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.
Examiner’s Note
The page references for Geoffroy come from the translation and are the page numbers of the full pdf document.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because Fig. 1-4, & 6 is objected to as it contains blank boxes lacking descriptive labels. The drawings should be amended to include labels showing each boxes function in the circuit. The semiconductor relays 34 provide sufficient detail. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 13, 14, and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: In regards to claim 13, it appears that “the switching state” should be “switching states” (see line 3). In regards to claim 14, it appears that “the group” should be “a group” (see line 2). In regards to claim 30, it appears that “the switching states” should be “switching states” (see line 1); and it appears that “the steps of” should be “steps of” (see line 3). Appropriate correction is required.
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 13, 14, 24, & 26-27 recite the limitation "the switching elements". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the respective probe signal", “the switching status”, and “the respective switching element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 15 & 18 recite the limitation "the useful signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 19-21, 23, & 30 recite the limitation "the probe points". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the status signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 24 & 25 recite the limitation "the same switching element". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the two switching elements". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13 & 19-21 recite the limitation "the circuit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The claims recite an electrical circuit, diagnostic circuit, and interrupter circuit.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the circuit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-14 & 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Geoffroy et al., EP3835799 (hereinafter referred to as Geoffroy).
In regards to claim 13, Geoffroy teaches an interrupter (switch; [Abstract]) circuit (circuit device 10; [Abstract] & [Fig. 2]) for interrupting a useful signal (switching connections 14; [Fig. 2]) in an electrical circuit (line 36 and switching connections 14; [Fig. 2]) comprising at least a first (relay 12a; [Fig. 2]) and a second switching element (relay 12b; [Fig. 2]) connected in series (implicit; [Fig. 2]) and a diagnostic circuit (circuit device 10 except for line 36 and switching connections 14; [Fig. 2]) for monitoring the switching states (monitors the actual switching state; [Abstract]) of the switching elements comprising a signal source (supplies a square-wave signal 26; [Pg. 16, Para. 3]) which is configured to generate a monitor signal (square-wave signal 26; [Pg. 16, Para. 3]) which can be coupled (implicit; [Fig. 2]) into the circuit at a feed point (node inbetween 12a & 12b; [Fig. 2]) between the switching elements connected in series; a first probe point (node of test signal 30 (upper); [Fig. 2]) and a second probe point (node of test signal 30 (lower); [Fig. 2]) in the circuit, so that the first switching element is located between the first probe point and the feed point (implicit; [Fig. 2]) and the second switching element is located between the second probe point and the feed point in the circuit (implicit; [Fig. 2]); a first filter (second bandpass filter 42 (top); [Fig. 2]) configured to separate the monitor signal from a probe signal tapped at the first probe point (test signal 44a; [Pg. 16, Para. 9] & [Fig. 2]), and a second filter (second bandpass filter 42 (bottom); [Fig. 2]) configured to separate the monitor signal from a probe signal tapped at the second probe point (test signal 44b; [Pg. 16, Para. 9] & [Fig. 2]); and detector circuits (signal receiver and XOR gate of lower microcontroller 24 & signal receiver and XOR gate of upper microcontroller 24; [Pg. 16, Para. 9-10] & [Fig. 2]) arranged downstream of the first filter and the second filter (Examiner’s Note: The lower microcontroller is downstream of the first filter and the upper microcontroller is downstream of the second filter.), which are configured to extract (digitized test signal 44a, 44b is finally fed to a signal receiver; [Pg. 16, Para. 9]) the monitor signal from the respective probe signal and to generate a respective status signal (phase shift in lower microcontroller 24 & phase shift in upper microcontroller 24; [Pg. 16, Para. 9-10]) which represents the switching status (determine which of the relays 12 is closed or open; [Pg. 16, Para. 10]) of the respective switching element.
In regards to claim 14, Geoffroy teaches wherein the switching elements are selected from the group of mechanically or magnetically operated switches or pushbuttons, mechanical relays or contactors, transistors, field-effect transistors, photo transistors, photo- thyristors, photo-triacs, optocouplers, semiconductor relays or Hall sensors (standard relays, it is implicit that a standard relay would be a mechanical or semiconductor relay; [Pg. 15, Para. 12]).
In regards to claim 30, Geoffroy teaches a method for monitoring the switching states (monitors the actual switching state; [Abstract]) of a first (relay 12a; [Fig. 2]) and a second switching element (relay 12b; [Fig. 2]) connected in series (implicit; [Fig. 2]) for interrupting (switch; [Abstract]) a useful signal (switching connections 14; [Fig. 2]) in an electrical circuit (line 36 and switching connections 14; [Fig. 2]) comprising the steps of: generating a monitor signal (square-wave signal 26; [Pg. 16, Para. 3]) and coupling (implicit; [Fig. 2]) the monitor signal into the circuit at a feed point (node inbetween 12a & 12b; [Fig. 2]) between the two switching elements connected in series (implicit; [Fig. 2]); tapping of probe signals (test signals 44a & 44b; [Pg. 16, Para. 9] & [Fig. 2]) from the circuit at a first probe point (node of test signal 30 (upper); [Fig. 2]) and a second probe point (node of test signal 30 (lower); [Fig. 2]), the probe points being arranged in such a way that the first switching element is located in the circuit between the first probe point (implicit; [Fig. 2]) and the feed point and the second switching element is located between the second probe point and the feed point (implicit; [Fig. 2]); separating the monitor signal from the probe signals by means of a respective filter (second bandpass filter 42 (top & bottom); [Fig. 2]) for each of the probe signals; and generating a first status signal (phase shift in lower microcontroller 24; [Pg. 16, Para. 9-10]) representing the switching state (determine which of the relays 12 is closed or open; [Pg. 16, Para. 10]) of the first switching element and a second status signal (phase shift in upper microcontroller 24; [Pg. 16, Para. 9-10]) representing the switching state (determine which of the relays 12 is closed or open; [Pg. 16, Para. 10]) of the second switching element from the respective separated monitor signal (digitized test signal 44a, 44b is finally fed to a signal receiver; [Pg. 16, Para. 9]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geoffroy et al., EP3835799 (hereinafter referred to as Geoffroy) in view of Atsumi, US20080088367 (hereinafter referred to as Atsumi).
In regards to claim 15, Geoffroy does not teach wherein the monitor signal is a periodic signal with an amplitude which is not more than 10% of an amplitude of the useful signal.
Atsumi teaches wherein the monitor signal (modulated signal; [0004]) is a periodic signal (carrier with a frequency; [0004]) with an amplitude which is not more than 10% of an amplitude (amplitude 5% or less; [0004]) of the useful signal (not modulated signal; [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Geoffroy to incorporate wherein the monitor signal is a periodic signal with an amplitude which is not more than 10% of an amplitude of the useful signal as taught by Atsumi. The motivation for doing so would be to size the injected signal to be in compliance with commercial safety standards.
In regards to claim 16, Geoffroy does not teach wherein the monitor signal (modulated signal; [0004]) is a periodic signal (carrier with a frequency; [0004]) with an amplitude which is not more than 5% of an amplitude (amplitude 5% or less; [0004]) of the useful signal (not modulated signal; [0004]).
Atsumi teaches wherein the monitor signal is a periodic signal with an amplitude which is not more than 5% of an amplitude of the useful signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Geoffroy to incorporate wherein the monitor signal is a periodic signal with an amplitude which is not more than 5% of an amplitude of the useful signal as taught by Atsumi. The motivation for doing so would be to size the injected signal to be in compliance with commercial safety standards.
In regards to claim 17, Geoffroy does not teach wherein the monitor signal is a periodic signal with an amplitude which is not more than 2% of an amplitude of the useful signal.
Atsumi teaches wherein the monitor signal (modulated signal; [0004]) is a periodic signal (carrier with a frequency; [0004]) with an amplitude which is not more than 2% of an amplitude (amplitude 5% or less; [0004]) of the useful signal (not modulated signal; [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Geoffroy to incorporate wherein the monitor signal is a periodic signal with an amplitude which is not more than 2% of an amplitude of the useful signal as taught by Atsumi. It would have been obvious through engineering experimentation to select an amplitude which is not more than 2% of an amplitude of the useful signal in order to reliably be in compliance with commercial safety standards. The motivation for doing so would be to size the injected signal to be in compliance with commercial safety standards.
In regards to claim 22, Geoffroy teaches wherein the monitor signal is amplitude- (amplitude; [Pg. 14, Desc. Para. 15]), frequency- (frequency; [Pg. 14, Desc. Para. 15]) or phase-modulated (phase-shifted; [Pg. 14, Desc. Para. 13]).
In regards to claim 23, Geoffroy teaches wherein the monitor signal is adapted to transmit data (inserting… for example additional bits in a digital signal; [Pg. 14, Desc. Para. 15]) from the feed point to the probe points (Examiner’s Note: It is understood that the broadest reasonable interpretation of data would include a digital signal.).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geoffroy et al., EP3835799 (hereinafter referred to as Geoffroy) in view of Atsumi, US20080088367 (hereinafter referred to as Atsumi) and in further view of NPL U, goHz.com (hereinafter referred to as NPL U).
In regards to claim 18, Geoffrey teaches a frequency (frequency between 50 and 300kHz; [Pg. 15, Para. 3]) of the monitor signal.
Geoffroy & Atsumi do not teach wherein the frequency of the monitor signal is at least a factor of 10 higher than an upper limit frequency or at least a factor of 10 lower than a lower limit frequency of the useful signal.
NPL U teaches wherein the frequency of the monitor signal (Geoffrey, 50kHz; [Pg. 15, Para. 3]) is at least a factor of 10 higher than an upper limit frequency (3000Hz; [Pg. 3, I/O Feature, Output Frequency]) or at least a factor of 10 lower than a lower limit frequency of the useful signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Geoffroy & Atsumi to incorporate wherein the frequency of the monitor signal is at least a factor of 10 higher than an upper limit frequency or at least a factor of 10 lower than a lower limit frequency of the useful signal. 50kHz is more than 10 times greater than 3000Hz. The Variable Frequency Device is a motor that could be used within the automated production system as taught by Geoffroy. Therefore, it is a matter of engineering design choice to select a frequency that is at least a factor of 10 higher than an upper limit in order for the protection circuit to operate correctly and be able to distinguish the monitor signal from the useful signal. The motivation for doing so would be for the protection circuit to operate correctly in detecting the monitor signal from the power signal of the motor.
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geoffroy et al., EP3835799 (hereinafter referred to as Geoffroy) in view of Sun et al., US4106071 (hereinafter referred to as Sun).
In regards to claim 19, Geoffroy teaches wherein the interrupter circuit comprises a respective blocking filter (second coupling capacitors 38; [Fig. 2]) arranged between terminals of the circuit and the probe points (implicit; [Fig. 2]).
Geoffroy does not teach wherein the blocking filter is configured to suppress the monitor signal by at least 10 dB.
Sun teaches wherein the blocking filter is configured to suppress the monitor signal by at least 10 dB (78dB attenuation; [Col. 5, Ln. 25-32]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Geoffroy to incorporate wherein the blocking filter is configured to suppress the monitor signal by at least 10 dB as taught by Sun. Also, applicant acknowledges "blocking filters are extensively known from the prior art, and the skilled person may, for example, use established filter designs". Therefore, it is a matter of engineering design choice and/or experimentation to select a commercial blocking filter of 10dB in order to reliably extract the monitor signal from the useful signal. The motivation for doing so would be to reliably extract the status signal from the probe signal.
In regards to claim 20, Geoffroy teaches wherein the interrupter circuit comprises a respective blocking filter (second coupling capacitors 38; [Fig. 2]) arranged between terminals of the circuit and the probe points (implicit; [Fig. 2]).
Geoffroy does not teach wherein the blocking filter is configured to suppress the monitor signal by at least 20 dB.
Sun teaches wherein the blocking filter is configured to suppress the monitor signal by at least 20 dB (78dB attenuation; [Col. 5, Ln. 25-32]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Geoffroy to incorporate wherein the blocking filter is configured to suppress the monitor signal by at least 20 dB as taught by Sun. Also, applicant acknowledges "blocking filters are extensively known from the prior art, and the skilled person may, for example, use established filter designs". Therefore, it is a matter of engineering design choice and/or experimentation to select a commercial blocking filter of 20dB in order to reliably extract the monitor signal from the useful signal. The motivation for doing so would be to reliably extract the status signal from the probe signal.
In regards to claim 21, Geoffroy teaches wherein the interrupter circuit comprises a respective blocking filter (second coupling capacitors 38; [Fig. 2]) arranged between terminals of the circuit and the probe points (implicit; [Fig. 2]).
Geoffroy does not teach wherein the blocking filter is configured to suppress the monitor signal by at least 30 dB.
Sun teaches wherein the blocking filter is configured to suppress the monitor signal by at least 30 dB (78dB attenuation; [Col. 5, Ln. 25-32]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Geoffroy to incorporate wherein the blocking filter is configured to suppress the monitor signal by at least 30 dB as taught by Sun. Also, applicant acknowledges "blocking filters are extensively known from the prior art, and the skilled person may, for example, use established filter designs". Therefore, it is a matter of engineering design choice and/or experimentation to select a commercial blocking filter of 30dB in order to reliably extract the monitor signal from the useful signal. The motivation for doing so would be to reliably extract the status signal from the probe signal.
Claim(s) 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geoffroy et al., EP3835799 (hereinafter referred to as Geoffroy) in view of Schierling, US11879929 (hereinafter referred to as Schierling).
In regards to claim 24, Geoffroy does not teach wherein the diagnostic circuit comprises a comparator which is configured to compare the status signal of one of the switching elements with a control signal of the same switching element.
Schierling teaches wherein the diagnostic circuit comprises a comparator (comparator; [Col. 12, Ln. 27-29]) which is configured to compare the status signal (indicator 50; [Col. 15, Ln. 44-52]) of one of the switching elements with a control signal (reference 52; [Col. 15, Ln. 44-52]) of the same switching element (Examiner’s Note: Schierling teaches of the reference 52 being stored within the memory and a response to the modified control signal 30 can be encoded as the reference 52. Therefore, it is understood that the reference 52 is the response to the modified control signal 30.).
In regards to claim 25, Geoffroy does not teach wherein the interrupter circuit comprises at least one further switching element which is connected in series with the first and the second switching element and is configured to interrupt the circuit if the comparator detects a deviation of the status signal of the first or the second switching element from the control signal of the same switching element. The motivation for doing so would be to determine the status of the switching element due to the response, or difference, of the inputted control signal.
Schierling teaches wherein the interrupter circuit comprises at least one further switching element (additional switch 68; [Fig. 1]) which is connected in series with the first and the second switching element (implicit; [Fig. 1]) and is configured to interrupt (opening; [Col. 15, Ln. 19-24]) the circuit if the comparator detects a deviation (result of the deviation; [Col. 15, Ln. 19-24]) of the status signal of the first or the second switching element from the control signal of the same switching element.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox ( 1st & 2nd
switching element)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (One further switching element)]
PNG
media_image1.png
162
353
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Geoffroy to incorporate wherein the interrupter circuit comprises at least one further switching element which is connected in series with the first and the second switching element and is configured to interrupt the circuit if the comparator detects a deviation of the status signal of the first or the second switching element from the control signal of the same switching element as taught by Schierling. The motivation for doing so would be to provide additional protection for both of the switching elements.
In regards to claim 26, Geoffroy does not teach wherein in case the switching elements receive a common control signal, the diagnostic circuit comprises a comparator which is configured to compare the status signal of the first switching element with the status signal of the second switching element.
Schierling teaches wherein in case the switching elements receive a common control signal, the diagnostic circuit comprises a comparator (comparator; [Col. 12, Ln. 27-29]) which is configured to compare the status signal of the first switching element (if (S2=High) then (set S to High) else (leave S1 unchanged; leave S unchanged); [Col. 12, Ln. 36-56]) with the status signal of the second switching element (S2: status of the other switch in the switching member; [Col. 12, Ln. 36-56]) (Examiner’s Note: The status signal of S1 and S2 are compared to by checking the status of each switch to determine the status of the switching member. It is understood as being done with a comparator because Schierling teaches in [Col. 12, 27-31] that the evaluation can be done with a comparator or software. The software function would translate to a comparison of S1 and S2 via at least one comparator.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Geoffroy to incorporate wherein in case the switching elements receive a common control signal, the diagnostic circuit comprises a comparator which is configured to compare the status signal of the first switching element with the status signal of the second switching element as taught by Schierling. The motivation for doing so would be to simplify monitoring the system by providing a single status signal of the full electrical circuit.
In regards to claim 27, Geoffroy does not teach wherein the interrupter circuit comprises at least one further switching element which is connected in series with the first and the second switching element and is configured to interrupt the circuit if the comparator detects a deviation between the status signals of the switching elements.
Schierling teaches wherein the interrupter circuit comprises at least one further switching element (additional switch 68; [Fig. 1]) which is connected in series with the first and the second switching element (implicit; [Fig. 1]) and is configured to interrupt (opening; [Col. 15, Ln. 19-24]) the circuit if the comparator detects a deviation (result of the deviation; [Col. 15, Ln. 19-24]) between the status signals of the switching elements.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox ( 1st & 2nd
switching element)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (One further switching element)]
PNG
media_image1.png
162
353
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Geoffroy to incorporate wherein the interrupter circuit comprises at least one further switching element which is connected in series with the first and the second switching element and is configured to interrupt the circuit if the comparator detects a deviation between the status signals of the switching elements as taught by Schierling. The motivation for doing so would be to provide additional protection for both of the switching elements.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geoffroy et al., EP3835799 (hereinafter referred to as Geoffroy) in view of Engelhardt et al., US20020005483 (hereinafter referred to as Engelhardt).
In regards to claim 29, Geoffroy does not teach a laser scanning microscope comprising a laser safety device, wherein the laser safety device comprises an interrupter circuit according to claim 13.
Engelhardt teaches a laser scanning microscope (laser scanning microscope; [Abstract]) comprising a laser safety device (interruption device; [0023]), wherein the laser safety device comprises an interrupter circuit (interrupt circuit of interruption device; [0023]) according to claim 13.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Geoffroy to incorporate a laser scanning microscope comprising a laser safety device, wherein the laser safety device comprises an interrupter circuit according to claim 13 as taught by Engelhardt. The motivation for doing so would be to provide protection to the user and the laser scanning microscope in case of failure due to a switching element.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species group 2: Fig. 3 in the reply filed on 8/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 28 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species in group 3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/18/2025.
Applicant states “claim 24 is also generic” and “Figure 2 shows such a comparator 27, Figure 3 (species 2) shows the 'consistency checker 36', which is also a comparator, and Figure 4 refers in paragraph [0065] of the disclosed document US 2024/145189 Al. Likewise, claim 25 is obviously to be read in relation to at least species 2. Claim 26 may also be read in relation to species 2 since it is already mentioned in relation to Figure 1 that there may be a common control signal. Claim 27 is to be read only in relation to species 2.” The statement is found persuasive and the claims 13-27 and 29-30 are acknowledged as applicable to species group 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA L FAUBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 5PM.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 5712721838. 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.
/MONICA LEWIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/SAMANTHA L FAUBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2838