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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I (according to Fig. 1) in the reply filed on 06/23/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-16 are pending. Applicant has identified claims 1-6, 8-9, 14-16 as being drawn to the elected Species I embodiment.
Claims 7, 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. As discussed above, election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/23/2025.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 14-16 are therefore currently under examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
A certified copy of PCT/EP2022/066835, filed 21 Jun 2022 in Europe, has been received.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's additional claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 22 Jun 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE 10 2021 206 419.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/12/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, no legible copies of Foreign Documents DE 102 48 633 or DE 10 2014 001 226 were provided in the application. As such, these documents were not considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 12/12/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each patent listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, no concise explanations of Foreign Documents DE 102 48 633 or DE 10 2014 001 226 were provided in the application. As such, these documents were not considered.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The current title is unnecessarily verbose without providing clear description of what the claimed inventive concept may be.
Appropriately descriptive titles may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. (MPEP § 606.01).
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/12/2023. These drawings are not acceptable.
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
The examiner notes that the following may not be an exhaustive list of informalities. It is suggested that the applicant thoroughly review the drawings.
Regarding Figures 1-9, replacement drawing(s) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84 and 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required. The drawing(s) submitted are not acceptable because:
The drawings have a line quality that is too light to be reproduced (the weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction) and/or text that is illegible (reference characters, sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible). See 37 CFR 1.84(l) and (p)(1).
The drawings must be reasonably free from erasures and must be free from alterations, overwriting, interlineations, folds, and copy marks. See 37 CFR 1.84(e), (l), and (m).
Numbers, letters, and reference characters on the drawings must measure at least 0.32 cm (1/8 inch) in height.
Drawings are to be submitted in black ink (see 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1)). Drawings must also have satisfactory reproduction characteristics; and every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined (see 37 CFR 1.84(l)).
NOTE: In order to avoid any future issues of greyscale/pixelation of text and/or lines, absolutely no color, including dark gray, should be used in any submission (including Drawings, Claims, etc.) to the Office. Only 100% black font/line color should be used.
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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 16, line 3, the limitation “the steps” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 as follows.
In Claim 1:
a “closed-loop control device for closed-loop control […] configured for: combining […]; and using […]”;
a “power controller […] configured for: detecting […]; determining […]; and determining […]”;
a “frequency controller […] configured for: detecting […]; determining […]; [and] determining […]”;
a “preselection module […] configured for determining […]”.
In Claim 14:
a “closed-loop control arrangement for closed-loop control of a power assembly”;
a “closed-loop control device which is formed as a generator controller […] for closed-loop control […] configured for: combining […]; and using […]; and […] for transmitting”;
a “power controller […] configured for: detecting […]; determining […]; and determining […]”;
a “frequency controller […] configured for: detecting […]; determining […]; [and] determining […]”;
a “preselection module […] configured for determining […]”;
an “open-loop control device […] for direct control of the internal combustion engine”.
In Claim 15:
a “closed-loop control device for closed-loop control […] configured for: combining […]; and using […]”;
a “power controller […] configured for: detecting […]; determining […]; and determining […]”;
a “frequency controller […] configured for: detecting […]; determining […]; [and] determining […]”;
a “preselection module […] configured for determining […]”;
a “closed-loop control arrangement for closed-loop control of a power assembly”;
a “closed-loop control device which is formed as a generator controller […] for closed-loop control […] configured for: combining […]; and using […]; and […] for transmitting”;
a “power controller […] configured for: detecting […]; determining […]; and determining […]”;
a “frequency controller […] configured for: detecting […]; determining […]; [and] determining […]”;
a “preselection module […] configured for determining […]”;
an “open-loop control device […] for direct control of the internal combustion engine”.
Note that each of the terms listed above appears to meet the three-prong test as: i) each respective term “device,” “controller,” “module,” “arrangement” comprises a nonce (i.e., non-structural) term; ii) the nonce term is modified by functional language (such as “for combining,” “for detecting,” “for using,” “for controlling,” etc.); and iii) the nonce term is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function(s).
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 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 1-6, 8-9, 14-16 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.
Regarding claims 1, 15, the following limitations each appear to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed:
a “closed-loop control device for closed-loop control […] being configured for: combining […] and using […]”;
a “power controller which is configured for: detecting […]; determining […]; and determining […]”;
a “frequency controller which is configured for: detecting […]; determining […]; [and] determining […]”; and
a “preselection module which is configured for determining a third preset variable”.
As discussed above, these limitations appear to invoke, and are being interpreted under, 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
However, the specification fails to make clear what, specifically, any of a “closed-loop control device,” a “power controller,” a “frequency controller,” or a “preselection module” may be or what corresponding structure(s) each of these may comprise. The specification discusses these features in, e.g., paragraphs ¶¶ 71-81 but, though the features may be named and though some functionality may be discussed, the specification does not provide a clear written description of what each may actually be or, more specifically, what corresponding structure(s) each of these features may comprise. The specification fails to make clear, for example, whether the “closed-loop control device”—and, similarly, the other “controller” and “module” elements—may comprise a mechanically-based “control device” (perhaps including, e.g., gear(s), clutch(es), sensor(s), etc.), or a microprocessor-based “control device” with, e.g., purely software-based “control” (and, if so, what the software code may comprise), or some other type of “control device”.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 14, 15, the following limitations each appear to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed:
a “closed-loop control arrangement for closed-loop control of a power assembly”;
a “closed-loop control device for closed-loop control […] being configured for: combining […] and using […]; and […] for transmitting”;
a “power controller which is configured for: detecting […]; determining […]; and determining […]”;
a “frequency controller which is configured for: detecting […]; determining […]; [and] determining […]”;
a “preselection module which is configured for determining a third preset variable”; and
an “open-loop control device […] for direct control of the internal combustion engine”.
As discussed above, these limitations appear to invoke, and are being interpreted under, 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
However, the specification fails to make clear what, specifically, any of a “closed-loop control device,” a “power controller,” a “frequency controller,” a “preselection module,” or an “open-loop control device” may be or what corresponding structure(s) each of these may comprise. The specification discusses these features in, e.g., paragraphs ¶¶ 71-81 but, though the features may be named and though some functionality may be discussed, the specification does not provide a clear written description of what each may actually be or, more specifically, what corresponding structure(s) each of these features may comprise. The specification fails to make clear, for example, whether the “closed-loop control device,” “open-loop control device”—and, similarly, the other “controller” and “module” elements—may comprise a mechanically-based “control device” (perhaps including, e.g., gear(s), clutch(es), sensor(s), etc.), or a microprocessor-based “control device” with, e.g., purely software-based “control” (and, if so, what the software code may comprise), or some other type of “control device”.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 14, 15, 16, the limitations “a first preset variable” being “a function of the power control deviation (eP)”; “a second preset variable” being “a function of the frequency control deviation (ef)”; and “a third preset variable” each appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
Notably, the specification fails to make clear what each of the “first preset variable,” “second preset variable,” and “third preset variable” may comprise or how either the first or second variables may be, respectively, a “function of the power control deviation (eP)” or “a function of the frequency control deviation (ef)”. The specification discusses this feature in, e.g., paragraphs ¶¶ 37-38, where it is indicated that “The closed-loop control device is optionally set up to limit the first preset variable and the second preset variable to the maximum target torque, in particular to the same maximum target torque” and thus, it would appear that the “preset variable[s]” is/are a “target torque” (or some sort of torque), but no discussion appears to be provided regarding what torque is at issue—e.g., a generator torque, an engine torque, etc. Later, in ¶ 77, it is stated that “each of the first, second, and third preset variables 16, 20, and 24 is optionally also a torque” (emphasis added); but, again, no indication is given regarding what torques are at issue (presumably, if each of the “preset variables” is “a torque,” then there would be three separate and distinct torques, but the disclosure fails to make clear what torques are at issue). Furthermore, the specification fails to make clear how any such torque may be “a function of the power control deviation (eP)” or “a function of the frequency control deviation (ef)” as claimed.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-6, 8-9, the claims should be reviewed for issues identical and/or similar to those discussed above and the claims, mutatis mutandis, should be amended accordingly.
Regarding claims 2-6, 8-9, they are dependent on claim 1 and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 14-16 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, lines 1-3, the limitation “A closed-loop control device for closed-loop control of a power assembly including an internal combustion engine and a generator having an operative drive connection to the internal combustion engine” is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what a “closed-loop control device for closed-loop control […]” may comprise, including what structure(s) may be required in order to perform the “closed-loop control of a power assembly”. Note that, as discussed below, the claim also fails to make clear what structure(s) the “power controller,” “frequency controller,” and “preselection module” may comprise, and thus recitation of these features fails to clarify the metes and bounds of the “closed-loop control device”. Furthermore, as discussed in the relevant section above, the limitation invokes and is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). However, the specification fails to make clear what the “closed-loop control device for closed-loop control […]” may comprise—the specification fails to make clear, for example, whether the “closed-loop control device” may comprise a mechanically-based “control device” (perhaps including, e.g., gear(s), clutch(es), sensor(s), etc.), or a microprocessor-based “control device” with purely software-based “control” (and, if so, what the software code may comprise), or some other type of “control device”.
Second, the limitation is grammatically unclear as it fails to make clear what element is intended to “includ[e] an internal combustion engine and a generator”—the “closed-loop device” or the “power assembly”.
Third, the claim is further grammatically unclear as it fails to make clear what element(s) is/are intended to be required as “having an operative drive connection to the internal combustion engine”—the “closed-loop device,” the “power assembly,” the “internal combustion engine” and/or the “generator”. If appropriately descriptive, the second and third issues noted here could be resolved by, e.g., the following amendment: —A closed-loop control device for closed-loop control of a power assembly, the power assembly including an internal combustion engine and a generator, the generator having an operative drive connection to the internal combustion engine, the closed-loop control device comprising: […]—.
Regarding claim 1, lines 4-9; and similarly in claim 14; the limitation “a power controller which is configured for: detecting […]; determining […]; and determining […]” is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what the “power controller” may comprise. As discussed in the relevant section above, the limitation appears to invoke, and is being interpreted under, 35 U.S.C. §112(f). However, the specification also fails to make clear what corresponding structure(s) may form and/or be comprised by the “power controller” to allow it to perform the claimed functionality of “detecting […]; determining […]; and determining […]”.
Second, and relatedly, the claim fails to make clear how the “power controller” may be performing the functionality/steps of “detecting […]; determining […]; and determining […]”.
The limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
Third, and also relatedly, the claim fails to make clear what the “power controller” may be “control[ing]”. Rather than reciting any “control[]” steps/functionality, the claim defines the “power controller” as functioning to “detect[]” a “controlled variable,” to “determin[e]” a “deviation,” and to “determin[e] a first preset variable”—i.e., the claim appears to be redefining the term “controller” as no “control[ing]” step/functionality appears to be set forth. If the “power controller” actually serves to “control[]” something, such should be made clear.
Regarding claim 1, line 5; and similarly in claims 14-16; the limitation “detecting a generator power (PG) of the generator as a controlled variable” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what the phrase “as a controlled variable” is intended to mean, including what “variable” is intended to be “controlled” and what element(s) is/are “controll[ing]” the “variable”. If the “power controller” actually controls the “generator power,” such should be made clear, including the manner by which the “power” may be controlled.
Regarding claim 1, lines 6-7; and similarly in claims 14-16; the limitation “determining a power control deviation (eP) as a difference between the generator power (PG) which is detected and a target generator power (Psoll)” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The emphasized phrase is ambiguous as it appears to recite an additional “detect[ion]” step while the claim already explicitly set forth a “detecting a generator power” step on the previous line. If reference to this previously-detected “generator power” is intended, it would be clearer to state, for example: —determining a power control deviation (eP) as a difference between the detected generator power (PG) Psoll)—.
Regarding claim 1, lines 8-9; and similarly in claims 14-16; the limitation “determining a first preset variable as a function of the power control deviation (eP)” is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what the “first preset variable” may be.
Second, and relatedly, the claim fails to make clear the following: if the “first variable” is “preset,” then why is there a need to “determin[e]” what it is—wouldn’t it already be known/“preset”?
Third, the claim fails to make clear what the phrase “determining […] as a function of the power control deviation (eP)” (emphasis added) is intended to mean. For example, is the “first preset variable” not “determin[ed]” directly (as would otherwise appear to be intended, as the “variable” is defined as being “preset”) but, rather, “determin[ed]” only after the “power control deviation” is “determin[ed]”?
Regarding claim 1, lines 10-15; and similarly in claim 14; the limitation “a frequency controller which is configured for: detecting […]; determining […]; [and] determining […]” is vague and indefinite. As discussed above regarding the “power controller,” the instant limitation fails to make clear i) what the “frequency controller” may comprise, including what the structures corresponding to the “frequency controller” may be; ii) how the “frequency controller” may be “configured for” performing the functionality/steps of “detecting […]; determining […]; [and] determining […]”; and iii) what “frequency” the “frequency controller” may be “control[ing]”.
Regarding claim 1, line 11; and similarly in claims 14-16; the limitation “detecting a generator frequency (fG) of the generator as a controlled variable” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what the phrase “as a controlled variable” is intended to mean, including what “variable” is intended to be “controlled” and what element(s) is/are “controll[ing]” the “variable”. If the “power controller” actually controls the “generator frequency,” such should be made clear, including the manner by which the “frequency” may be controlled.
Regarding claim 1, lines 12-13; and similarly in claims 14-16; the limitation “determining a frequency control deviation (ef) as a difference between the generator frequency (fG) which is detected and a target generator frequency (fsoll)” is vague and indefinite. The emphasized phrase is ambiguous as it appears to recite an additional “detect[ion]” step while the claim already explicitly set forth a “detecting a generator frequency” step on the previous line. If reference to this previously-detected “generator frequency” is intended, it would be clearer to state, for example: —determining a frequency control deviation (ef) as a difference between the detected generator frequency (fG) fsoll)—.
Regarding claim 1, lines 14-15; and similarly in claims 14-16; the limitation “determining a second preset variable as a function of the frequency control deviation (ef)” is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what the “second preset variable” may be.
Second, and relatedly, the claim fails to make clear the following: if the “second variable” is “preset,” then why is there a need to “determin[e]” what it is—wouldn’t it already be known/“preset”?
Third, the claim fails to make clear what the phrase “determining […] as a function of the frequency control deviation (ef)” (emphasis added) is intended to mean. For example, is the “second preset variable” not “determin[ed]” directly (as would otherwise appear to be intended, as the “variable” is defined as being “preset”) but, rather, “determin[ed]” only after the “power control deviation” is “determin[ed]”?
Regarding claim 1, lines 16-17; and similarly in claims 14-16; the limitation “a preselection module which is configured for determining a third preset variable” is vague and indefinite. As discussed above regarding the “power controller,” the instant limitation fails to make clear i) what the “preselection module” may comprise, including what the structures corresponding to the “preselection module” may be; ii) how the “preselection module” may be “configured for” performing the functionality/step of “determining a third preset variable”; and iii) what the “third preset variable” may actually be.
Regarding claim 1, lines 18-19; and similarly in claims 14-15; the limitation “combining the first preset variable, the second preset variable, and the third preset variable with one another to form an overall preset variable” is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear how the “variable[s]” may be “combin[ed]” in order “to form an overall preset variable”.
Second, and relatedly, the claim fails to make clear what the “overall preset variable” may comprise.
Regarding claim 1, line 20; and similarly in claims 14-16; the limitation “using the overall preset variable for controlling the internal combustion engine” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear how the “overall preset variable” may be “us[ed],” especially for “controlling the internal combustion engine”.
Regarding independent claims 14-16, generally, see discussion above regarding claim 1. Similar clarifications, mutatis mutandis, should be made.
Regarding claim 14, lines 1-3, the limitation “A closed-loop control arrangement for closed-loop control of a power assembly including an internal combustion engine and a generator having an operative drive connection to the internal combustion engine, the closed-loop control arrangement comprising: a closed-loop control device […]” is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what either a “closed-loop control arrangement for closed-loop control […]” or a “closed-loop control device […] for closed-loop control […]” may comprise, including what structure(s) may be required in order to perform the “closed-loop control of a power assembly”. Note that, as discussed previously regarding corresponding limitations in claim 1, the instant claim also fails to make clear what structure(s) the “power controller,” “frequency controller,” and “preselection module” may comprise, and thus recitation of these features fails to clarify the metes and bounds of the “closed-loop control device”. Furthermore, as discussed in the relevant section above, the limitation invokes and is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). However, the specification fails to make clear what the “closed-loop control arrangement for closed-loop control […]” or “closed-loop control device […] for closed-loop control […]” may comprise—the specification fails to make clear, for example, whether either the “closed-loop control arrangement” or the “closed-loop control device” may comprise a mechanically-based “control arrangement”/“device” (perhaps including, e.g., gear(s), clutch(es), sensor(s), etc.), or a microprocessor-based “control arrangement”/“device” with, e.g., purely software-based “control” (and, if so, what the software code may comprise), or some other type of “control arrangement”/“device”.
Second, the limitation is grammatically unclear as it fails to make clear what element is intended to “includ[e] an internal combustion engine and a generator”—the “closed-loop arrangement” or the “power assembly”.
Third, the claim is further grammatically unclear as it fails to make clear what element(s) is/are intended to be required as “having an operative drive connection to the internal combustion engine”—the “closed-loop arrangement,” the “power assembly,” the “internal combustion engine” and/or the “generator”. If appropriately descriptive, the second and third issues noted here could be resolved by, e.g., the following amendment: —A closed-loop control arrangement for closed-loop control of a power assembly, the power assembly including an internal combustion engine and a generator, the generator having an operative drive connection to the internal combustion engine, the closed-loop control device comprising: […]—.
Regarding claim 14, lines 4-5; and similarly in claim 15; the limitation “a closed-loop control device which is formed as a generator controller, is for closed-loop control of the power assembly, and includes: […]” is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what being “formed as a generator controller” is intended to mean, including whether this is, somehow, intended to define some sort of structure for the “closed-loop control device”. If the limitation is simply intending to indicate that the “closed-loop control device” is used to control the “generator” set forth in the preamble, such should be more clearly set forth.
Second, the phrase “is for closed-loop control of the power assembly” fails to make clear i) whether the “closed-loop control device” or the “generator controller” is intended to be used “for closed-loop control of the power assembly” and ii) whether this “for closed-loop control of the power assembly” is the same “closed-loop control” referred to in the preamble.
Regarding claim 14, second page, last three lines; and similarly in claims 8-9 and 15; the limitation “an open-loop control device operatively connected to the closed-loop control device for direct control of the internal combustion engine, the closed-loop control device being configured for transmitting the overall preset variable to the open-loop control device” is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what an “open-loop control device” may comprise, including what structure(s) may be required in order to perform the claimed “direct control of the internal combustion engine”. As discussed in the relevant section above, the limitation invokes and is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). However, the specification fails to make clear what the “open-loop control device […]” may comprise, including, for example, whether either the “open-loop control device” may comprise a mechanically-based “control device” (perhaps including, e.g., gear(s), clutch(es), sensor(s), etc.), or a microprocessor-based “control device” with purely software-based “control” (and, if so, what the software code may comprise), or some other type of “control device”.
Second, the claim fails to make clear what element(s) is/are intended to be used “for direct control of the internal combustion engine”—e.g., the “open-loop control device” and/or the “closed-loop control device”.
Third, the claim fails to make clear how the “closed-loop control device” may be “configured for transmitting the overall preset variable to the open-loop control device”. The limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
Fourth, the limitation “an open-loop control device operatively connected to the closed-loop control device for direct control of the internal combustion engine” appears to contradict the preamble which requires “A closed-loop control arrangement for closed-loop control of a power assembly” (emphasis added). Specifically, it would appear that a “closed-loop arrangement” would preclude any sort of feedback—however, inclusion of an “open-loop control device” would necessitate some sort of feedback (using the definition provided by Applicant, see, e.g., ¶ 18), thereby contradicting the “closed-loop” nature set forth in the preamble.
Regarding claim 3; and similarly in claim 4; the limitation “the preselection module is configured for determining the third preset variable based on a target generator power variable (Pgsoll)” is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear how the “preselection module” may be “configured” to “determin[e] the third preset variable” specifically “based on a target generator power variable (Pgsoll)” as claimed.
Second, the claim fails to make clear how, or even if, the newly-introduced “target generator power variable (Pgsoll)” may be related to either of the previously-introduced “generator power (PG) of the generator” and “target generator power (Psoll)” set forth in claim 1, upon which claim 3 is dependent.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the closed-loop control device is configured for determining a target torque in each case as the first preset variable, as the second preset variable, and as the third preset variable” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the emphasized phrase is not idiomatic and fails to clearly set forth what is intended to be claimed, especially what “in each case as […] as […] and as […]” is intended to mean.
Second, the claim fails to make clear how the “closed-loop control device” may be “configured for determining a target torque” as claimed, especially in light of the ambiguity noted immediately above.
Third, the claim fails to make clear what the “target torque” is acting on—i.e., a “torque” of what element(s)?
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the closed-loop control device is formed as: an open-loop control device configured for directly controlling the internal combustion engine” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation fails to make clear what being “formed as: an open-loop control device” is intended to mean. The term “open-loop control device” does not appear to specify any particular structure or collection of components, and thus would not appear to further limit the “closed-loop control device” as required by 35 U.S.C. §112(d).
Second, the limitation appears to contradict the preamble of claim 1—specifically, claim 1 requires a “closed-loop control device” whereas instant claim 8 appears to define an option which would require the “closed-loop control device” to be “formed as: an open-loop control device,” thereby contradicting the “closed-loop requirement” set forth in claim 1.
Third, and relatedly, the claims fail to define what either a “closed-loop control device” or an “open-loop control device” are intended to refer to and, specifically, how, a “closed-loop” device may differ from an “open-loop” device.
Fourth, the claim fails to make clear how the “internal combustion engine” may be “directly controll[ed]”.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the closed-loop control device is formed as […] a generator controller” is vague and indefinite. The limitation fails to make clear what being “formed as: […] a generator controller” is intended to mean. The term “generator controller” does not appear to specify any particular structure or collection of components, and thus would not appear to further limit the “closed-loop control device” as required by 35 U.S.C. §112(d).
Regarding claims 2-6, 8-9, they are dependent on claim 1 and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references teach, either partially or substantially, the claimed invention but are all disclosed by the Applicant of the instant application.
Applicant, in preparing a response, should fully consider each of the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The Examiner requests, in response to this Office Action, that support be shown for all language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, to specifically note the page(s) and line number(s) in the original specification and/or drawing figure(s) where support for newly added claim language may be found. No new matter may be added.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. MIKAILOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-7894. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 10am - 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, T.C. PATEL can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/S. MIKAILOFF/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834