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 under 112(f)
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.
“sweeping elements” in Claim 1.
“collection system” in Claim 1.
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.
The corresponding structure in the specification being:
sweeping elements – brushes
collection system - a system of pipes
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.
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 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of,
“said stators” in Line 12 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “said two stators” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
“said inverter” in Line 14 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “said two inverter circuits” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation of,
“said stators” in Line 2 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “said two stators” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
Regarding Claim 4, the recitation of,
“said stators” in Line 2 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “said two stators” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
Regarding Claim 5, the recitation of,
“said stators” in Line 3 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “said two stators” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
Regarding Claim 6, the recitation of, “said inverter circuits” in Lines 2 and 3 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “said two inverter circuits” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
Regarding Claim 7, the recitation of, “said stators” in Line 2 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “said two stators” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
Regarding Claim 6, the recitation of, “said inverter circuits” in Lines 2-3 lack antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “said two inverter circuits” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 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.
Regarding Claim 1, US 10,502,225 B2 discloses a road sweeper machine comprising:
- a vehicle (10, figure 1 also reproduced/annotated below) suitable for road transport (intended use, see figure 1) and comprising an electric motor (104, figure 2 also reproduced below),
- sweeping elements (14, figure 1) connected to said vehicle (see figure 1) and suitable for removing waste on the ground (intended use, see figure 1),
- a collection system (15, figure 1) for said waste placed at the bottom of said vehicle (intended use, see figure 1),
- a chamber (see annotated figure 1) for containing said collected waste connected to said collection system (intended use, see figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
346
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A Design Study of Dual-Stator Permanent Magnet Brushless DC Motor, Yaling et al, 2013 discloses an electric motor (figure 1 also reproduced below) wherein,
- said electric motor is of a brushless type (see title) and comprises
- a rotor (see figure 1) comprising a plurality of permanent type magnets (see inside and outside magnets figure 1 and title)
- two stators (inner and outer stators, figure 1),
- an inverter circuit connected to one of said stators (inner and outer stator windings of the DSBLDC can be connected in series and supplied by one inverter, page 655, para 3),
-said inverter circuit being capable of sending a three-phase current to said connected stator (DSBLDC is a 3 phase and 10 pole motor, Page 656, Para 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
250
296
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The prior art alone or in combination fails to disclose or render obvious all of the limitations of Claim 1 i.e. a road sweeper machine comprising:
- a vehicle suitable for road transport and comprising an electric motor,
- sweeping elements connected to said vehicle and suitable for removing waste on the ground,
- a collection system for said waste placed at the bottom of said vehicle,
- a chamber for containing said collected waste connected to said collection system wherein,
- said electric motor is of a brushless type and comprises a hexa-phase system,
- said hexa-phase system comprising:
- a rotor comprising a plurality of permanent type magnets
- two stators,
- two inverter circuits, each connected to one of said stators, and each mutually independent,
- each said inverter being capable of sending a three-phase current to said connected stator. Therefore, it is not known in, nor obvious from the prior art to construct a road sweeper machine as claimed.
Claims 2-8 also contain allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a filed document or remarks of a filed response (see MPEP 502.03 Il): Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file. If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is sabbir.hasan@uspto.gov.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4779303 A discloses a road sweeping machine (see figure 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sabbir Hasan whose telephone number is (571)270-7651. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 11am-7pm.
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 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.
/Sabbir Hasan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights