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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2 is in greyscale, making details difficult to see. Drawings should be submitted using only black lines in order to improve clarity of the details presented. 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
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of the claims recite “one the basis of a control principle” which the Examiner believes the limitation should recite “on the basis of a control principle”
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:
“air supply and smoke evacuation subsystem” in claims 1-12 and 19-20. Looing to the specification the term has further structure described as “a wind shaft S, an air supply and smoke evacuation fan T, a muffler A, an air supply and smoke evacuation port FL, a first electric blast valve D1, a second electric blast valve D2, and a third electric blast valve D3, and a wind passage connecting the components” in paragraph [0077]
“fire positioning device” in claims 1-2, 7-12 and 19-20. Looking to the specification the term has not further structure and is only has its function further described as “can judge whether a fire occurs on the train based on the collected thermal signals, and feedback the running position of the train and the fire position on the train when a fire occurs on the train is detected” (see ¶ [0064] of Applicants specification)
“acquisition module” and “predicting module” in claim 19. Looking to the specification, no further structure is described for the term “module”. Applicant does make a generic statement ¶ [0190] that embodiments can be implemented by software or hardware such a computer software stored on a computer readable medium, but never explicitly states that the module is such an element.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 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 and 19:
Both of the claims recite “predicting all possible stop positions of the train next in various sections of a subway tunnel according to a traveling direction and the traveling position of the train” which is not described adequately within the specification. Applicant’s specification repeats the same limitation throughout but never explicitly states how such a predication occurs. At most Applicant’s specification states “In this way, when predicting the stop position of the train, the following prediction method can be adopted: if the train cannot travel to the next fire positioning device, the train will stop within the section behind the fire positioning device. If the train can travel to the next fire positioning device, but cannot travel to the fire positioning device after next, the train stops at the section between the next fire positioning device and the fire positioning device after next. Possible stop positions of the train are sequentially listed in the manner described above until the last possible stop position of the train is determined to be the next station.” (see Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0071]-[0074]), however, it is not described how it is determined that the train will stop in a particular section. Therefore, Applicant’s specification does not adequately describe the claimed subject matter in a such a way to convey to one of ordinary skill that they had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1-2, 7-12 and 19-20:
Each of the above claims contain the 112(f) interpreted terms “fire positioning device”, “acquisition module” and “predicating module” which lack support within the specification as no further structure is described therewithin.
Claims 3-6 and 13-18 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 19:
Both of the claims recite “predicting all possible stop positions of the train next in various sections of a subway tunnel according to a traveling direction and the traveling position of the train” which renders the scope of the claim indefinite. Particularly, it is unclear if every infinite possible stop position within the interior of each individual train section of the subway tunnel is to be predicted or if the particular sections of subway that the train will stop in is to be predicted. The Examiner suggests adding further limitations to the claim describing what is intended by “all possible stop positions”.
Both of the claims recite “an air supply and smoke evacuation subsystem” multiple times which renders the scope of the claim indefinite. Specifically it is unclear if each recited subsystem is the same subsystem or a different subsystem since the exact same phrase is utilized but is also preceded by “an”. The Examiner suggests reciting “a first air supply and smoke evacuation subsystem” and “a second air supply and smoke evacuation subsystem” and so on, “a plurality of air supply and smoke evacuation subsystems” or incorporating the subject matter of the dependent claims 3-7 that lists the subsystems as “ith” subsystems.
Both claims recite “in a positive direction” and “in an opposite direction” of a fire point, which renders the scope of the claim indefinite. Particularly, it is unclear how a single point can have a positive or opposite direction as there is no defined vector for the fire point in the claim.
Regarding claims 1-2, 7-12 and 19-20:
Each of the above claims contain the 112(f) interpreted terms “fire positioning device”, “acquisition module” and/or “predicting module” which render the scope of the claim indefinite as they do not have any defined structure, either in the claims themselves or the specification.
Claims 3-6 and 13-18 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 101587275 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches of:
A method for fire ventilation and smoke evacuation in a running train tunnel (¶ [0051]-[0054], Meanwhile, the above forced ventilation monitoring module (540) normally performs natural ventilation, but in the event of an emergency such as a fire or toxic gas discharge inside the subway, it must stop the operation of the blast damper (300) and the natural ventilation opening/closing device (410) that perform natural ventilation for forced ventilation. To do this, an off signal is sent to the damper monitoring module and the natural ventilation monitoring module to turn off the blast damper (300) and the natural ventilation opening/closing device (410). Afterward, the inflow of air into the natural ventilation space is blocked, and after a certain period of time, an ON signal is provided to the first opening/closing device (9210) and the second opening/closing device (220) to open them, thereby creating an environment where forced ventilation is possible. Afterwards, an operation signal is sent to the forced ventilation fan to provide harmful gases, etc. supplied through the first opening section (110) to the forced ventilation space.), comprising:
S01, in a case where a fire positioning device detects a fire of a train, (NOTE: Every limitation following S01 is considered a contingent limitation and is not required to be taught by the prior art, see MPEP 2144.04.II) acquiring a traveling position of the train and a fire position on the train detected by the fire positioning device;
S02, predicting all possible stop positions of the train next in various sections of a subway tunnel according to a traveling direction and the traveling position of the train;
S03, according to the fire position, one the basis of a control principle of carrying out smoke evacuation by an air supply and smoke evacuation subsystem in a positive direction of a fire point and carrying out air supply by an air supply and smoke evacuation subsystem in an opposite direction of the fire point, listing working state options of the air supply and smoke evacuation subsystems at both ends of each stop position, analyzing each working state option, and screening out a target air supply and smoke evacuation subsystem which only carries out smoke evacuation or air supply control from all the air supply and smoke evacuation subsystems; and
S04, performing linkage control on the target air supply and smoke evacuation subsystem according to the working state option corresponding to the target air supply and smoke evacuation subsystem;
wherein a subway tunnel between two adjacent stations is sequentially divided into a plurality of sections, each section is provided with a fire positioning device and an air supply and smoke evacuation subsystem, and the target air supply and smoke evacuation subsystem is any one of the plurality of air supply and smoke evacuation subsystems.
Regarding claims 2-18:
All of the limitations in claim 2-18 require the detection of fire in step 1 which is a contingent limitation as described above, therefore none of the claims need to be taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches of:
An apparatus for fire ventilation and smoke evacuation in a running train tunnel (¶ [0051], Meanwhile, the above forced ventilation monitoring module (540) normally performs natural ventilation, but in the event of an emergency such as a fire or toxic gas discharge inside the subway, it must stop the operation of the blast damper (300) and the natural ventilation opening/closing device (410) that perform natural ventilation for forced ventilation. To do this, an off signal is sent to the damper monitoring module and the natural ventilation monitoring module to turn off the blast damper (300) and the natural ventilation opening/closing device (410). Afterward, the inflow of air into the natural ventilation space is blocked, and after a certain period of time, an ON signal is provided to the first opening/closing device (9210) and the second opening/closing device (220) to open them, thereby creating an environment where forced ventilation is possible. Afterwards, an operation signal is sent to the forced ventilation fan to provide harmful gases, etc. supplied through the first opening section (110) to the forced ventilation space.),), comprising:
an acquisition module, configured to, in a case where a fire positioning device detects a fire of a train (NOTE: Every limitation following S01 is considered a contingent limitation and is not required to be taught by the prior art, see MPEP 2144.04.II), acquire a traveling position of the train and a fire position on the train detected by the fire positioning device;
a predicting module, configured to predict all possible stop positions of the train next in various sections of a subway tunnel according to a traveling direction and the traveling position of the train;
a computing module, configured to, according to the fire position, one the basis of a control principle of carrying out smoke evacuation by an air supply and smoke evacuation subsystem in a positive direction of a fire point and carrying out air supply by an air supply and smoke evacuation subsystem in an opposite direction of the fire point, list working state options of the air supply and smoke evacuation subsystems at both ends of each stop position, analyze each working state option, and screen out a target air supply and smoke evacuation subsystem which only carries out smoke evacuation or air supply control from all of the air supply and smoke evacuation subsystems; and
a control module, configured to perform linkage control on the target air supply and smoke evacuation subsystem according to the working state option corresponding to the target air supply and smoke evacuation subsystem;
wherein a subway tunnel between two adjacent stations is sequentially divided into a plurality of sections, each section is provided with a fire positioning device and an air supply and smoke evacuation subsystem, and the target air supply and smoke evacuation subsystem is any one of the plurality of air supply and smoke evacuation subsystems.
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches of:
An electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored on the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the computer program when executed by the processor implements the method for fire ventilation and smoke evacuation in a running train tunnel according to claim 1 (¶ [0020], Accordingly, for example, the block diagrams in this specification should be understood as representing a conceptual view of an exemplary circuit embodying the principles of the present invention. Similarly, all flowcharts, state transition diagrams, pseudocode, etc., which can be substantially represented on a computer-readable medium, should be understood as representing various processes performed by a computer or processor, regardless of whether the computer or processor is explicitly depicted.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J GIORDANO whose telephone number is (571)272-8940. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fr 8 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/MICHAEL JAMES GIORDANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights