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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Regarding “Description requirement and new matter situations”:
Claims 1-7, 10-15, & 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 lines 9-19, has been amended to read:
“wherein operating the mechanical component according to the closed-loop control algorithm comprises: activating the fan in response to a setpoint value received from the user interface, receiving a plurality of fan speed measurements from the sensor after activating the fan, generating an output from the closed-loop control algorithm based on the setpoint value and each of the plurality of fan speed measurements, wherein each output from the closed-loop control algorithm comprises a control variable, the control variable comprising a power level for the fan, and adjusting an electrical power level supplied to the fan in response to each output from the closed-loop control algorithm;”
Independent claim 10 lines 8-19, has been amended to read:
“wherein operating the mechanical component according to the closed-loop control algorithm comprises: activating the heating element in response to a setpoint value received from the user interface, receiving a plurality of temperature measurements from the sensor after activating the heating element, generating an output from the closed-loop control algorithm based on the setpoint value and each of the plurality of temperature measurements, wherein each output from the closed-loop control algorithm comprises a control variable, the control variable comprising a valve position for a fuel supply valve coupled to the heating element, and adjusting a position of the fuel supply valve in response to each output from the closed-loop control algorithm;”
Newly added independent claim 18 lines 8-18, reads:
“wherein operating the mechanical component according to the closed-loop control algorithm comprises: activating the fan in response to a setpoint value received from the user interface, receiving a plurality of fan speed measurements from the sensor after activating the fan, generating an output from the closed-loop control algorithm based on the setpoint value and each of the plurality of fan speed measurements, wherein each output from the closed-loop control algorithm comprises a control variable, the control variable comprising a power level for the fan, and adjusting an electrical power level supplied to the fan in response to each output from the closed-loop control algorithm;”
The Examiner was unable to find sufficient support for these amendments within the originally filed specification. In particular:
“generating an output from the closed-loop control algorithm based on the setpoint value and each of the plurality of fan speed measurements, wherein each output from the closed-loop control algorithm comprises a control variable, the control variable comprising a power level for the fan”
There would be sufficient support for the para 0098 recitation of:
“operating the mechanical component according to the closed-loop control algorithm may include receiving, by the controller, a setpoint value from the user interface for an output of the mechanical component, and the setpoint value received in the operating cycle of the appliance may be the same as or within a tolerance rage of a setpoint value received in the previous operating cycle of the appliance.”
Claims 2-7, 11-15, & 19-21 are rejected for their dependence on a rejected base claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the base claim(s) was rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20010015918 A1 "Configurable Electronic Controller For Appliances" (Bhatnagar) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 10.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858