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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(line 4) “at least one of the at least one first sensor” should be changed to “the at least one first sensor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “an attachment member that couples” in claims 1 and 10, and “coupled…by an attachment member” in claim 17.
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 described in the specification is a C-frame or a lift arm.
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 1-9 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. The specification, while supporting the concept of determining rotation rate measurements with respect to movement of the blade about at least one axis of rotation, wherein the movement of the blade includes pitching of the blade relative to the attachment member, tilting of the blade relative to the attachment member and/or swinging of the blade relative to the attachment member, determining a lift rotation rate of at least one of: the blade or the attachment member, the lift rotation rate associated with a pure lifting movement of the blade and the attachment member performed simultaneously, and determining at least one orientation parameter of the blade with respect to the attachment member based on the lift rotation rate and the rotation rate measurements, does not reasonably provide support for the concept of determining rotation rate measurements with respect to movement of the blade about at least one axis of rotation, wherein the movement of the blade includes lift movement synchronized with the lift movement of the attachment member, determining a lift rotation rate of at least one of: the blade or the attachment member, the lift rotation rate associated with a pure lifting movement of the blade and the attachment member performed simultaneously, and determining at least one orientation parameter of the blade with respect to the attachment member based on the lift rotation rate and the rotation rate measurements.
In other words, the specification does not describe the concept of determining rotation rate measurements with respect to movement of the blade about at least one axis of rotation, when the movement of the blade is lift movement synchronized with the lift movement of the attachment member, determining a lift rotation rate of at least one of: the blade or the attachment member, when the lift rotation rate is a pure lifting movement of the blade and the attachment member performed simultaneously, and determining at least one orientation parameter of the blade with respect to the attachment member based on the lift rotation rate and the rotation rate measurements, since it does not appear possible to determine an orientation parameter of the blade with respect to the attachment member when the lift rotation rate and the rotation rate measurements are based on synchronized lift movements that do not result in a change of orientation between the blade and the attachment member. Thus, the claim should clarify that determining rotation rate measurements with respect to movement of the blade about at least one axis of rotation is in reference to the movement of the blade which includes rotational movement relative to the attachment member such as pitching of the blade relative to the attachment member, tilting of the blade relative to the attachment member and/or swinging of the blade relative to the attachment member, and not in reference to the movement of the blade which includes lift movement synchronized with the lift movement of the attachment member.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 10 and 17 recite determin(ing) rotation rate measurements with respect to movement of the blade about at least one axis of rotation; determin(ing) a lift rotation rate of at least one of: the blade or the attachment member, the lift rotation rate associated with a pure lifting movement of the blade and the attachment member performed simultaneously, and determin(ing) at least one orientation parameter of the blade with respect to the attachment member based on the lift rotation rate and the rotation rate measurements.
The limitation of determin(ing) rotation rate measurements with respect to movement of the blade about at least one axis of rotation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer components language, “determin(ing)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually observing the movement of the blade. Similarly, the limitation of determin(ing) a lift rotation rate of at least one of: the blade or the attachment member, the lift rotation rate associated with a pure lifting movement of the blade and the attachment member performed simultaneously, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer components language, “determin(ing)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually observing the movement of the blade. Additionally, the limitation of determin(ing) at least one orientation parameter of the blade with respect to the attachment member based on the lift rotation rate and the rotation rate measurements, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer components language, “determin(ing)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually observing the orientation of the blade. 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. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element - using a processor to perform the determin(ing) steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determin(ing) rotation rate measurements, determin(ing) a lift rotation rate, and determin(ing) an orientation parameter) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite the additional elements of a vehicle having a body, a blade, and an attachment member that couples the blade to the body, and a sensor coupled to the blade. The functions of these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements are taught by the prior art, as seen in Green (US 10,968,606). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determin(ing) steps amounts to 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. The claims are not patent eligible.
It appears that the claims should recite a further step of adjust(ing) the blade based on the determined orientation parameter of the blade with respect to the attachment member to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious a system, comprising: at least one first sensor mounted on a vehicle, wherein the vehicle includes a body, a blade, and an attachment member that couples the blade to the body, wherein at least one of the at least one first sensor is coupled to the blade, wherein the attachment member is configured for lift movement, wherein the lift movement is defined as a rotation along a horizontal axis with respect to the body, wherein the blade is configured for swing movement, wherein the swing movement is defined as a rotation along an axis orthogonal to an axis of the lift movement with respect to the attachment member, wherein the at least one first sensor is configured to determine rotation rate measurements with respect to movement of the blade about at least one axis of rotation, wherein the movement of the blade includes rotational movement relative to the attachment member; and at least one processor integrated in or coupled to the at least one first sensor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine a lift rotation rate of at least one of: the blade or the attachment member, the lift rotation rate associated with a pure lifting movement of the blade and the attachment member performed simultaneously, determine at least one orientation parameter of the blade with respect to the attachment member based on the lift rotation rate and the rotation rate measurements, and adjust the blade based on the determined orientation parameter of the blade with respect to the attachment member.
Green (US 10,968,606) teaches wherein at least one first sensor is configured to determine rotation rate measurements with respect to movement of a blade about at least one axis of rotation, wherein the movement of the blade includes rotational movement relative to an attachment member, and at least one processor integrated in or coupled to the at least one first sensor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine at least one orientation parameter of the blade with respect to the attachment member based on the rotation rate measurements. However, Green does not teach wherein the processor is configured to determine a lift rotation rate of at least one of: the blade or the attachment member, the lift rotation rate associated with a pure lifting movement of the blade and the attachment member performed simultaneously, and determine at least one orientation parameter of the blade with respect to the attachment member based on the lift rotation rate and the rotation rate measurements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672