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
Figs. 1 & 2 lack clear text, symbols, or legend to clearly demonstrate what the elements are without onerous referral to the specification (blank boxes are not enough)
Similarly, Figs. 3 & 4 show a flowchart without text (blank boxes are not enough
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 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.
non-rechargeable means for storing electrical energy (claims 1-10). Applicant defines this term as including lithium batteries (¶’s [14-20, 62] published specification; hereinafter all citations are understood as from the published specification)
rechargeable means for storing electrical energy (claims 1-5, 8-10). Applicant defines this term as including a capacitor/supercapacitor (Claims 6, 7).
wireless means for periodic transmission of data (claims 1-10). Applicant defines this communication as WPLAN, which implicitly means an antenna (¶’s [06, 09, 60]).
computing means for determining a threshold value of the current as a function of a physical quantity (claims 3-10). Due to the term “computing”, it is understood this implicitly means a control circuit/computer/processor.
control means for controlling the limiter circuit (claims 3-10)
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 are:
“ device for managing the implementation of a limitation of the current” in claims 8-10. Interpreted as the device shown in Figs. [1, 2]
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 3-10 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.
Applicant claims the following limitations:
control means for controlling the limiter circuit (claims 3-10)
These limitations are means plus function limitations. Applicant’s specification has not provided the required structure to define an example of what structure the means plus function is meant to be used with. Thus, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 3-10 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.
Applicant claims the following limitations:
control means for controlling the limiter circuit (claims 3-10)
None of these means plus function limitation are modified by structure. 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 specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function.
No control circuit is defined, processor, switch, chip, circuit-board, driver circuit, etc. is described in the specification to provide corresponding structure to clearly link the structure to the function. Therefore, these limitations are indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al (USPGPN 20030180606) in view of Snyder et al (USPGPN 20090212626)
Independent Claim 1, Sasaki teaches a method (¶’s [14, 93-95]) for managing an implementation of a limitation of a value of a current output (¶[92]) from non-rechargeable means for storing electrical energy (Figs. [1A-4], elements [71, 72], defined by ¶’s [16-25] as a primary battery, i.e. non-rechargeable battery as known to those of ordinary skill in the art, while ¶’s [90-96] define these batteries as alkaline batteries, again understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to almost always be non-rechargeable batteries) intended to power wireless means (14) for periodic transmission of data (¶[93]), the method comprising:
the implementation of the limitation of the value of the current is only carried out, for a predetermined period, when the value of the current is lower than the current threshold value (Sasaki teaches the predetermined value is meant to keep the current lower than the predetermined/current-threshold value ¶[92], where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that as this battery has a capacity, and that as the predetermined threshold value represents a C-rate from the battery at that specific capacity, the resultant C-rate represents a predetermined value at which the primary battery 71 will be capable of discharging, and thus the implementation of the value of the current is only carried out for the time corresponding to the c-rate which is set by the battery capacity and the predetermined value of the current;
noted that applicant did not define another meaning for this “predetermined period”).
supplying the current to rechargeable means (74; double-layer capacitor is known to be rechargeable) for storing electrical energy intended to power the wireless means to facilitate transmitting data (¶’s [91, 92, 95, 96]).
Sasaki fails to explicitly teach determining a current threshold value as a function of a physical quantity.
Snyder teaches determining a current threshold value as a function of a physical quantity (Figs. [1A-1C] demonstrates an analogous system with an ultracapacitor 105 [abstract], battery 102 along with circuit between them [106];
¶’s [96-105, 213, 214, 255, esp. 102, 103, 213, 255] describes that the load current limits are modified as a function of the battery temperature to protect the battery, i.e. improve safety, where PCC or a processor is described to perform this function in at least ¶[214]). Snyder, Sasaki, and the present application are analogous in that they describe the control of the provision of power between batteries, capacitors, and their associated loads. Furthermore, Snyder and Sasaki are analogous in that they involve mobile devices with wireless communication (¶[99] of Snyder)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sasaki with Snyder to provide improved safety.
Independent Claim 3, Sasaki teaches a device (Figs. [1A-4]) for managing (¶’s [14, 93-95]) implementation of a limitation of a value of a current at an output (¶[92]) of non-rechargeable means for storing electrical energy (Figs. [1A-4], elements [71, 72], defined by ¶’s [16-25] as a primary battery, i.e. non-rechargeable battery as known to those of ordinary skill in the art, while ¶’s [90-96] define these batteries as alkaline batteries, again understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to almost always be non-rechargeable batteries) intended to power wireless means (14) for periodic transmission of data (¶[93]), the device comprising:
a current-limiting circuit (73, 73a);
rechargeable means for storing electrical energy (74; double-layer capacitor is known to be rechargeable), the rechargeable means coupled to the limiter circuit (Figs. [2c, 3]) and intended to power the wireless means to facilitate transmitting data (Figs. [2c, 4], ¶’s [91, 92, 95, 96] describes the use for an antenna 14 for wireless communication); and
control means for controlling the limiter circuit (¶[92], where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that for the current to be limited in the way described [below a predetermined value], a definite control means would inherently be required), wherein for a predetermined period, the control means controls the limiter circuit only when the value of the current is lower than the threshold value (one of ordinary skill in the art understands that as this battery has a capacity, and that as the predetermined threshold value represents a C-rate from the battery at that specific capacity, the resultant C-rate represents a predetermined value at which the primary battery 71 will be capable of discharging, and thus the implementation of the value of the current is only carried out for the time corresponding to the c-rate which is set by the battery capacity and the predetermined value of the current;
noted that applicant did not define another meaning for this “predetermined period”),
the limiter circuit being configured to supply the current to the rechargeable means for storing electrical energy (¶[92], Figs. [2C, 3]).
Sasaki fails to explicitly teach computing means for determining a threshold value of the current as a function of a physical quantity.
Snyder teaches computing means for determining a threshold value of the current as a function of a physical quantity (Figs. [1A-1C] demonstrates an analogous system with an ultracapacitor 105 [abstract], battery 102 along with circuit between them [106];
¶’s [96-105, 213, 214, 255, esp. 102, 103, 213, 255] describes that the load current limits are modified as a function of the battery temperature to protect the battery, i.e. improve safety, where PCC or a processor is described to perform this function in at least ¶[214]). Snyder, Sasaki, and the present application are analogous in that they describe the control of the provision of power between batteries, capacitors, and their associated loads. Furthermore, Snyder and Sasaki are analogous in that they involve mobile devices with wireless communication (¶[99] of Snyder)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sasaki with Snyder to provide improved safety.
Dependent Claims 2 and 5, the combination of Sasaki and Snyder teaches the physical quantity is a temperature of the non-rechargeable means for storing electrical energy (Snyder teaches temperature as the physical quantity ¶’s [103, 213, 255]).
Dependent Claim 4, the combination of Sasaki and Snyder teaches the limiter circuit comprises an adjustable current chopper (applicant defines this element as a DC-DC converter, which is shown as 73b of 73 in Fig. 3 of Sasaki and 112 of Snyder).
Dependent Claim 6, the combination of Sasaki and Snyder teaches the rechargeable means for storing electrical energy includes at least one supercapacitor (Sasaki Fig. 3 describes 74 as an electrical double layer capacitor, which is known as a supercapacitor).
Dependent Claim 7, the combination of Sasaki and Snyder teaches the supercapacitor has a capacitance of between 100 mF and 500 mF (¶[91] defines the capacity as greater than or equal to 10 mF, which overlaps with the claimed range, and one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the range is simply a design choice well within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art, where the higher the capacity, the larger the energy able to be released [and thus potentially the higher the energy of the peak pulse energy], official notice taken).
Dependent Claim 8, the combination of Sasaki and Snyder teaches connected object comprising wireless means for periodic transmission of data, non-rechargeable means for storing electrical energy capable of powering said transmission means, wherein the connected object further comprises a device for managing the implementation of a limitation of the current at the output of said non-rechargeable means for storing electrical energy according to claim 3 (as described above for Claim 3, the phone of Sasaki is a wirelessly connected object).
Dependent Claim 10, the combination of Sasaki and Snyder teaches Charging unit comprising the connected object according to claim 8 (see Figs. [2b-4] of Sasaki, which has circuitry for charging supercapacitor 74).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al (USPGPN 20030180606) in view of Snyder et al (USPGPN 20090212626), further in view of Mukae et al (USPGPN 20150133189)
Dependent Claim 9, Sasaki teaches the device in a mobile phone (Figs. [1b-2b])
Sasaki is silent to the transmitted data comprise geographical coordinates of said object.
Mukae teaches the transmitted data comprise geographical coordinates of said object (¶’s [101, 103, 107, esp. 101] describes that the mobile phone 10 contains an antenna with GPS capabilities, i.e. known to one of ordinary skill in the art to both send and receive GPS/global positioning/coordinate data). Official notice taken that by having GPS data being received, it can improve convenience for the user since they are less likely to become lost.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sasaki in view of Snyder with Mukae to provide improved convenience.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights