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 Arguments
Examiner’s note – A non-final office action has been filed to address the limitations in claim 14 that are under interpretation of 112f and provide the applicant with an appropriate period for response. The further condition of all claims are detailed below.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: Regarding the 112(b) rejection of the limitations interpreted under 112(f).
Examiner’s response: The applicant has successfully addressed several of the limitations previously rejected under USC 112(b) stemming from the associated 112(f) interpretation. These limitations are specified below. However, the following limitations remain interpreted as rejected under USC 112(b). In claim 13, applicant has amended ‘communication unit’ to read ‘communication unit module’. The perception of this amendment is that it is intended to be ‘communication module’. The specific claim language in claim 11 shows the claimed structure comprised in the ‘communication module’, however, claim 13 and claim 11 are unrelated in the terms of claim dependency. Therefore, the claim structure of claim 11 does not define the scope of a term claimed in claim 13. As such this term, currently ‘communication unit module’ remains interpreted under 112f, and continues to fail to define sufficient structure and therefore the 112b analysis of this limitation is also maintained. Regarding the ‘evaluation unit’ the noted paragraphs state the functionality of the claim but nothing regarding the structure of the claimed limitation after invoking 112f. The noted ‘specific’ implementation appears to just be descriptions of how the unit can evaluate data and not directed towards associated structure. Therefore, the rejection of ‘evaluation unit’ under 112b is maintained. Regarding the ‘energy harvesting means’, again there is nothing structural for one of skill in the art to associate, and it is insufficient disclosure to simply state one of skill in the art would know, as the disclosure provides no basis for a structural implementation. Therefore, the rejection of this limitation is also maintained.
Applicant’s argument: Regarding the amendments addressing 112b indefinite rejections
Examiner’s response: Claim 12 continues to have previously indicated issues not addressed via the amendment, which are detailed below. This rejection has been maintained from the prior office action. Note the amendment to claim 13 has created an additional issue which is addressed below in the detailed rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 12/1/2025, with respect to the 112b rejections of associated and specifically noted below 112f interpreted limitations have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding the limitations “sensing unit for” in claim 1, “first output unit is configured for” in claim 1/14, “second output unit is configured for” in claim 1/14, “supplying unit” in claim 8, “data collection unit” in claim 1/14; the applicant has provided adequate disclosure for one of skill in the art to support these limitations. The interpretation remains, but the associate rejection is withdrawn.
Further ‘communication module’ in claim 11 is now interpreted as not invoking 112f interpretation as the limitation is claimed to comprise claim limitations components with structural support. [therefore, there is no 112f invocation, and therefore no 112b related rejection]
The related rejection of the claims based on these merits has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 12/1/2025, with respect to the prior art rejections of claimed limitations in view of Luomi and Kim have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The remarks regarding the scope of the prior art in light of the first and second output design as well as the positional information determinations was persuasive. In light of these remarks the grounds for rejection have been withdrawn.
Please note, the grounds for the prior art rejection have been withdrawn, however the language of the claims invoking 112f still has issues resulting in the rejection of some claimed limitations. Claim 12 remains rejected under 112b with antecedent issues, and the newly entered amendment to claim 13 creates a new 112b issue.
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:
“sensing unit for” in claim 1 (supported in Par 19, 47)
“first output unit is configured for” in claim 1 (supported in Par 17, 22, 29)
“by means of first output unit” in claim 14 (supported in Par 17, 22, 29)
“second output unit is configured for” in claim 1 (supported in Par 16-17, 22, 29)
“by means of a second output unit” in claim 14 (supported in Par 16-17, 22, 29)
“data collection unit” in claims 1 and 14 (supported in par 24-25)
“evaluation unit” in claims 5 and 12
“supplying unit” in claim 8 (supported in Par 40)
“power supply unit” in claim 10 (structural support can be found through the disclosure of a ‘battery’)
“energy harvesting means” in claim 10
“communication unit module [presumed typographical error in most recent amendments, however both module and unit are generic terms in applying the 112f consideration]” in claim 13
“communication module for” in claim 11 is claimed in a way wherein the claimed ‘module’ is comprising other ‘unit’ elements that have been found to be structurally, therefore in analysis this limitation fails the third prong, prong c, of the means plus function analysis, and thus is not interpreted as not invoking 112f
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
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 5-6, 10, 12-13 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.
In claim 12 line 1, the limitation ‘in a system of claim 1’ creates antecedent confusion and an indefinite scope, as ‘a system’ is established in claim 1. This limitation should be amended to ‘the system of claim 1’
In claim 13, line 3, ‘the communication unit module’ lacks antecedent basis. This is likely a typographical error but needs to be corrected.
Claim limitations:
“evaluation unit” in claims 5 and 12
“energy harvesting means” in claim 10
“communication unit module” in claim 13
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The above noted limitations fail to recited specific structure or an associated specific implementation through processor and algorithm to sufficiently support the scope of the claimed means plus function limitations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11 and 14 are allowed.
Claims 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 5-6, 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the above cited claims. Re claims 1, 11, 12 and 14, the prior art fails to explicitly disclose the split output design from the sensor processing and the associated beacon based positional processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631