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 .
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 1, 4-10, 12-19, 21, 22, 24-26 and 46-54 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claimed limitation “the mechanically generated information being variable, wherein the system is adapted to indicate the mechanically generated information via an indication selected from one of the group of indications consisting of indication of mechanical information, indication of visual animation and indication of a visual presentation” is unclear. There is confusion on how applicant is defining the scope of “indication of mechanical information” compared with “indication of visual animation” and “indication of visual presentation”. These terms all have plain meanings that are quite broad in scope and so it is not apparent how applicant is differentiating “animation” versus “presentation” for example. Therefore, because the scope of claim is unclear, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, “the indication is a clock movement” is unclear because it is unclear if “movement” in this case is referring to apparent motion, which is the indication; or the clock movement as in the source of the information. A clock movement itself is not an indication.
Regarding claim 9, this claim recites the limitation "the duration". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “several” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Further, the claim limitation “the source of mechanical information a structure allowing encoded tracks” is confusing and lacks clarity. It is not apparently what applicant is intending to claim with this recitation. Similarly, “absolute detection of the position of to create a predefine scheme to the visual animation” is also confusing and appears to be missing text. The scope of this claim cannot be determined and is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 24, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 46, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 47, “The display system of the above claim” is indefinite because it is not clear which claim is being referred to. Further “the invention” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 48, “The display system of the penultimate claim” is indefinite because it is not clear which claims is being referred to. Further “the invention” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 51, “The system of claim 1” should be “The display system”.
Regarding claim 54, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 is directed to further defining the light source of claim 1 and specifies one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) or any other light producing elements. This is a failure to further limit the claim because the claimed scope of any light producing element is the exact scope as claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3994. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571) 270-7101. 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.
/JASON M COLLINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2844
/EDWIN A. LEON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833