,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 and 5-11 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
480
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
760
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 1,
The phrases “a plurality of detection devices provided on a train that travels on left and right railroad rails forming a track” on lines 2-3 of page 1 of the claim, “the detection device has a magnetic sensor unit group comprising one or more units facing one of the left and right railroad rails” on lines 9-10 of page 1 of the claim, and “the plurality of detection devices comprises a first pair of detection devices provided symmetrically on respective right and left sides of a first vehicle of the plurality of vehicles of the train such that the magnetic sensor unit of each of the first pair of detection devices faces one of the left and right railroad rails; and a second pair of detection devices provided symmetrically on right and left sides of a second vehicle of the plurality of vehicles of the train such that the magnetic sensor unit of each of the second pair of detection devices faces one of the left and right railroad rails, wherein the first vehicle is a leading vehicle at a front part of the train with respect to a travel direction of the train and the second vehicle is a tailing vehicle at a rear part of the train with respect to the travel direction of the train” on lines 4-15 of page 2 of the claim are indefinite.
Claim 1 is expressly directed towards “A rail state monitoring apparatus” and what this apparatus comprises. This apparatus, in light of the disclosure, does not comprise a train. While the intent of this monitoring apparatus may be to be installed on a train, the apparatus itself does not include or require a train, for example when it is boxed up and has yet to be installed. Claiming that the detection devices are “provided on a train” reasonably requires the train and that they are “on” that train, such that merely having this apparatus in a box in a store would not read on this claim. The claim recites further details of the train, such as reciting details of the lead and tailing vehicles for the train, thus further adding to the indefiniteness as to whether the train is or is not required in the claim. The scope of the claim is therefore unclear, because it is unclear what features are and are not required in this claim, specifically the train itself. The claim is further unclear because the claim positively recites that the detection devices actually face the rails as seen above. The only reasonable way that the detection devices can face the rails is if the rails are actually required in the claim and are present such that the detection devices face them. However, the rails are not part of the rail monitoring apparatus, further making it unclear whether these features are or are not required in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the claim does require the train, its claimed vehicles, and the respective rails that the detection devices face, and does require that the detection devices actually be provide on the train and face the respective rails as expressly claimed.
The phrase “the processing device of the detection device is configured to output a detection signal based on a result of the detection by one or more magnetic sensor units” on lines 1-2 of page 2 of the claim is indefinite.
1) The first issue is that this feature is indented under what each of the plurality of detection devices comprises, but where, as best understood, it is not intended to be listed as such. As explained below, the detection devices do not comprise, and this do not include, a processing device, and the above magnetic sensor units are being distinctly recited from any previously recited units. As such, the relationship between this phrase and the “for each of the plurality of detection devices” phrase prior recited is unclear.
2) The phrase “the processing device of the detection device” on line 1 of page 2 of the claim is indefinite. While a processing device was recited on line 4 of the claim, it was not recited to be “of the detection device,” and the detection devices were not previously claimed to have any processing device. The above claim feature is indented under what each of the plurality of detection devices includes, but where none of these devices are previously claimed to include a processing device. Instead, and as best understood, there is one processing device for the entirety of the rail state monitoring apparatus, which is element (3) as seen in Figure 8, and this processing device is not part of the detection device. As such, it is unclear what processing device this phrase is referencing either in the claim or disclosure.
3) The phrase “by one or more magnetic sensor units” on line 2 of page 3 of the claim is indefinite. When applicant introduces a feature without using antecedent terms such as “the” or “said,” applicant is introducing this feature as a new and distinct element from those already recited. For example, reciting “a magnetic sensor” and later reciting “a magnetic sensor” requires the claim to have two magnetic sensors, as these are distinctly recited from each other, even if the original disclosure only disclosed one magnetic sensor. In the instant applicant, applicant is claiming “one or more magnetic sensor units,” but where one or more magnetic sensor units have already been recited on lines 9-10. Because the original recitation of one or more magnetic sensor units reasonably includes all such units, there are no other units of the disclosure that the newly and distinctly recited “one or more magnetic sensor units” can refer to from the above phrase. While applicant may intend these units to be the same, they are nevertheless distinctly recited, and therefore are not the same. Because there are no other units that could be the one or more magnetic sensor units for the above phrase, this phrase is indefinite, because it is unclear what one or more magnetic sensor units it is referring to from the disclosure, and it is unclear how this phrase is related to the previously recited one or more magnetic sensor units.
The phrase “the magnetic sensor unit of each of the first pair of detection devices” on lines 6-7 of page 2 of the claim is indefinite.
The Examiner acknowledges that applicant previously claimed that each of the plurality of detection devices comprises “one or more magnetic sensor unit.” However, This claim phrase means that each detection device includes one or more magnetic sensor units, and thus claiming “the magnetic sensor unit” is indefinite because more than one unit was previously claimed and expressly intended to be in the prior phrase “one or more magnetic sensor units.” As such, it is unclear which unit is being referenced with this phrase.
The second issue is that no “magnetic sensor unit” was recited to be “of the first pair of detection devices.” Each detection device as one or more magnetic sensor units, and thus a pair of detection devices must have at least two magnetic sensor units. Claiming “the magnetic sensor unit” of a pair of detection units is indefinite, because it is unclear which is being referenced with that phrase.
The phrase “the magnetic sensor unit of each of the second pair of detection devices” on lines 10-11 of page 2 of the claim is indefinite.
The Examiner acknowledges that applicant previously claimed that each of the plurality of detection devices comprises “one or more magnetic sensor unit.” However, This claim phrase means that each detection device includes one or more magnetic sensor units, and thus claiming “the magnetic sensor unit” is indefinite because more than one unit was previously claimed and expressly intended to be in the prior phrase “one or more magnetic sensor units.” As such, it is unclear which unit is being referenced with this phrase.
The second issue is that no “magnetic sensor unit” was recited to be “of the first pair of detection devices.” Each detection device as one or more magnetic sensor units, and thus a pair of detection devices must have at least two magnetic sensor units. Claiming “the magnetic sensor unit” of a pair of detection units is indefinite, because it is unclear which is being referenced with that phrase.
The phrase “wherein the analog-to-digital converter is configured to receive, from outside of the detection device, a position signal” on lines 16-17 of page 2 of the claim is indefinite.
1) The first issue is that the relationship between the above analog-to-digital converter and the detection devices is unclear. Applicant is listing this feature underneath the “for each of the plurality of detection devices,” but the analog-to-digital converter is not for or of any detection device. The analog-to-digital converter may be configured to receive a signal from a detection device, but claiming it in the manner currently recited makes the relationship between this converter and the detection device unclear, in a similar way that claiming the previous processing device under the “for each of the plurality of detection devices” phrase is unclear.
2) The Examiner acknowledges that the intent of the above phrase is to recite an a/d converter that is configured to receive a position signal from outside the detection device(s), but this phrase reasonably includes two different interpretations as currently claimed. The first is that the a/d converter itself is that the position signal is outside the detection device but where the a/d can be inside or outside the detection device, and the second interpretation is that the a/d is physically located outside the detection device. The meaning of this phrase, and specifically, the use of the “outside the detection device” feature is unclear as currently recited.
The phrase “determine the peculiar point as the rail seem point or the rail fracture point, based on a distance calculated using the position signal, the distance pulse signal, and a length of a gap between rails in a travel direction based on a magnetic flux change indicated by the cosine signal, the sine signal, and the amplitude signal recited from each of the plurality of detection devices” on lines 1-5 of page 3 of the claim is indefinite.
1) It is unclear what applicant means by reciting “a length of a gap between rails in a travel direction based on a magnetic flux change indicated by the cosine signal,” as the length of the gap is not reasonably based upon any magnetic flux change, regardless of what indicates it. IT is unclear how this phrase should be interpreted, as a physical length exists regardless of any magnetic flux near it.
2) Applicant is claiming “a travel direction” but where such a direction was already previously recited. A train has one travel direction, and thus the already recited travel direction already reasonably encompasses that direction. It is therefore unclear what new travel direction this phrase is referring, and it is unclear how it is related to the already recited travel direction.
The phrase “wherein the position signal is transmitted to the processing device of the rail state monitoring apparatus when an onboard detector passes over the ground element installed in one of the left and right railroad rails on the track, wherein the processing device is further configured to determine an absolute position on the track of one of the first vehicle and the second vehicle in which the onboard detector is installed based on the known installation position of the ground element on the track as detected by the onboard detector, wherein the distance pulse signal is a one-shot pulse signal that is received by the processing device of the rail state monitoring apparatus each time the train wheel rotates through the rotation angle of the train wheel, wherein the processing device is further configured to count a number of the distance pulse signals received by the processing device since receiving a last position signal, and to determine distance data on the track of the one of the first vehicle and the second vehicle to which the train wheel is attached based on the absolute position associated with the last position signal and the count of the number of the distance pulse signals” in the last four paragraphs of page 3 of the claim is indefinite.
Applicant initially expressly claims that it is the analog to digital converter, a device separate and distinct from the processing device, that is configured to receive the position signal and distance pulse signal (see the bottom of page 2 of the claim). As such, it is the analog to digital converter, and not the processing device that receives the above signals. While the processing device may receive digitized or otherwise altered version of these signals from the analog to digital converter, that is not the same as actually reciting the same signals that the analog to digital converter is claimed to receive, as is now currently claimed. It is therefore unclear, in light of the disclosure, what signals are being received by the processing device relative to those signals being received by the analog to digital converter.
The phrase “the peculiar point is evenly spaced with respect to a plurality of the peculiar points” on lines 8-9 of the last page of the claim is indefinite.
1) It is unclear what applicant means by this phrase, and it is unclear how the peculiar point relates to the plurality of peculiar points. Reciting “the peculiar points” would reasonably include “the peculiar point” recited in the above phrase, thus making it unclear how these features relate to each other.
2) Applicant initially recited the peculiar point as “a peculiar point,” and therefore is only one point. One point does not reasonably include plural points, and thus claiming “the peculiar points” is indefinite, because no such points were previously recited, and it is unclear what points this phrase is referencing, and it is unclear how these “points” relate to the previously recited “point.”
The phrase “the peculiar point is unevenly spaced with respect to a plurality of the peculiar points” on the last two lines of the last page of the claim is indefinite.
1) It is unclear what applicant means by this phrase, and it is unclear how the peculiar point relates to the plurality of peculiar points. Reciting “the peculiar points” would reasonably include “the peculiar point” recited in the above phrase, thus making it unclear how these features relate to each other.
2) Applicant initially recited the peculiar point as “a peculiar point,” and therefore is only one point. One point does not reasonably include plural points, and thus claiming “the peculiar points” is indefinite, because no such points were previously recited, and it is unclear what points this phrase is referencing, and it is unclear how these “points” relate to the previously recited “point.”
As to Claim 5,
The phrase “a rail seam point” on line 2 is indefinite. A rail seam point was already recited, and the above phrase is referring to the same point as best understood, but in a distinct manner. The difference and relationship between these rail seam point recitations are therefore unclear.
The phrase “a rail fracture point” on line 2 is indefinite. A rail fracture point was already recited, and the above phrase is referring to the same point as best understood, but in a distinct manner. The difference and relationship between these rail fracture point recitations are therefore unclear.
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “all rail seam points” on line 3 is indefinite. This phrase includes all rail seam points, but is distinctly recited from the already recited rail seam point of Claim 1 but where it cannot reasonably distinct. The difference and relationship between these two distinct rail seam point recitations are therefore unclear.
The phrase “the detected peculiar points” on lines 3-4 and 6 is indefinite. No “detected” peculiar points were previously recited, and it is unclear what detected peculiar points this phrase is referencing. It is further unclear how this phrase relates to the plurality of the peculiar points and the “a peculiar point” already recited in Claim 1. All three features are reasonably distinctly recited, making their relationship unclear.
The phrase “the plurality of peculiar points” on lines 3 and 5 is indefinite, because it is unclear which points this phrase is referencing. Claim 1 recites both a plurality of the peculiar points, as well as a distinctly recited “a peculiar point,” making it unclear which recitations are and are not included in the above phrase.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “the detected peculiar points” on lines 3-4 and 6 is indefinite. No “detected” peculiar points were previously recited, and it is unclear what detected peculiar points this phrase is referencing. It is further unclear how this phrase relates to the plurality of the peculiar points and the “a peculiar point” already recited in Claim 1. All three features are reasonably distinctly recited, making their relationship unclear.
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “the magnetic sensor unit” on line 9 of page 2 of the claim is indefinite. The Examiner acknowledges that applicant has previously recited “wherein for each of the plurality of detection devices” on line 4 of page 2 of the claim, but that phrase ended with the semicolon on line 7 on page 2 of the claim, and furthermore, due to the spacing, the feature recited on line 8 of page 2 of the claim is its own distinct feature. Because more than one magnetic sensor unit was previously recited, the above phrase is indefinite because it is unclear what unit this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the detection device” on line 13 of page 2 of the claim is indefinite. More than one detection device was previously recited, and it is therefore unclear what detection device this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “a result of the detection by the magnetic sensor unit group” on lines 13-14 on page 2 of the claim is indefinite. No detection by the group was previously recited, and it is therefore unclear what detection this phrase is referencing. It is further unclear how this detection relates to the detecting of the peculiar point by the magnetic sensor unit previously recited.
The phrase “the detection device” on line 15 of page 2 of the claim is indefinite. More than one detection device was previously recited, and it is therefore unclear what detection device this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the processing device” on lines 3 and 5 of page 3 of the claim is indefinite. No processing device was previously recited, and it is unclear what processing device this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “a processing device” on line 11 is indefinite. Applicant has now introduces “the processing device” earlier in the claim, and while that phrase is indefinite, the above phrase is also indefinite because it is unclear how these two distinctly recited processing devices are related. As best understood, they are referring ot the same processing device of the disclosure but are distinctly recited, thus making it unclear what the relationship is between these devices.
The phrase “determining, by the processing device, the peculiar point as the rail seem point or the rail fracture point, based on a distance calculated using the position signal, the distance pulse signal, and a length of a gap between rails in a travel direction based on a magnetic flux change indicated by the cosine signal, the sine signal, and the amplitude signal recited from each of the plurality of detection devices” on lines 13-17 of page 3 of the claim is indefinite.
1) More than one processing device was previously recited, and it is unclear which processing device this phrase is referencing.
2) It is unclear what applicant means by reciting “a length of a gap between rails in a travel direction based on a magnetic flux change indicated by the cosine signal,” as the length of the gap is not reasonably based upon any magnetic flux change, regardless of what indicates it. IT is unclear how this phrase should be interpreted, as a physical length exists regardless of any magnetic flux near it.
3) Applicant is claiming “a travel direction” but where such a direction was already previously recited. A train has one travel direction, and thus the already recited travel direction already reasonably encompasses that direction. It is therefore unclear what new travel direction this phrase is referring, and it is unclear how it is related to the already recited travel direction.
The phrase “the peculiar point is evenly spaced with respect to a plurality of the peculiar points” on lines 2-3 of the last page of the claim is indefinite.
1) It is unclear what applicant means by this phrase, and it is unclear how the peculiar point relates to the plurality of peculiar points. Reciting “the peculiar points” would reasonably include “the peculiar point” recited in the above phrase, thus making it unclear how these features relate to each other.
2) Applicant initially recited the peculiar point as “a peculiar point,” and therefore is only one point. One point does not reasonably include plural points, and thus claiming “the peculiar points” is indefinite, because no such points were previously recited, and it is unclear what points this phrase is referencing, and it is unclear how these “points” relate to the previously recited “point.”
The phrase “the peculiar point is unevenly spaced with respect to a plurality of the peculiar points” on the last two lines of the last page of the claim is indefinite.
1) It is unclear what applicant means by this phrase, and it is unclear how the peculiar point relates to the plurality of peculiar points. Reciting “the peculiar points” would reasonably include “the peculiar point” recited in the above phrase, thus making it unclear how these features relate to each other.
2) Applicant initially recited the peculiar point as “a peculiar point,” and therefore is only one point. One point does not reasonably include plural points, and thus claiming “the peculiar points” is indefinite, because no such points were previously recited, and it is unclear what points this phrase is referencing, and it is unclear how these “points” relate to the previously recited “point.”
As to Claims 5-10,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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 M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights