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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims status: canceled claims: 1-14; new claims 26-28; the rest is unchanged.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 112 rejection, applicant argues in pg.7 of the remarks that a structure corresponding to “controller and evaluating unit” is analogous to “computing unit”. However, such definition is not commonly known in the art and is not supporting by the specification. Following the three-prong 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) analysis in MPEP § 2181(I), in the first prong, the term “unit” is expressly identified in MPEP § 2181(I)(A), first paragraph, as an example of a non-structural generic placeholder. A “unit”, on its own, has no specific structure, but rather is a generic term. For the second prong, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “controller” & “evaluating”. For the third prong, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function. While one of ordinary skill in the art may be familiar with various means to perform the specified function, no specific structure is recited in the claim. Accordingly, 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) requires the term to “be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof”. Applicant argues the specification recites sufficient structure in para. [0016]-[0017], [0051]-[0052], [0055], [0085]-[0086], [0100] for the term “controller and evaluating unit”. However, “controller and evaluating unit” is not a specific structure, but rather covers a class of structures capable of performing the specified function. Because 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) requires the term to “be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof”, but no specific structure is recited in the specification, the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) & (b) is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The limitation “controller and evaluating unit” recited in L8 of claim 15 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f) means (unit) + function (for evaluating). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is not present. Therefore, the claim can’t be interpreted and is indefinite.
For examination purpose the limitation is construed to a “processor” or its equivalent.
The limitation “adjustment means” recited in L2 of claim 17 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f) means (means) + function (for adjustment). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is a cross table. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as requiring a cross table of its equivalent.
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 15-25 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.
Claim 15 recites “controller and evaluating unit”, the corresponding structure is not present in the specification.
Claims 16 - 25 are rejected on the same basis as claim 15 for dependency reasons.
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.
Claim limitation “controller and evaluating unit” 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. The corresponding structure for “controller and evaluating unit” is not present in specification. 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.
Claims 16 - 25 are rejected on the same basis as claim 15 for dependency reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 -25 would be allowable IF rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 15, Holle et al. disclose: A THz measuring device for measuring a strand, the THz measuring device comprising:
a measuring space with an axis of symmetry, for receiving the strand (fig.1 items 41 & 43, para. [0014], [0033]),
THz measuring units (fig.1 items 41 & 43, para. [0014], [0033]),
all THz measuring units each including a THz transceiver for emitting a THz measuring beams along its optical axis (fig.1 items 41 & 43, para. [0014], [0033]) and a reflector arranged on the optical axis and opposite the THz transceiver (fig.1 items 41 & 43, para. [0014], [0033]),
a controller and evaluating unit receiving the measuring signals of the THz transceivers and determining at least wall thicknesses of the strand (para. [0045]).
Klose discloses: the THz measuring units being arrange in an alternating manner (para. [0040]).
Holle et al. don’t specifically disclose: at least three THz measuring units.
However, para. [0033] teaches a combination of at least one transceiver/reflector. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of para. [0033] to derive the claimed limitation.
The prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the THz measuring units being arrange in an alternating manner such that a first reflector of a first THz measuring unit is adjacent to a second THz transceiver of a second THz measuring unit and a third THz transceiver of a third THz measuring unit, the controller and evaluating unit being configured, in performing a measurement of the strand,
- to determine a facing wall thickness of the facing wall region from a first measuring signal of the first transceiver, and
- to determine an averted wall thickness of the averted wall region of the first transceiver by means of averaging and/or interpolation from measuring signals of the second transceiver and the third transceiver.
Claims 16 – 25 would be allowable on the same basis as independent claim 15 for dependency reasons.
Claims 26-28 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 26, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the THz measuring units being arrange in an alternating manner such that a first reflector of a first THz measuring unit is adjacent to a second THz transceiver of a second THz measuring unit and a third THz transceiver of a third THz measuring unit, the THz measuring device being configured, in performing a measurement of the strand,
- to determine a facing wall thickness of the facing wall region from a first measuring signal of the first transceiver, and
- to determine an averted wall thickness of the averted wall region of the first transceiver by means of averaging and/or interpolation from measuring signals of the second transceiver and the third transceiver.
Claims 27-28 are allowed on the same basis as independent claim 26 for dependency reasons.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights