DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on October 30th, 2025. Claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16-26 are pending.
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
Replacement drawings were received on October 30th, 2025. These drawings are acceptable and will be entered. The replacement drawings, in concert with the amendment to claim 25, overcome the prior objection to the drawings.
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: “an ECU configured … for generating control instructions” in claim 1-18 and 23-26; “an optical module configured to … direct a laser beam” in claims 1-18 and 23-26; and “a grip optimization device” in claims 19-22.
Regarding the first of these, the term “ECU” is defined in the specification as an “electronic control unit”, which can be considered a nonce term “unit” coupled with modifier “electronic control” which is insufficient to describe the structure for achieving the function. An “electronic control unit” would appear to be a computer, and as per MPEP 2181;
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the Federal Circuit has stated that “a microprocessor can serve as structure for a computer-implemented function only where the claimed function is ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor itself." EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 622, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1714 (Fed. Cir. 2015), citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "‘It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.’" EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 621, 114 USPQ2 at 1714, quoting Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365, 102 USPQ2d 1122, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2012). "‘[S]pecial programming’ includes any functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose computer." EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 623, 114 USPQ2d at 1715 (citations omitted). "Examples of such coextensive functions are ‘receiving’ data, ‘storing’ data, and ‘processing’ data—the only three functions on which the Katz court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for the district court to determine whether disclosure of a microprocessor was sufficient." 785 F.3d at 622, 114 USPQ2d at 1714. Thus, "[a] microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm." Id., 114 USPQ2d at 1714
In this case, the claim requires the ECU to process the data from the camera and sensor, which, at a high level and without requiring the processing to achieve any other objective (like generating control instructions) is merely processing and coextensive with the disclosure of an electronic control unit. However, the ECU is also claimed to generate control instructions, which is not coextensive with a generic computer and therefore requires 112(f) interpretation.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “step for,” 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 functional language without reciting sufficient acts to perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “detecting and characterizing presence of water on the road surface in front of the mobile vehicle with a camera and a sensor” and “generating control instructions at the ECU” in claims 19-22.
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(b)
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 17-18 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.
Claims 17-18 recite “wherein the laser beam of the laser source and the optical module is configured to create a plasma for diverting at least a portion of liquid present in front of the tire. It is unclear how the laser beam of the laser source and the optical module must be configured in order to create a plasma. The disclosure does not appear to disclose any method of configuring the laser beam and the optical module to create a plasma.
Claim 18 is 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.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the laser beam of the laser source and the optical module is configured to create a deflection shock wave”. It is unclear how the laser beam of the laser source and the optical module must be configured in order to create a deflection shock wave. The disclosure does not appear to disclose any method of configuring the laser beam and the optical module to create a deflection shock wave.
Claims 19-22 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.
Claim limitation “grip optimalization device” 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 grip optimization device appears to refer not to a particular structure for optimizing grip but to a group of structures working in tandem to reduce or eliminate water from a road surface. 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.
That the grip optimization device is such a composite structure can be seen for example, from this quote in the specification “a grip optimization device according to the present disclosure, this motor vehicle comprising: means for detecting and characterizing the presence of water on a road surface in front of the motor vehicle, [0036] means for processing information received from the detection and characterization means and for generating control instructions, and means for emitting a power laser beam directed toward a portion of road surface in front of at least one tire fitted to the motor vehicle, these emission means being arranged in the front bumper of the vehicle.”
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.
Claims 8-10 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.
Claims 8-10 recite forms of braking systems. The braking systems are not claimed as part of the device, only as a source of information. The sole link between the braking systems and the device is that the ECU “is configured to receive information from” the braking system. Receiving data from one form of braking system is functionally no different from receiving data from another braking system. It is therefore unclear how the claims to the forms of braking systems further limits the device. If applicant intends to claim that the systems convey different types of information, it is suggested they claim the information being conveyed (wheel velocity, braking speed, etc.). If applicant intends to claim the braking systems as part of the device, they must positively recite the safety systems as part of the device. For example, “wherein the device further comprises a braking safety system …”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 11, 13-14, 16, and 23-26 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter with respect to claims 1-7, 11, 13-14, and 16: the prior arts of record do not disclose a device for improving grip of a tire fitted to a mobile vehicle traveling on a road surface, the device being on board the mobile vehicle and comprising a camera and a sensor configured to detect and characterize a presence of a liquid on the road surface in front of the mobile vehicle, an ECU configured to process information received from the camera and sensor and for generating control instructions, and a laser source and an optical module configured to emit and direct a laser beam toward a portion of the road surface in front of the tire fitted to the mobile vehicle, the laser beam configured to vaporize or sublimate liquid present in front of the tire in response to the control instructions.
The closest prior arts of record are US 2019/0168541 (Blundell), US 2015/0197904 (Collins), US 2013/0283647 (Borges et al.) and US 6,797,918 (Higgins).
Blundell discloses a device for improving grip of a tire comprising a camera and a sensor configured to detect and characterize a presence of a liquid on the road surface in front of the mobile vehicle (‘In some embodiments, the control system comprises an on-board camera, laser, tyre based sensors or rain sensors.’), and an ECU configured to process information received from the camera and sensor and for generating control instructions (‘This allows the gas outlet to be deployed only when required or likely to be required. The mounting could, for example, be controlled by the control system.’). However, Blundell uses a jet of gas to deflect the liquid, rather than a laser to vaporize or sublimate (element 118).
Collins and Borges both disclose devices for improving grip of a tire including a laser source and an optical module configured to emit and direct a laser beam toward a portion of the road surface in front of the tire fitted to the mobile vehicle (Collins, ‘infrared laser’, Borges ‘laser heater’). However, both are disclosed merely to melt ice and snow, and do not vaporize a liquid.
Higgins discloses a device for improving the grip of a wheel traveling on a surface including means for emitting a power laser beam directed toward a portion of the surface, which means are designed to vaporize or sublimate water in front of the at least one wheel in response to control instructions (‘If the contaminant is liquid or ice, the coating 7 will not be so hard and will be quickly vaporised in whole or in part. The laser beam may be directed to spaced apart portions of the coating 7 in succession or may be moved continuously over the coating 7.’). However, Higgins is directed to increasing the traction of a wheel on a rail, rather than a tire on a road surface, and therefore it would not have been obvious to combine Higgins with a camera and a sensor configured to detect and characterize a presence of a liquid on the road surface in front of the mobile vehicle.
Substantially the same reasons for allowance would apply to claims 23-24.
Regarding claims 25-26, the prior art of record does not disclose an aircraft, comprising: a landing gear including at least one tire, and a device for improving grip of the at least one tire to an airstrip, the device comprising: a camera and a sensor configured to detect and characterize a presence of water on an airstrip in front of the aircraft when traveling on the airstrip, an ECU configured to process information received from the camera and the sensor and for generating control instructions, and a laser source and an optical module configured to emit and direct a laser beam toward a portion of airstrip in front of the at least one tire of the landing gear of the aircraft, and the laser beam being configured to vaporize or sublimate the water present on the airstrip in front of the at least one tire.
The closet prior arts of record are US 4,834,320 (Tyson) and US 2019/0168541 (Blundell), and US 6,797,918 (Higgins).
Tyson discloses an aircraft, comprising: a landing gear including at least one tire (fig. 1-2, element 18 with tire 34), and a device for improving grip of the at least one tire to an airstrip, the device operating to remove water present on the airstrip in front of the at least one tire (‘An air exhaust nozzle 36 is provided at the front end of the semicircular ducting 32 and is arranged to discharge an air jet at 38 against the wet runway surface 40 directly in front of the wheel 20.’). However, Tyson uses a jet of gas to deflect the liquid, rather than a laser to vaporize or sublimate, and further does not disclose a camera, a sensor, or an ECU configured to process the data from these and generate control instructions.
Blundell discloses a device for improving grip of the at least one tire comprising a camera and a sensor configured to detect and characterize a presence of water on a surface in front of a tire (‘In some embodiments, the control system comprises an on-board camera, laser, tyre based sensors or rain sensors.’) and an ECU configured to process information received from the camera and sensor and for generating control instructions (‘This allows the gas outlet to be deployed only when required or likely to be required. The mounting could, for example, be controlled by the control system.’).
Tyson and Blundell could be combined to teach an aircraft with a landing gear and a device for improving grip of the at least one tire to an airstrip, the device comprising: a camera and a sensor configured to detect and characterize a presence of water on an airstrip in front of the aircraft when traveling on the airstrip, an ECU configured to process information received from the camera and the sensor and for generating control instructions, and an exhaust nozzle configured to direct a gas jet toward a portion of airstrip in front of the at least one tire of the landing gear of the aircraft to remove the water present on the airstrip in front of the at least one tire. However, this still would not teach or suggest a laser source and an optical module configured to emit and direct a laser beam, the laser beam being configured to vaporize or sublimate the water.
Higgins discloses a device for improving the grip of a wheel traveling on a surface including means for emitting a power laser beam directed toward a portion of the surface, which means are designed to vaporize or sublimate water in front of the at least one wheel in response to control instructions (‘If the contaminant is liquid or ice, the coating 7 will not be so hard and will be quickly vaporised in whole or in part. The laser beam may be directed to spaced apart portions of the coating 7 in succession or may be moved continuously over the coating 7.’). However, there is no obvious reason to combine this with Tyson, since vaporizing or subliminating the water would mean there is no water left to remove with the exhaust gas.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 30th, 2025, regarding the 112(f) interpretations and the 112(b) rejections of claims 8-10 and 17-18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(f) interpretation of the “optical laser module” in claims 5-7, and “laser source module” in claim 6 applicant argues that the claims are amended to no longer recite the limitations, accordingly the claims should no longer be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
First, the relevant limitations have been moved to the independent claim, so the relevant concern is no longer how claims 5-7 are interpreted, but how claims 1-26 are interpreted. Regarding the “laser source module”, applicant has amended claim 1 to now recite a “laser source … configured to emit … a laser beam” which examiner agrees no longer requires interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it now clearly refers to the structure of a laser. Regarding the “optical laser module”, applicant has amended claim 1 to recite “an optical module configured to … direct a laser beam” which still requires 112(f) interpretation because it recites a nonce term (module) without a structural modifier. The structures applicant intends to cover are clear (standard optical elements like lenses, mirrors, prisms, etc.) so the 112(b) interpretation, though required, is not problematic.
Regarding the 112(f) interpretations of some of the method limitations, applicant argues that claim 19 “recite specific acts that result in improving grip of a tire fitted to a mobile vehicle traveling on a road surface.”
Examiner has not interpreted any limitation as a “(step for) improving grip of a tire” so examiner is unsure what applicant is getting at. Examiner has now interpreted the newly added limitation to “a grip optimization device” as a means for optimizing/improve grip, but that is a new rejection and relates to a “means for” structural limitation and not a “step for” process step limitation. Examiner has interpreted two process limitations under 112(f) as describing a step using functional limitations, with the limitations being “(step for) detecting and characterizing a presence of water” and “(step for) generating control commands”.
The first of these limitations, “detecting and characterizing a presence of water” functions to detect and characterize the presence of water, and no acts for doing this are specifically claimed. Detecting and characterizing a presence of water requires two acts – sensing some form of data (taking an image and measuring temperature being among the specific acts disclosed for sensing), and processing the data to detect the presence of water and characterize any water found (requires standard image processing and data correlation techniques). The act of sensing, though not directly recited, has been implicitly added to the claim by amending the claim to include “with a camera and a sensor”, but the step of processing the raw data to detect the presence of water and characterize it (for example, by determining the amount or depth of liquid) is still not recited in the claims. That is not a problem, applicant does not have to recite every act if they don’t want to, but a limitation requires interpretation under 112(f) in the case that applicant chooses not to specify the acts but instead to claim the step functionally.
The second of the process limitations examiner has interpreted under 112(f), “generating control instructions at the ECU” recites a function of generating control commands. No specific acts for generating control commands are recited in the claims. Such acts might, for example, take the form of calculating, for a series of locations along a scanning path of a laser beam, which locations require laser beam irradiation and for how long and at what power, and translating this information into a series of electrical signals for controlling the status of the laser source (on/off) and/or for controlling the power setting of the laser source, and/or for controlling the scanning optics. Such acts are standard techniques in the art are considered implicitly disclosed in the disclosure of controlling the laser and optical module with the ECU. Therefore, there are no issues with the 112(f) limitations requiring 112(b) rejections in the amended form.
Examiner initially took the position that 112(b) issues were raised because the claim recited “processing the detection and characterization information to generate the control instructions” which tied the processing and instruction generation steps, such that the processing step would need to be interpreted as covering only those forms of processing the information that result in the generation of control outputs. The algorithms needed to interpret such a processing step are not disclosed, hence the claims were rejection under 112(b). The amended claims do not recite such a processing step and the relevant rejections are overcome. However, the 112(f) interpretation is still required in order to properly interpret the claims, because “generating control commands” is a functional limitation.
Examiner has also realized that the device claims never actually required the processing to result in the generate of control steps, and examiner was reading this into the device claims after seeing it in the method claims. The device claims recite “an ECU configured to process information … and for generating control instructions”. Therefore, the same means, now ECU, must do both the processing of the sensor data and the generating of the control instructions, but there is no requirement that it be configured to process the sensor data in a manner that that directly results in the generation of the control instructions. Therefore, the 112(b) rejections related to the 112(f) interpretations of the “ECU configured to process information … and for generation control instructions” have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claims 8-10 under 112(b), applicant argues that the amended limitations are no longer unclear because “claims 2 and 8-10 are amended for clarity and to no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f).”
The amendment to claim 2 addresses a separate 112(b) rejection listed on page 11 of the OA dated July 29th, 2025, which relates to a rejection of claims 2 and 8-10, where the rejection of claims 8-10 is based purely on their dependency from claim 2. The remarks already address that basis for rejection on page 13, and examiner agrees that the amendment to claim 2 does overcome that basis for rejection.
However, the 112(b) rejection of claims 8-10, listed on pages 13-14 of the OA dated July 29th, 2025, to which the remarks on page 14 purport to be referring to, is on an entirely different basis, which is that the claims relate to features of an external element not recited as part of the claimed device, and therefore it is unclear how the limitations relate to the claimed device. The amendment to claim 2 does not address this basis for rejection. Claims 8-10 themselves have not been amended in any meaningful way. The sole amendment to these claims is the removal of the word “safety” which does not change the meaning or scope of the limitations, and functions solely to standardize the terminology to match the terminology of the amended parent claim. Hence, the claims have not been amended in any way which could possibly be construed as addressing the reasons for rejection of claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as listed on pages 13-14 of the OA dated July 29th, 2025, and maintained as seen above.
Regarding the rejection of claims 17-18 under 112(b), applicant argues that the amended limitations are no longer unclear, but do not specify how the amendments overcome the 112(b) rejections. Applicant further notes that paragraph 49 provides support for the claims.
Examiner does not see how merely substituting the specific structures for the “means for” language overcomes the 112(b) rejections of claims 17-18. The claims still require the laser beam and optical module to be configured to create a plasma, and in the case of claim 18, to create a deflection shock wave, and the disclosure still fails to provide any information on what configuration is required to meet the limitations. This would require the disclosure to specify how the laser source and/or optical module is controlled or reconfigured to create the plasma or the shock wave. For example, by describing control algorithms involved in the creation of plasma or a shock wave. Paragraph 49 provides support for creating a plasma and/or deflection wave with the laser beam, but does not specify how the laser and/or optical module must be controlled or reconfigured for this to occur, hence it remains unclear how the laser beam and optical module are “configured to create a plasma” or “configured to create a deflection shock wave”.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot because the relevant rejections have been overcome by amendment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881