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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 1 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1 May.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the various “step[s] of…retrieving1” found in claims 1, 3, and 9; and the “step[s] of…interpolating2” found in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
All other claimed “step[s] of…” are interpreted under 112f because they fail to recite sufficient acts to perform the entire function. Of note is the step of “observing” recited in claim 3. Although “observing” –in its ordinary usage-- would implicitly include the act sufficient to perform the function, in this case the “observing” is modified by “based on…” limitation. Performing “observing” in the ordinary fashion would not incorporate the “based on…” limitations.
The corresponding acts associated with each step-plus-function limitation are identified below.
Step of “calculating3 the 3D position and orientation of the longwall shearer based on the absolute shearer coordinate, the shearer orientation, and the relative shearer coordinate” as recited in claim 1: [0038] and fig 4-5 describe this limitation as “comprising, for a given encoder position k, the steps of retrieving, a previous height value of a previous floor profile, predicting, a current predicted height value of a current floor profile, observing, a current observed height value based on the retrieved height value, the retreat cylinder deflection, and a shearer roll angle, and estimating a current estimated height value of the current floor profile by a combination of the current predicted height value and the current observed height value” (emphasis added). Thus the calculating step incorporates retrieving the previous height value and the step-plus-function limitations of predicting, observing, and estimating, and one must turn to the specification to find the acts corresponding to those steps. As shown below (b-c) there is no clear disclosure of acts sufficient to achieve the recited function. (claim 1)
Step of “predicting a current predicted height value of a current floor profile”: the predicting a current height is discussed in [0038,0066] but there is no description of the acts which support the function of predicting. (claim 3)
Step of “observing a current observed height value based on the retrieved height value, the retreat cylinder deflection and a current shearer roll angle”:[0038] describes the observing, but includes largely the same “based on” language. [0041] describes “current observed height value z n may be based on the current shearer roll angle Φ n as detected by the Inertial Navigation System” but this description (“observed height…based on…roll angle”) fails to provide sufficient acts. Examiner can find no clear description of the acts in support of the observing function. (claim 3)
Step of “estimating a current estimated height value of the current floor profile by a combination of the current predicted height value and the current observed height value”: [0038] describes the observing, but includes language (“by a combination of” ) mirroring the same “based on” language found in the claim. [0041] and fig 5 describe “The estimation step S340 may for example comprise an optimization algorithm, comprising a regression algorithm and/or a Kalman Filter.” Examiner understands this to mean an act of using a regression algorithm and/or Kalman filter. (claim 3)
Step of “determining current shearer shoe positions for a current encoder position based on current retreat cylinder deflections”: [0046,0047,0048] and fig 8 describe the determining the shoe positions but fail to describe acts sufficient to determine the positions. (claim 4)
Step of “determining a current shearer yaw angle and the current shearer position in the moving direction”: [0046,0048] and fig 8 describe determining yaw and position but fail to describe acts sufficient to determine the yaw and position. (claim 4)
step of “generating a shearer trajectory from at least two different outputs of the calculation step” but the specification fails to describe acts supporting generating a shearer trajectory. (claim 7)
Step of: “predicting a predicted panline”: [0051] describes “ panline prediction S40 may further comprise the steps of retrieving S42 a current panline, retrieving S44 retreat cylinder deflections {right arrow over (y)}.sub.i from the additional sensor data, and retrieving S46 a floor profile” These steps of “retrieving” do not include sufficient acts to support predicting. (claim 8)
Step of “estimating an estimated panline”:[0051] describes “the panline estimation S50 may be established using the sensor data indicative of the absolute shearer coordinate x and the shearer orientation ψ, ⊖, Φ.” This fails to describe sufficient acts to support estimating. (claim 8)
Step of ”calculating an expected panline based on the predicted panline and the estimated panline” This is understood to include merging the panline estimation and the panline prediction into a final result using an optimization algorithm, and the disclosed algorithm is a Kalman filter. (claim 8)
Step of “using physical equations suitable to calculate the position and orientation of each pan and/or the complete panline, wherein the physical equations comprise gravity, relay bar forces, and/or pan collision forces” The specification fails to disclose the equations, therefore the disclosure does not support the limitation with acts sufficient to perform the function. (claim 9)
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.
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 1-12 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.
Claims not specifically referred to below are indefinite by dependency.
Claim 2 is indefinite regarding the “coordinate (x) comprises multiple encoder positions” The disclosure (e.g. fig 12) indicates that the multiple encoder positions represent positions as the shearer moves, i.e. they represent the movement of the shearer at different time points. It is not clear how a single coordinate can comprise multiple positions.
Claims 8, 9, and 12 recite “predicted panline” ; “estimated panline”; “expected panline”; and “current panline”. It is unclear what these limitations refer to. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that ”panline” refers to the assembly of pans which are arranged next to the longwall face and function to guide the conveyor chains and mined coal, and also provide rails and/or rack for the shearer. It is not clear what aspects of the panline are “predicted”, “estimated”, etc.
Claim 8 lacks antecedent basis for “the sensor data indicative of…a shearer orientation…shearer show position”
Claims 10 and 12 are indefinite because it is not clear how the term “preferably” affects the claim scope.
Claim limitations “step[s] of” “calculating” (claim 1); “predicting” and “observing” (claim 3); “determining” (claim 4); “generating” (claim 7); “predicting” and “estimating” (claim 8); and “using” (claim 9) each invoke 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. See above at 4. Therefore, the claims are 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 1,3,4,7,8,9, and 2,5,6,10-12 by dependency 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. Each of claims 1,3,4,7,8,9 recite step-plus-function limitations but the written description fails to provide support (see above at 4) for the limitations by describing sufficient act to perform the entire recited functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas/mathematical functions without significantly more.
Eligibility step 1: the claims are directed to a method and is thus falls under a statutory category. Step 1 YES.
Step 2A, prong 1: the claims recite the abstract ideas of retrieving [data] calculating, predicting, observing, estimating, determining, interpolating, generating, and using equations. each of these amounts to an abstract idea/mathematical function which can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper. Prong 1: YES
2A prong 2: the claims limit the recited abstract ideas to data relating to a shearer and panline, but this does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not result in improvement of the shearer or panline technology and the application of the abstract ideas/mathematical functions to data from a shearer or panline amounts to applying the math to that technological area, i.e. “apply it” (MPEP 2106.04d) Prong 2: NO.
Step 2B: the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not recite any steps other than the abstract ideas/mathematical functions and insofar as they limit the mathematical functions to a particular technology, it amounts to merely applying the functions (i.e. “apply it”) to the shearer and panline data. Step 2b: NO.
Therefore the claims are not directed to eligible subject matter.
The claims are not rejected under sections 102 or 103. Examiner notes the EPO written opinion found claim 1 to be not novel over EP1276969. In the National Stage, claim 1 is interpreted under 35USC112f and –as described at 4a-d above—the limitation “step[s] of…calculating” includes functions/acts. These additional functions/acts are not described in the EP reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Janine M KRECK whose telephone number is (571)272-7042. The examiner can normally be reached telework: M-F 0600-1530 EST.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at 5712725405. 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.
/Janine M Kreck/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
1 In the context of data, the acts to support the function of retrieving are implicit in the term “retrieving” therefore there is recitation of sufficient act[s] to support the function.
2 Interpolating coordinates is understood to implicitly include an act.
3One might assert that the absolute shearer coordinate (i.e. x), relative shearer coordinate (i.e. y[Wingdings font/0xE0]), and shearer orientation themselves constitute the 3D position without any calculation; however Examiner finds that these three data points are insufficient to calculate 3D position. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the 3D position would also require a height (i.e. z) coordinate.
Prosecution Insights