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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15 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.
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:
first input device [configured to rotate the pad] (claim 1), disclosed as element ;
first input device configured to energize the burnisher (claim 7);
second input device [configured to] throttle the one or more motors to alter a rotational speed of the pad (clam 1);
second input device [configured to rotate the pad] (claim 7);
third input device [configured to] adjust a rotational speed of the burnisher pad (claim 7);
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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 15-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan CN 209690754 U in view of Chen US 2015/0265124.
Re claims 15-16, Wan discloses a variable speed burnisher comprising:
a power source [battery power supply];
a motor [infinite speed motor] in electrical communication with the power source;
a control area including at least one input device [burnisher control circuit] and at least one output device [display] wherein the at least one input device is configured to alter a power output of the motor [to vary the speed]; and wherein the at least one input device includes a first input device provided as a throttle designed to change a rotational speed of a pad coupled to the motor in response to throttling initiated by a user, and the battery is designed to adapt an amount of energy applied to the motor [the description of an infinite variable input connected to a battery power display is reasonably interpreted as a type of electric throttle connected with a battery, as claimed].
Wan does not specifically teach the power source includes a first rechargeable lithium ion battery and a second rechargeable lithium ion battery.
Chen teaches a first rechargeable lithium ion battery and a second rechargeable lithium ion battery 276 [fig. 12].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the first rechargeable lithium ion battery and second rechargeable lithium ion battery of Chen with the burnisher of Wan in order to yield the predictable result of using rechargeable batteries that can be controlled to evaluate the structural integrity of the components of the batteries (¶72).
Re claim 20, Wan further teaches wherein the at least one input device is configured to provide a fourth power level to the motor [infinite variable speed motor].
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan CN 209690754 U in view of Kasper US 4,675,935.
Re claim 19, Wan discloses the invention as claimed in claim 15, but fail to disclose wherein the at least one output device includes a help button, and wherein the help button provides a user with troubleshooting options related to operation of the burnisher.
Kasper teaches a floor scrubber including a diagnostic display panel 152 with a help button 142 so that an operator can troubleshoot the machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a help button in Wan in order to yield the predictable result of providing with troubleshooting options of the machine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not show or fairly render obvious the combination set forth in the claims. In particular, the prior art does not show, for claim 1, a first input device coupled to the handle, wherein, when the first input device is moved toward the handle, the pad begins rotating a second input device in communication with the at least one battery and the one or more motors, the second input device designed to throttle the one or more motors to alter a rotational speed of the pad from a first, non-zero rotational speed to a second, non-zero rotational speed, and increments therebetween and a third input device provided in the form of a key switch configured to energize and de-energize the variable-speed burnisher, for claim 7, a first input device configured to energize the burnisher; a second input device coupled to the handle, wherein, when the second input device is actuated, the burnisher pad begins to rotate; a third input device; a controller in electrical communication with the one or more input devices, the motor, and the display, the controller configured to: adjust a rotational speed of the burnisher pad based on actuation of the third input device; and provide an output to the display
Claims 17-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not show or fairly render obvious the combination set forth in the claims. In particular, the prior art does not show, the first input device is provided in the form of a dial, the at least one input device includes a second input device provided in the form of a key switch designed to energize the burnisher and de-energize the burnisher, when the key switch is actuated to energize the burnisher, via the first input device, at least a first power level, a second power level, and a third power level can be provided to the motor.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723