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 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 20, which recites the claim limitations “means for defining a greater than hemispherical range of emission or detection of EMR [electromagnetic radiation] by the EMR device” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language “defining” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim 20 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following passage appears to relate to the most-likely corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: In some examples, a greater than hemispherical range of emission and detection may be obtained based on the angles of first mirror surface 12 and the second mirror surface 16 relative to the rotation axis 14 and based on the relative rotational positions of the first mirror surface 12 and the second mirror surface 16, found on pages 3 and 4 of the originally-filed specification.
Thus, it is believed that the structure which may effectuate the claimed “defining a greater than hemispherical range of emission or detection” is first and second mirror surfaces and a rotation axis.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites the phrase: “means for defining a greater than hemispherical range of emission or detection of EMR [electromagnetic radiation] by the EMR device”. It is unclear what is meant by the term “defining”. The phrase “greater than hemispherical range” is believed to be well-understood without further “definition”. And there is no subsequent claim language in Claim 20 which appears to rely on something being “defined”. Furthermore, this claim is indefinite if, based on the invocation of 35 USC 112(f) (see above), there is not a corresponding structure to effectuate the “defining” which follows the phrase “means for”.
For examination, this phrase will be treated as: “means for obtaining a greater than hemispherical range of emission or detection of EMR [electromagnetic radiation] by the EMR device”, which appears to comport with at least the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of Applicant’s originally-filed specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 223,898 of T. A. Edison, patented January 27, 1880 (a copy of which is attached to the present Office Action).
Regarding Claim 20, as best understood, Edison discloses: A beam director, comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
an electromagnetic radiation (EMR) device configured to emit or detect EMR along an axis (electric lamp depicted in FIG. 1 which emits light by running electric current through a carbon wire, wherein an axis may be defined as the central line [e.g., a vertical line in FIG. 1] around which the glass bulb is rotationally symmetric and light is emitted upward along such axis; see page 1, first column, lines 13-24 and page 2, second column, lines 75-76 and FIG. 1 of Edison); and
means for defining a greater than hemispherical range of emission or detection of EMR by the EMR device (glass bulb exterior [glass being a transparent or at least translucent material], thereby resulting in a greater than hemispherical range of emission of light by the electrified carbon wire, i.e., light is emitted both above and below an equatorial line [e.g., a horizontal line in FIG. 1] of the spherical form of the electric lamp; see page 2, first column, lines 46-50 and FIG. 1 of Edison).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanabe, U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2016/0315392 A1.
Regarding Claim 20, as best understood, Tanabe discloses: A beam director, comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
an electromagnetic radiation (EMR) device configured to emit or detect EMR along an axis (first and second antenna devices 110, 120 may transmit and receive radio waves along an axis; FIGS. 1, 4 of Tanabe); and
means for defining a greater than hemispherical range of emission or detection of EMR by the EMR device (first and second reflectors 350, 360 are independently rotatable along an axis defined by first and second support shafts 330, 340, thus enabling a greater than hemispheric range of emission or detection due to the swiveling of the reflective surfaces of first and second reflectors 350, 360 in relation to their common axis; paragraph [0048] and FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 11 of Tanabe).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With respect to Claim 1, although the prior art, such as Tanabe, U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2016/0315392 A1, discloses various beam directors, including:
a first mirror surface configured to be selectively rotated about a rotation axis that intersects the first mirror surface, wherein the first mirror surface is neither perpendicular nor parallel to the rotation axis (first reflector 350 which is rotatable along an axis defined by first support shaft 330, wherein the surface of first reflector 350 is neither perpendicular nor parallel to the rotational axis of first support shaft 330 [approximately 45 degree angle of reflective surface is shown with respect to the rotational axis]; paragraph [0048] and FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 11 of Tanabe);
a second mirror surface facing the first mirror surface and configured to be selectively rotated about the rotation axis independent of rotation of the first mirror surface, wherein the second mirror surface is neither perpendicular nor parallel to the rotation axis (second reflector 360 which is rotatable along an axis defined by second support shaft 340, which is a same axis as first support shaft 330, wherein the first reflector 350 and the second reflector 360 can rotate independently of one another, and wherein the surface of second reflector 360 is neither perpendicular nor parallel to the rotational axis of second support shaft 340 [approximately 45 degree angle of reflective surface is shown with respect to the rotational axis]; Abstract and paragraphs [0048], [0075] and FIGS. 2, 4, 5, 11 of Tanabe); and
an electromagnetic radiation (EMR) device configured to emit or detect EMR toward or from the first mirror surface (first and second antenna devices 110, 120 may transmit and receive radio waves along an axis; FIGS. 1, 4 of Tanabe);
wherein the first mirror surface and the second mirror surface are angled relative to the rotation axis so that at a plurality of rotational positions of the first mirror surface relative to the second mirror surface, the EMR bounces off the first mirror surface and the second mirror surface (first and second reflectors 350, 360 are angled relative to the axis defined by support shafts 330, 340 so that, at a plurality of rotational positions of the first and second reflectors 350, 360, the radio waves emitted or received by antenna devices 110, 120 are bounced off the surfaces of first and second reflectors 350, 360; FIGS. 1, 2, 4, 5, 11 of Tanabe).
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above features further comprising:
the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) device is configured to emit or detect EMR along the rotation axis toward or from the first mirror surface; and
the EMR directed along the rotation axis bounces off the first mirror surface and the second mirror surface
With respect to Claims 2-19, these claims each depend from Claim 1, and are therefore allowable for at least the reasons stated above.
Other Prior Art
The following reference is cited to show example of an obliquely-angled two-mirror system with independent mirror rotation for directing EMR along an axis, but which differs in its principle of operation from the present invention in that the mirrors do not rotate along a same axis, but instead rotate along different axes which are perpendicular [orthogonal] to each other: U.S. Pat. No. 4,663,698 of Tomlinson.
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights