DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) and/or PCT Rule 112.13(m) for the following informalities:
Reference character “1” has been used to designate both a motor and a brake control device (see pgh. 0006).
Reference character “14” has been used to designate both a rotation shaft and a state detecting unit (see pgh. 0006).
Reference character “22” has been used to designate both a brake hub and a closing switch (see pgh. 0006).
Reference characters “20” and “112” have both been used to designate an armature (see pgh. 0006).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) and/or PCT Rule 8.1(b).
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: “state detection unit”, “abnormality detecting unit”
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 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an abnormality” at the end of the claim, previously recited earlier in the claim. It is unclear if multiple abnormalities are being recited.
Claims 2-11 and 14 recite various instances of “an abnormality”, previously recited in claim 1. It is unclear if multiple abnormalities are being recited.
Claim 7 recites, “an abnormality in the power source”, previously recited in claim 6. Previously recited in claim 1 was “an abnormality”. It is unclear if this is the same abnormality or different from that recited in claim 1. It is unclear if a further abnormality in the power source is being recited.
Claim 12 recites, “an abnormality in the power source” at the end of the claim, previously recited earlier in the claim. Previously recited in claim 1 was “an abnormality”. It is unclear if this is the same abnormality or different from that recited in claim 1. It is unclear if a further abnormality in the power source is being recited.
Claim 13 recites, “an abnormality in the power source”, previously recited in claim 12. Previously recited in claim 1 was “an abnormality”. It is unclear if this is the same abnormality or different from that recited in claim 1. It is unclear if a further abnormality in the power source is being recited.
Dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected due to dependency on a rejected base claim for failing to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 9-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Omachi (JP 08-182365 A) (cited on the IDS 8/10/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Omachi discloses a brake control device (see figs. 1-3) configured to control a brake device (2) that is a non-excitation actuated type and is configured to actuate a brake in a non-excitation state in which no voltage is applied and to release the brake in an excitation state in which the voltage is applied (see pgh. 0031, exciting an exciting coil to open the brake), the brake control device comprising:
a power source (e.g. 7,19,20,21) configured to be controlled so as to output a voltage or not to output the voltage in response to a received power source control signal (see pgh. 0030);
a brake control unit (e.g. 6a) configured to output a brake control signal (e.g. S21);
an opening and closing unit (e.g. 12) connected in series to the brake device (as shown) and configured to open and close an electrical path between the power source and the brake device in response to the brake control signal which has been received (see pgh. 0031);
a state detecting unit (e.g. 16) configured to output a state detection signal indicating a potential state of an electrical path between the opening and closing unit and the brake device (see pgh. 0033 at least);
an abnormality detecting unit (e.g. portion of 6b that receives S3, S21, S11 at least) configured to detect whether or not an abnormality occurs, based on a combination of a content of the brake control signal and a content of the state detection signal (see pgh. 0034 at least); and
a power source control unit (portion of 6b that generates S4) configured to output, as the power source control signal for the power source, an output OFF signal (e.g. S4) for controlling the power source so as not to output the voltage, when the occurrence of an abnormality is detected by the abnormality detecting unit (see pgh. 0034-0036, transistor 19 turned off, etc.).
Regarding claim 2, Omachi discloses the power source control unit is configured to output, as the power source control signal for the power source, an output ON signal for controlling the power source so as to output the voltage when the occurrence of an abnormality is not detected by the abnormality detecting unit (pgh. 0030 at least, normal state).
Regarding claim 9, Omachi discloses the opening and closing unit includes at least one opening and closing switch (12) configured to open and close 1 or an electrical path between a negative electrode terminal of the power source and a negative electrode terminal of the brake device (fig. 1 as shown),
wherein the brake control unit is configured to execute a brake actuation process to output the brake control signal for controlling the opening and closing switch to open (signal S21 is not output) and a brake release process to output the brake control signal for controlling the opening and closing switch to close (signal S21 is output),
wherein the abnormality detecting unit is configured to detect whether or not an abnormality occurs, during the execution of the brake actuation process, based on the combination of the content of the brake control signal and the content of the state detection signal (fig. 3, S11 and S21 received, and comparing if Vce <= Vr), and
wherein the power source control unit is configured to output the output OFF signal when the abnormality detecting unit detects the occurrence of an abnormality during the execution of the brake actuation process (signal to tun off transistor 19 when Vce<=Vr is NO).
Regarding claim 10, Omachi discloses the brake control unit is configured to terminate the brake actuation process and execute the brake release process when the abnormality detecting unit does not detect the occurrence of an abnormality while the brake actuation process is executed during a transition from the brake actuation process to the brake release process (Vce<= Vr is YES, and then S11, S21 is YES thereafter).
Regarding claim 11, Omachi discloses the abnormality detecting unit is configured to output an alarm signal when the occurrence of an abnormality is detected during the execution of the brake actuation process (signal S5).
Regarding claim 15, Omachi discloses a motor drive device comprising: a brake device (pgh. 0024) that is a non-excitation actuated type and configured to actuate a brake on a motor in a non-excitation state in which no voltage is applied and to release the brake on the motor in an excitation state in which the voltage is applied; and the brake control device according to claim 1 that is configured to control the brake device (see pghs. 0021-0036 and citations above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome any 112(b) rejections, as appropriate.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the PTO-892 are US equivalent documents to those cited on the IDS.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571) 272-7124. 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 MORRIS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
1 Strikethrough limitation not required due to “configured to open and close (option A) or (option B)” language.