DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The specification, the abstract and the drawings are all acceptable.
3. Examiner Interview: The Examiner and Applicant’s attorney had a telephone interview regarding the proposed 35 USC 112(f) rejection on 11/24/2025. See details in the attached Examiner Interview Summary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as being not to recite a definite structure, material or act that entirely performs the recited function.
As to claim 1, the placeholder “means” is used in several limitations such as “by means of a control unit”, “control means” and “sensor means” which do not to recite a definite structure, material or act that entirely performs the recited function. Also, in the specification, the “control means” and “sensor means” are not further detailed to recite a definite structure, material or act that entirely performs the recited function. They are simply a regular controller/control unit and sensor which are not detailed to recite a definite structure, material or act that entirely performs the recited function.
As to claims 2-4 and 9, they are rejected as they are dependent on the indefinite claim 1.
As to claim 5, the placeholder “means” is used in several limitations such as “control means” and “sensor means” which do not to recite a definite structure, material or act that entirely performs the recited function. Also, in the specification, the “control means” and “sensor means” are not further detailed to recite a definite structure, material or act that entirely performs the recited function. They are simply a regular controller/control unit and sensor which are not detailed to recite a definite structure, material or act that entirely performs the recited function.
As to claims 6-8, they are rejected as they are dependent on the indefinite claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b)::
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.
7. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the placeholder “means” is used in several limitations such as “by means of a control unit”, “control means” and “sensor means” which do not to recite a definite structure, material or act that entirely performs the recited function. Also, in the specification, the “control means” and “sensor means” are not further detailed to recite a definite structure, material or act that entirely performs the recited function. They are simply a regular controller/control unit and sensor which are not detailed to recite a definite structure, material or act that entirely performs the recited function. Thus, claim 1 is indefinite.
As to claims 2-4 and 9, they are rejected as they are dependent on the indefinite claim 1.
As to claim 5, it is rejected as the same reason as claim 1.
As to claims 6-8, they are rejected as they depend on the indefinite claim 5.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPN 7,489,099 to Fujiwara discloses a motor control system.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID S LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5251. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/DAVID LUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846