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 .
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong one: claim 1 recites steps of “extracting a first characteristic parameter of the spring vibration model; normalizing the first characteristic parameter to generate a spring motion state curve; extracting a second characteristic parameter of the spring motion state curve, and generating a vibration characteristic curve according to the second characteristic parameter based on a preset mapping rule; and extracting a third characteristic parameter of the vibration characteristic curve, and generating a corresponding vibration file according to the third characteristic parameter”. As is evident from the background, the claimed limitation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited calculation can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional limitations “acquiring a preset spring vibration model” and “outputting the vibration file”. The additional limitations represent mere data gathering and data outputting that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Limitations “acquiring a preset spring vibration model” and “outputting the vibration file” in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activities. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional limitations of “acquiring a preset spring vibration model” and “outputting the vibration file” represent mere data gathering and data outputting are recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. Those limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitations “acquiring a preset spring vibration model” and “outputting the vibration file” do not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 2 recites steps of “the second characteristic parameter comprises an expected vibration frequency, an expected vibration normalized maximum amplitude, an expected vibration duration, and an expected vibration envelope; and wherein the extracting the second characteristic parameter of the spring motion state curve, and generating the vibration characteristic curve according to the second characteristic parameter based on a preset mapping rule…determining a target vibration period according to the expected vibration frequency, and periodically splicing a vibration signal corresponding to the first frequency and the expected vibration normalized maximum amplitude with a vibration signal corresponding to the second frequency and the expected vibration normalized maximum amplitude to obtain a first vibration signal; linearly mapping the expected vibration normalized maximum amplitude to a target vibration signal amplitude, and periodically splicing a vibration signal corresponding to the first frequency and the target vibration signal amplitude with a vibration signal corresponding to the second frequency and the target vibration signal amplitude to obtain a second vibration signal; determining a number of vibration periods according to the expected vibration duration and the target vibration period, and splicing the second vibration signal according to the number of vibration periods to obtain a third vibration signal; and performing envelope superposition on the third vibration signal according to the expected vibration envelope and the number of vibration periods to obtain a fourth vibration signal as the vibration characteristic curve”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim includes the additional limitation “acquiring a first frequency adjacent to a motor and a second frequency away from the motor according to the spring motion state curve”. However, the additional limitations represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, the limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 3 recites steps of “determining the target vibration period according to the expected vibration frequency, and periodically splicing the vibration signal corresponding to the first frequency and the expected vibration normalized maximum amplitude with a vibration signal corresponding to the second frequency and the expected vibration normalized maximum amplitude to obtain the first vibration signal…determining an expected vibration period according to the expected vibration frequency; acquiring a preset proportional coefficient, and allocating a first duration of vibration at the first frequency and a second duration of vibration at the second frequency in each half of the expected vibration period according to the preset proportional coefficient and the expected vibration period; rounding the first duration up to an integer period of the first frequency, rounding the second duration up to an integer period of the second frequency, and determining the target vibration period according to the integer period of the first frequency and the integer period of the second frequency; and periodically splicing the vibration signal corresponding to the first frequency and the expected vibration normalized maximum amplitude with the vibration signal corresponding to the second frequency and the expected vibration normalized maximum amplitude according to the target vibration period to obtain the first vibration signal”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 4 recites steps of “expected vibration period is calculated according to the following formula: Texp=1Fexp, where T.sub.exp denotes the expected vibration period, and F.sub.exp denotes the expected vibration frequency; the first duration is calculated according to the following formula: T1=Texp2×α, where T.sub.exp denotes the expected vibration period, T.sub.1 denotes the first duration, and a denotes the preset proportional coefficient; and the second duration is calculated according to the following formula: T2=Texp2×(1-α), where T.sub.exp denotes the expected vibration period, T.sub.2 denotes the second duration, and α denotes the preset proportional coefficient”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 5 recites steps of “determining the target vibration period according to the expected vibration frequency, and periodically splicing the vibration signal corresponding to the first frequency and the expected vibration normalized maximum amplitude with the vibration signal corresponding to the second frequency and the expected vibration normalized maximum amplitude to obtain the first vibration signal comprises: determining the target vibration period according to the expected vibration frequency; determining signal frequency modulation sensitivity and a carrier frequency according to the first frequency and the second frequency; and obtaining a first vibration signal within one of the target vibration periods according to the expected vibration frequency, the frequency modulation sensitivity, and the carrier frequency; wherein the first vibration signal is calculated according to the following formula: S1=sin(2×pi×fc×t+kf×sin(2×pi×fm×t)fm), where S.sub.1 denotes the first vibration signal, k.sub.f denotes the signal frequency modulation sensitivity, f.sub.m denotes a baseband signal frequency, configured as the expected vibration frequency, f.sub.c denotes the carrier frequency, f.sub.c−k.sub.f denotes the first frequency, and f.sub.c+k.sub.f denotes the second frequency”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 7 recites steps of “the spring motion state curve is represented according to the following formula: m{umlaut over (x)}+r{dot over (x)}+kx=0, where m denotes the mass of the motor, r denotes the motion damping coefficient of the motor, k denotes the elasticity coefficient of the spring, {umlaut over (x)} denotes the motion acceleration of the motor, {dot over (x)} denotes the motion initial velocity of the motor, and x denotes motion displacement of the motor”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong one: claim 8 recites steps of “extracting a first characteristic parameter of the spring vibration model; normalizing the first characteristic parameter to generate a spring motion state curve; extracting a second characteristic parameter of the spring motion state curve, and generating a vibration characteristic curve according to the second characteristic parameter based on a preset mapping rule; and extracting a third characteristic parameter of the vibration characteristic curve, and generating a corresponding vibration file according to the third characteristic parameter”. As is evident from the background, the claimed limitation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited calculation can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional limitations “acquiring a preset spring vibration model” and “outputting the vibration file”. The additional limitations represent mere data gathering and data outputting that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Limitations “acquiring a preset spring vibration model” and “outputting the vibration file” in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activities. The additional elements “an acquisition module”, “a normalization module”, “a mapping module”, and “a generation module” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computing function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional limitations of “acquiring a preset spring vibration model” and “outputting the vibration file” represent mere data gathering and data outputting are recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. Those limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitations “acquiring a preset spring vibration model” and “outputting the vibration file” do not amount to significantly more. The additional elements “an acquisition module”, “a normalization module”, “a mapping module”, and “a generation module” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computing function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more under the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “computer storage medium”. However, the specification does not limit which forms the above term would take. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation to the above medium would cover forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se. the signal per se represent non-statutory subject matter. Applicant is encouraged to replace it as “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: an acquisition module configured to acquire a preset spring vibration model in claim 8, a normalization module configured to normalize the first characteristic parameter to generate a spring motion state curve in claim 8, a mapping module configured to extract a second characteristic parameter in claim 8, a generation module configured to extract a third characteristic parameter…generate a corresponding vibration file in claim 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, such as paragraphs 0089-0093, 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 2-5, 8 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 2 recites limitation “generating the vibration characteristic curve according to the second characteristic parameter based on a preset mapping rule” at lines 18-19. However, claim 1 already cites “a preset mapping rule”, it is unclear whether or not the “a preset mapping rule” from the claim 2 is the same “a preset mapping rule” from claim 1. Claims 3-5 also rejected because of claim dependency. Appropriated correction is required.
As to claim 8, claim limitation “acquisition module configured to acquire a preset spring vibration model, and extract a first characteristic parameter of the spring vibration model” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the model acquiring and parameter extraction. The use of the terms “acquire” and “extract” are not adequate structure for performing the model acquiring and parameter extraction because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
As to claim 8, claim limitation “normalization module configured to normalize the first characteristic parameter to generate a spring motion state curve” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the parameter normalization. The use of the term “normalize” is not adequate structure for performing the parameter normalization because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
As to claim 8, claim limitation “mapping module configured to extract a second characteristic parameter of the spring motion state curve, and generate a vibration characteristic curve according to the second characteristic parameter based on a preset mapping rule” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the parameter extraction and curve generating. The use of the terms “extract” and “generate” are not adequate structure for performing the parameter extraction and curve generating because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
As to claim 8, claim limitation “generation module configured to extract a third characteristic parameter of the vibration characteristic curve, generate a corresponding vibration file according to the third characteristic parameter, and output the vibration file” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the parameter extraction and file generating and outputting. The use of the terms “extract” and “generate” and “output” are not adequate structure for performing the parameter extraction and file generating and outputting because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structures to perform the claimed functions regarding to acquire a preset spring vibration model, extract a first characteristic parameter, normalize the first characteristic parameter to generate a spring motion state curve, extract a second characteristic parameter, generate a vibration characteristic curve, extract a third characteristic parameter, generate a corresponding vibration file, and output the vibration file. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIPENG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-7.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 5712722279. 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.
/ZHIPENG WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights