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: Claim 1 recite “Module for”, the examiner recommends changing it to “A module for”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2-16 recite “Module according”, the examiner recommends changing it to “The module according”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recite “Electrically assisted”, the examiner recommends changing it to “An Electrically assisted”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 recite “Pair of devices”, the examiner recommends changing it to “A Pair of devices”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 14-15 recite “Pair of devices”, the examiner recommends changing it to “The Pair of devices”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recite “Pair of devices”, the examiner recommends changing it to “A Pair of devices”. 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: a means for measuring a voltage, a means for detecting a propulsion event, a means for detecting a pace, a means for controlling a cyclic ratio, a means for controlling a pulse, a means for activation a motor brake, a second means for measuring a value, a determination means, a means for inhibiting, a means for calculating, a means for detecting a braking event, and a means for communicating in claims 1-16.
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 1-16 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. With respect to claim 1, the applicant claims a means for measuring a voltage, and a means for detecting a propulsion event. The specification doesn’t recite corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function. Paragraph 0113 recites measurement means 13 for measuring a voltage. However, said recitation would cover all ways of performing the recited function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. The same rational applies to the means 15 for detecting a propulsion event in Paragraph 0122. With respect to claims 3-5, the applicant recites a means for detecting a pace, means for controlling a cyclic ratio, and means for controlling a pulse. The same rational recited above applies to the means 151 in Paragraph 0135. With respect to claim 7, the applicant recites a means for activation a motor brake. The same rational recited above applies to the means in Paragraph 0023. With respect to claim 8, the applicant recites a second means for measuring a value and means for inhibiting. The same rational recited above applies to the means 14 in Paragraph 0166 and means 17 in Paragraph 0182. With respect to claim 9, the applicant claims a means for calculating and a means for detecting a braking event. The same rational recited above applies to the means 16 in Paragraph 0189 and means 15 in Paragraph 0138. With respect to claim 14, the applicant recites a means for communicating. The same rational recited above applies to the means recited in Paragraph 0217.
Claims 2-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a means for measuring a voltage, a means for detecting a propulsion event, a means for detecting a pace, a means for controlling a cyclic ratio, a means for controlling a pulse, a means for activation a motor brake, a second means for measuring a value, a determination means, a means for inhibiting, a means for calculating, a means for detecting a braking event, and a means for communicating” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is not clear to the examiner what specific structure should be used to recite the specific functions recited by “a means for measuring a voltage, a means for detecting a propulsion event, a means for detecting a pace, a means for controlling a cyclic ratio, a means for controlling a pulse, a means for activation a motor brake, a second means for measuring a value, a determination means, a means for inhibiting, a means for calculating, a means for detecting a braking event, and a means for communicating”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micacchi US 2019/0184265 A1 (hence Micacchi) in view of Treadway US 8,684,121 B2 (hence Treadway).
In re claims 1 and 17, Micacchi discloses a skating device provided with a plurality of wheels (Abstract) and teaches the following:
Module for a wheeled sliding device with electric assistance (Paragraph 0059) comprising at least two wheels (Fig.1, 2a-2d, and Paragraph 0049), the module comprising:
a means for measuring a movement of the wheeled device (Fig.1, #4, #5, and Paragraphs 0051-0052);
the electric motor configured to drive in rotation at least one said wheel during a predefined period of time referred to as “pulse duration” after a foot propulsion event has been detected (Paragraphs 0051, 0052, and 0054)
and a means for detecting a propulsion event, this event corresponding to a foot propulsion of the device by a user (Paragraphs 0051-0052 and 0054)
However, Micacchi discloses a motor of the direct current type (Paragraph 0049) and an acceleration sensor useful in distinguishing, by means of a predetermined positive acceleration, either the stride of the skater, i.e. the forward thrust for skating (Paragraph 0051), but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
a means for measuring a voltage of at least one phase of a three-phase electric motor representative of a movement of the wheeled device;
the 3-phase electric motor configured to drive in rotation at least one said wheel during a predefined period of time referred to as “pulse duration” after a foot propulsion event has been detected;
and a means for detecting a propulsion event, as a function of a voltage value of at least one phase of the 3-phase electric motor and at least one predefined voltage limit, this event corresponding to a foot propulsion of the device by a user
Nevertheless, Treadway discloses a wearable mobility device for providing a streamlined means of urban and suburban transportation (Abstract) and teaches the following:
a means for measuring a voltage of at least one phase of a three-phase electric motor representative of a movement of the wheeled device (Fig.10, and Col.6, line 1-24);
the 3-phase electric motor configured to drive in rotation at least one said wheel during a predefined period of time referred to as “pulse duration” after a foot propulsion event has been detected (Fig.10, and Col.6, line 1-24);
and a means for detecting a propulsion event, as a function of a voltage value of at least one phase of the 3-phase electric motor and at least one predefined voltage limit, this event corresponding to a foot propulsion of the device by a user (Col.6, lines 11-13)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Micacchi reference to include a three-phase electric motor and voltage measuring sensors, as taught by Treadway, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control the speed of rotation of the first wheel and the second wheel of a wearable mobility device (Treadway, Abstract).
In re claim 2, the combination of Micacchi and Treadway teaches the following:
wherein the detection means compares each back electromotive force between each phase of the motor and the ground to at least one predefined voltage limit (Treadway, Col.5, lines 62-67, and Col.6, lines 5-6)
In re claim 3, the combination of Micacchi and Treadway teaches the following:
the detection means also comprises a means for detecting a pace of the user (Micacchi, Paragraphs 0016, 0018, and 0023) according to the result of a comparison between a voltage value of at least one phase of the 3-phase motor and several predefined voltage limits, each predefined voltage limit being representative of a pace of the user (Treadway, Col.5, lines 62-67, and Col.6, lines 5-6)
In re claim 4, the combination of Micacchi and Treadway teaches the following:
wherein the detection means also comprises a means for controlling a cyclic ratio of an electric signal supplying the 3-phase electric motor with electrical energy as a function of the pace determined (Treadway, Col.5, lines 17-38)
In re claim 5, the combination of Micacchi and Treadway teaches the following:
a means for controlling a pulse duration as a function of the pace determined (Micacchi, Paragraph 0041)
In re claim 6, the combination of Micacchi and Treadway teaches the following:
wherein the detection means is configured to detect a braking event (Micacchi, Paragraphs 0043, 0064, and 0075) as a function of a value of the derivative of the voltage of at least one phase of the 3-phase motor and of at least one predefined negative limit value, called the “predefined derivative limit” (Treadway, Fig.10, and Col.6, line 1-24)
In re claim 7, the combination of Micacchi and Treadway teaches the following:
a means for activating a motor brake when the value of the derivative of the voltage of at least one phase of the 3-phase motor is less than a predefined derivative limit (Micacchi, Paragraphs 0043, 0064, and 0075, and Treadway, Fig.10, and Col.6, line 1-24)
In re claim 11, the combination of Micacchi and Treadway teaches the following:
wherein the pulse duration is less than two seconds and preferably less than one second (Micacchi, Paragraph 0073)
In re claim 12, the combination of Micacchi and Treadway teaches the following:
Electrically assisted wheeled sliding device, comprising at least two wheels, device comprising a module according to claim 1 (Micacchi, Paragraph 0049)
In re claim 13, the combination of Micacchi and Treadway teaches the following:
Pair of devices, each device being according to claim 12, wherein each device is an inline skate or a roller skate and a propulsion event being detected when the voltage measured is greater than the predefined voltage limit on a single one of the pair of devices (Micacchi, Paragraph 0067)
In re claim 14, the combination of Micacchi and Treadway teaches the following:
wherein each device comprises a means for communicating with the other device, configured to communicate the voltage measured by the device comprising the communication means and/or when the voltage measured by the device comprising the communication means is greater than the predefined voltage limit (Micacchi, Paragraph 0057-0058)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669