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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Examiner decided to withdraw claim objections because applicant’s amendment to the claims overcome the objections.
Examiner decided to maintain 112 rejections.
Examiner decided to withdraw 101 and 102 rejections because applicant’s amendment to the claims overcome the rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding 112 rejection applicant’s mentioned paragraph 0022 and 0024 which discloses “high-level limitation”, low-level limitations”, “low-level operational parameter” and high-level parameters” without its boundary or limits.
Applicant’s arguments regarding “ 12t-algorithm” is not well known nor specification did not clearly disclose the terms. Therefore examiner decided to maintain 112 rejections.
Applicant’s arguments regarding “an input module” is not clear because fail to clarify the terms whether it’s a software or hardware.
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, 6, 8, 11-12 and 14-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12 and 14-15 recites the limitations “high-level limitation” is not clear to the examiner. Specification did not set any boundary of the terms. Dependent claims did not clarify, so is also rejected.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-12 and 14 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 1-3, 6, 9-12 and 14 recites the limitations “high-level limitation” is not clear to the examiner. Specification did not set any boundary of the terms. Dependent claims did not clarify, so is also rejected.
Claims 3-4 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 3-4 recites the limitations “low-level operational parameter” is not clear to the examiner. Specification did not set any boundary of the terms. Dependent claims did not clarify, so is also rejected.
Claim 4 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 4 recites the limitations “high-level operational parameter” is not clear to the examiner. Specification did not set any boundary of the terms. Dependent claims did not clarify, so is also rejected.
Claim 10 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 4 recites the limitations “I2t-algotithm” is not clear to the examiner. Specification did not set any boundary of the terms. Dependent claims did not clarify, so is also rejected.
Claim 8 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 4 recites the limitations “power surfing algorithm” is not clear to the examiner. Specification did not set any boundary of the terms. Dependent claims did not clarify, so is also rejected.
Claim limitation “an input module” recited in claim 14 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because specifications and drawing does not include any structure or description that it’s a hardware. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; 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.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 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.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
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.
Pratt et al. USPGPUB 2010/0252455 teaches method of operating an electrochemical gas sensor includes: a) exposing, for a first predetermined duration, the electrochemical gas sensor to an atmosphere containing a target gas whilst the gas reaction capability of the electrode assembly is substantially reduced from a working level, such that target gas is collected within the housing; b) increasing the gas reaction capability of the electrode assembly to a level at which it consumes collected target gas and thereby outputs a signal to the sensing circuit, including an initial transient decay signal; c) monitoring the transient decay signal; and d) analysing the rate of decay of the transient decay signal to determine whether the performance of at least one component of the electrochemical gas sensor is within acceptable limits.
Kadono et al USPGPUB 2007/0288151 teaches an engine output control apparatus of a power train employing an engine and an automatic transmission, capable of executing engine output control for excessive torque input prevention engine torque limiting action and for a shift speed control of the transmission, at least two different kinds of engine output control systems having control characteristics differing from each other, are provided. A controller selectively uses these engine output control systems depending on a power-train operating condition, such that a first one of the engine output control systems having a superior transient response is used for the engine output control for shift response control during shifting, and that a second one of the engine output control systems having a superior steady-state stability is used for the engine output control for excessive torque input prevention engine torque limiting action during non-shifting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights