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 .
Specification
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters. The title recites “alternators chain” but should recite “chain driven alternators”.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention, If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e). The abstract of the disclosure should not include the number of drawings and claims.
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
Pro Se Applicant
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the words “18 Claims, 10 Drawing sheets” which should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because they are informal computer screen shots. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims filed on 1/22/24 are replete with grammar and punction objections, see below for examples:
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities in one or more of the claims: 1) They Include forward slashes which should be replaced with “and” or “or” or “and/or”. 2) All capitalized and bracketed types should be removed. 3) All reference to element numbers, “diagrams” and figure numbers should be removed. 4) Claim 2, the period in line 1 should be removed. 5) The claims are replete with unnecessary commas. 6) Misspellings such as “eliminate” which should recite “illuminate”. Applicant is encouraged to review the exhaustive grammar and spelling errors. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 – 7, 10 – 13 and 16 – 18 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only, and cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, claims 3 – 7, 10 – 13 and 16 – 18 have not been further treated on the merits for this reason.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-18 are replete with insufficient antecedent basis errors in the claims. Each element introduced (The first time) in the claims should be preceded by “a” and each recitation thereafter should be preceded with “the”. Examples in claim 1 include: “the squared, inner, housing, locking mechanism", “the platform frame”, “the upper support plate”, “the sprocket, shaft housing”, “the first inline chain”, “the main sprocket/chain” and “the square telescoping drive system”.
[CLAIM 1] Regarding claim 1) Lines 13-15 are indefinite as they are unclear what “two components” are intended, use of “unseen” and “visible” are unclear with respect to the vehicle. 2) Line 16 “all components” is unclear which components are meant. 3) Line 26 “sealing component” should be deleted, a gasket is already recited. 4) Line 11 “a double, reversed, flat top, pyramid, like base/housing” is indefinite due to the use of the word “like”. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
[CLAIM 2] Regarding claim 2, 1) Line 5 “to itself is unclear’. 2) Lines 7-11 as written are unclear what is intended.
[CLAIM 3] Regarding claim 3, 1) Line 2 “In addition to the front ten alternators” should be removed as they were not included in the claim from which it depends. 2) Line 7 “mobile, physical attachment” is unclear.3) Line 9 “takes place” is unclear and should be removed. 4) Lines 11-12 do not make sense as to “electric designations”.
[CLAIM 4] Regarding claim 4, 1) Line “alternator’s fix in place apparatus” is unclear and the claim lacks a period.
[CLAIM 5] Regarding claim 5, 1) Lines 6-7 are unclear with respect to “alternator’s sprocket/rod, center, support is self supported at its more rear portion”.
[CLAIM 6] Regarding claim 6, 1) Lines 2-3 “this diagram” and “is afforded” are unclear what diagram and afforded is unclear what is meant.
[CLAIM 7] Regarding claim 7, 1) Lines 4-5 “wherein this system is needed” and “as a requirement” should be removed.
10.[CLAIM 8] Regarding claim 8, 1) Lines 11 and 14 “efficient configuration” and “that individual alternator” are unclear.
[CLAIM 9] Regarding claim 9, 1) Line 4 “can be” is indefinite. 2) Lines 9-10 “the five and four alternator configurations charge their assigned batteries” was introduced and is rendered unclear with respect the fifth alternator and the term “assigned” each should be clarified or removed.
[CLAIM 10] Regarding claim 10, 1) Line 2 “the rear alternator configuration” is unclear what Applicant intends as it is not defined.
[CLAIM 11] Regarding claim 11, 1) Line 3 “illustration of the alternator’s designations” is unclear.
[CLAIM 12] Regarding claim 12, 1) Lines 7-8 and 17 “apparatus” is unclear what apparatus it is. 2) Line 14 “as a result of tying both vertical bodies together” is unclear with respect to both vertical bodies. 3) Line 19 “specifically # 18 # and #23” is unclear what is meant.
[CLAIM 13] Regarding claim 13, 1) Lines 11-12 “illustrates the distance”, “as it relates to stability” and “a lubrication is possible” are unclear what Applicant intends. Lubrication of what components.
[CLAIM 14] Regarding claim 14, 1) Line 2 “is illustrated” is unclear. 2) Lines 2-3 “all thirty two, motor” is unclear and grammatically incorrect. 3) Line 6 “has already passed” is unclear. 4) Lines 11-12 “can be” is indefinite. 5) Line 12 “with on obstructions” is unclear what is intended.
[CLAIM 15] Regarding claim 15, 1) Lines 8-9 should be removed, “Notes” do not belong in claims and make them unclear.2) Line 4 “delivery apparatus” is unclear what delivery apparatus is meant.
[CLAIM 16] Regarding claim 16, 1) Lines 2-3 “standard method” is unclear what standard is being employed.
[CLAIM 17] Regarding claim 17, 1) Line 5 “a conventional alternator to battery relationship” is unclear what conventional includes. 2) Line 10 “for some reason” should be removed, it isn’t proper in a patent claim.
[CLAIM 18] Regarding claim 18, 1) Line 2 “all the components” is unclear what Applicant intends to include and is indefinite. 2) Lines 8, 10, 12 “can be” needs to be removed as it renders the claims indefinite.
Claim Examination
Regarding claims 1 – 18, the number and nature of the issues under 35 USC 112, second paragraph noted above preclude an effective search of the prior art from being performed at this time. See MPEP 2173.06(II) (where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art). A full search of the prior art will be performed once the objections to the claims and the 112 issues raised in this Office Action have been addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-3411. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM PST.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (571)270-5985. 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.
/JAMES J TRIGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3614B
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614