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 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: “pneumatic conditioning unit” in claim 6.
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 2-6, 8, 11, 14, 15-17 and 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.
Each of claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 14, 16, and 18 recite the term “selectively”, which renders each of the claims indefinite as it is unclear how exactly “selectively” is being used.
Claim 2 recites in lines 1-4 that “the control signal is configured to permit the user to selectively and remotely transition the tripper pin between an activated configuration…and a disabled configuration”. However, it is unclear how exactly a “signal” is configured to permit a user to selectively perform the intended use. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 3 recites in lines 1-3 that “the control signal is configured to permit the user to selectively and remotely initiate and cease operation”. However, it is unclear how exactly a “signal” is configured to permit a user to selectively perform the intended use. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 4 recites in lines 1-2 that “the control signal includes one or more of a pneumatic air flow, a hydraulic fluid flow”. However, it is unclear how exactly a control signal can have one or more of a pneumatic air flow, a hydraulic fluid flow. Is it that the control signal can have one or more or a pneumatic air flow signal or a hydraulic fluid flow signal? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 6 recites in lines 1-2 “a pneumatic conditioning unit configured to receive and condition a pneumatic air source”. However, it is unclear how exactly this unit receives and conditions a pneumatic air source. In what sense? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 8 recites in lines 1-2 that “the control signal includes at least a portion of the pneumatic air flow”. However, it is unclear how exactly a control signal can include at least a portion of the pneumatic air flow. Additionally, it is unclear what exactly is catalogued as a “portion of the pneumatic air flow”? In what sense? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 15 recites in lines 1-2 “a pneumatic conditioning unit configured to receive and condition a pneumatic air source”. However, it is unclear how exactly this unit receives and conditions a pneumatic air source. In what sense? Further clarification is needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith US 10,413,971.
In regards to claim 1, Smith discloses a remote lathe control system (800) for a portable lathe (104) that includes a fixed ring configured to be fixedly mounted on a cylindrical workpiece, a rotating ring rotatably and operatively coupled to the fixed ring, a drive motor configured to rotate the rotating ring relative to the fixed ring, a tool slide assembly mounted to the rotating ring and including a tool bit and a star wheel, and a tripper pin tower fixedly coupled to and extending radially away from the fixed ring and including a tripper pin (Figure 4), the remote lathe control system (800) comprising: an operator pendant (as presented by Applicant, see Figure 7) configured to receive a user input from a human user and to generate a control signal for remote operation of the portable lathe; and a control tether (e.g. 804) extending from the operator pendant (as in Figure 7) to convey the control signal to another component of the remote lathe control system. See column 16, lines 5-55.
In regards to claim 2, Smith discloses the remote lathe control system of claim 1, Smith also discloses that wherein the control signal is configured to permit the user to selectively and remotely transition the tripper pin between an activated configuration, in which the tripper pin is positioned to engage and rotate the star wheel as the tool slide assembly moves past the tripper pin tower, and a disabled configuration, in which the tripper pin is positioned to be spaced apart from the star wheel when the tool slide assembly moves past the tripper pin tower (as the control signal and the remote control are in charge of the operation of the lathe, then the control signal is capable of performing the intended use).
In regards to claim 3, Smith discloses the remote lathe control system of claim 1, Smith also discloses that the control signal is configured to permit the user to selectively and remotely initiate and cease operation of the drive motor to rotate the rotating ring relative to the fixed ring (as the control signal and the remote control are in charge of the operation of the lathe, then the control signal is capable of performing the intended use).
In regards to claim 4, Smith discloses the remote lathe control system of claim 1, Smith also discloses that the control signal includes an electrical signal (column 16, lines 27-34).
In regards to claim 5, Smith discloses the remote lathe control system of claim 1, Smith also discloses that the operator pendant includes a machine-start control (806) configured to initiate rotation of the rotating ring relative to the fixed ring; and (iii) a machine-stop control (e-stop 806) configured to halt rotation of the rotating ring relative to the fixed ring.
In regards to claim 6, Smith discloses the remote lathe control system of claim 1, Smith also discloses a pneumatic conditioning unit configured to receive and condition a pneumatic air source.
In regards to claim 14, Smith discloses the remote lathe control system of claim 1, Smith also discloses that the control signal is configured to regulate a pneumatic air flow to the drive motor (206) to selectively rotate the rotating ring relative to the fixed ring.
In regards to claim 19, Smith discloses the remote lathe control system of claim 1, Smith also discloses the portable lathe.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9-10, 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8, 11, 15-18 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE N RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00 am -5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/NICOLE N RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722