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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
i. the unlabeled rectangular box(es) (106, 18, 26, 20, 24, 108, 14 - Fig. 1; 30, 28, 32, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 35, 36, 18 - Fig. 4; 20, 18, 24, 26, 108 - Fig. 5a) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. 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 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:
“at least one trough vibrating mechanism that causes the vibratory trough to vibrate” in Claim 1 (interpreted as 106, ex. p. 14, lines 29-36)
“ a drive arrangement configured to rotate the component relative to the treatment media” in Claim 10 (interpreted as 120, ex. p. 15, lines 1-8)
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 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.
Claims 1-20 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.
MPEP 2161.01 I states:
When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reversing and remanding the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity for lack of adequate written description where there were genuine issues of material fact regarding "whether the specification show[ed] possession by the inventor of how accessing disparate databases is achieved"). If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.
Relatedly, MPEP 2163 I states:
An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 1 recites in part “plurality of sensor devices respectively and fixedly disposed at a plurality of heights relative to the vibratory trough, wherein the plurality of sensor devices is configured to respectively measure a plurality of movement parameters of the treatment media at the plurality of heights and generate a plurality of movement signals corresponding to the plurality of movement parameters; and a central controller communicably coupled to each of the plurality of sensor devices, the central controller configured to: receive the plurality of movement signals from the plurality of sensor devices; determine a plurality of process variables corresponding to the plurality of movement signals; and control the treatment apparatus based at least on the plurality of process variables.” The specification does not contain an algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention. All of the claimed limitations are not found in the description as filed. The claims are broad and the breadth does not appear to be supported by the disclosure. For example, “movement parameters” encompasses for example measuring absolute locations or distances of objects or weight or mass or measuring jerk or measuring temperatures, none of which appears to be present in the disclosure as filed. As a further example, “process variables” is broad and could encompass a number of items whose determination from different sensed values would necessarily be different. Applicant’s support for “process variables” at p. 18, lines 4-8 is:
The central controller 18 is further configured to determine a plurality of process variables 20 corresponding to the plurality of movement signals 16. The plurality of process variables 20 may include values of energy, coverage, and intensity of the treatment process.
There is no further discussion of these relations, their determinations, measurements, or correlations. The claim language does not even limit the claimed “process variables” to the broadly disclosed, open-ended “may include values of energy, coverage, and intensity of the treatment process”. The specification does not appear to disclose the various relationships between the “movement parameters” and the “process variables”, each of these terms referencing multiple items with their breadth. The original disclosure as filed does not appear to support all of the claimed limitations. Claim 14 has similar issues.
Similarly, each of
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 8
Claim 9
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claim 15
Claim 16
Claim 17
Claim 18
Claim 19
Claim 20
also lack written description support for the breadth of the claimed invention.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of sensor devices respectively and fixedly disposed at a plurality of heights relative to the vibratory trough, wherein the plurality of sensor devices is configured to respectively measure a plurality of movement parameters of the treatment media at the plurality of heights and generate a plurality of movement signals corresponding to the plurality of movement parameters”. This is indefinite. The claim is indefinite if the “plurality of sensor devices” each “measure a plurality of movement parameters” or if the “measure a plurality of movement parameters” is accomplished by each “sensor device” of the plurality measuring one “movement parameter”, the “measure a plurality of movement parameters” accomplished collectively by the plurality of “sensor devices”. Claim 14 has the same issue.
Claim 1 recites in part “determine a plurality of process variables corresponding to the plurality of movement signals; and control the treatment apparatus based at least on the plurality of process variables”. This is indefinite. The metes and bounds of “determine a plurality of process variables corresponding to the plurality of movement signals” and “control the treatment apparatus based at least on the plurality of process variables” are not understood. Claim 14 has the same issue.
Claim 6 recites “receive a predetermined process parameter for the treatment process; determine a measured process parameter based on the plurality of process variables; and control the treatment apparatus based on the predetermined process parameter and the measured process parameter, such that a difference between the predetermined process parameter and the measured process parameter is reduced.” This is indefinite. The metes and bounds of “predetermined process parameter” is indefinite. The metes and bounds of “measured process parameter” is indefinite. How the control of Claim 6 is to be interpreted with the control of “process variables” of Claim 1 is indefinite.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the central controller is further configured to: prior to receiving the plurality of movement signals from the plurality of sensor devices, determine a plurality of predicted process variables corresponding to the plurality of heights of the vibratory trough; and control the treatment apparatus based on the plurality of predicted process variables and the plurality of process variables, such that a difference between each of the plurality of process variables and a corresponding predicted process variable from the plurality of predicted process variables is reduced.” This is indefinite. The metes and bounds of “predicted process variables” is indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the treatment apparatus further comprises at least one trough wall provided in the vibratory trough and configured to adjust a height, a volume, and/or a mass of the treatment media in the vibratory trough, and wherein the central controller is further configured to control the at least one trough wall of the treatment apparatus based on the plurality of process variables.” This is indefinite. The claim is indefinite what is “and configured to adjust a height, a volume, and/or a mass of the treatment media in the vibratory trough”; the claim could be read as any of the “trough wall”, “treatment apparatus”, or “central controller” is responsible for this language. Additionally, the “wherein the central controller is further configured to control the at least one trough wall of the treatment apparatus based on the plurality of process variables” is indefinite since the trough wall does not appear to be directly connected to the central controller; that is, how the central controller controls the trough wall is indefinite.
Claim 11 recites in part “wherein the central controller is further configured to control the treatment media inlet and/or the treatment media outlet of the treatment apparatus based on the plurality of process variables.” This is indefinite. The control of holes (“media inlet” and “media outlet”) is not understood; the specification does discuss using valves (p. 15, lines 9-18) but this is not synonymous with the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites in part “one or more provisions for removably attaching a test strip to the casing”. This is indefinite. The metes and bounds of “one or more provisions” is indefinite.
Claim 15 recites “receiving a predetermined process parameter of the treatment process; and determining a measured process parameter based on the plurality of process variables; wherein controlling the treatment apparatus further comprises controlling the treatment apparatus based on the predetermined process parameter and the measured process parameter, such that a difference between the predetermined process parameter and the measured process parameter is reduced.”
The metes and bounds of “predetermined process parameter” is indefinite. The metes and bounds of “measured process parameter” is indefinite. How the control of Claim 15 is to be interpreted with the control of “process variables” of Claim 14 is indefinite.
Claim 16 recites “prior to receiving the plurality of movement signals from the plurality of sensor devices, determining a plurality of predicted process variables corresponding to the plurality of heights of the vibratory trough, wherein controlling the treatment apparatus further comprises controlling the treatment apparatus based on the plurality of predicted process variables and the plurality of process variables, such that a difference between each of the plurality of process variables and a corresponding predicted process variable from the plurality of predicted process variables is reduced.” This is indefinite. The metes and bounds of “predicted process variables” is indefinite.
Those claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected as being rendered indefinite by virtue of their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Conclusion
In view of the above noted 112 rejections and the nature of these rejections, a determination of applicability of prior art to the claims could not be determined at this time. The absence of an art rejection is not an indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
NPL - “Data Driven Optimization of Vibropeening” teaches a system for controlling a treatment process that modifies surface properties of a component, the system comprising: a treatment apparatus (p. 286, under “2. Methodology”) for carrying out the treatment process, the treatment apparatus comprising: a vibratory trough for receiving and retaining treatment media; a component support fixedly attached to the vibratory trough, wherein the component support supports the component within the vibratory trough; and at least one trough vibrating mechanism that causes the vibratory trough to vibrate; a plurality of sensor devices (accelerometers) respectively and fixedly disposed at a plurality of heights relative to the vibratory trough (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the plurality of sensor devices is configured to respectively measure a plurality of movement parameters (p. 287 - acceleration values in x, y, and z directions) of the treatment media at the plurality of heights and generate a plurality of movement signals corresponding to the plurality of movement parameters; and a central controller (ex. Fig. 2) communicably coupled to each of the plurality of sensor devices, the central controller configured to: receive the plurality of movement signals from the plurality of sensor devices.
US 10406651 teaches a system for controlling a treatment process that modifies surface properties of a component, the system comprising: a treatment apparatus (with 23, Fig. 5) for carrying out the treatment process, the treatment apparatus comprising: a vibratory trough (35) for receiving and retaining treatment media; a component support (with 56) fixedly attached to the vibratory trough, wherein the component support supports the component (ex. 30) within the vibratory trough; and at least one trough vibrating mechanism (34) that causes the vibratory trough to vibrate; and a central controller (24), control the treatment apparatus (ex. 66, 69, 70, 71); also teaches the controller receiving feedback (ex. 67 ,72)
US 9846099 teaches a sensor
US 10732198 teaches a sensor
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-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, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745