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.
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 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(s) is/are:
“a positioning device” in claim 15
“a computing unit” in claim 15
“mobile unit” in claim 20
Paragraph 27 supports a functional structural consideration of the claim limitation.
“transmission and receiving units” in claim 22
“access system … configured to be actuated” in claim 25
“a positioning device” in claim 26
“a computing unit” in claim 26
“transmission and receiving units” in claim 26
“transmission device” in claim 27
“receiving device” in claim 27
“a positioning device” in claim 28
“a computing unit” in claim 28
“transmission and receiving units” in claim 28
“an access system” of claim 28
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(b)
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 15-28 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.
Claim 21 recites ‘wherein computing unit’ which creates antecedent confusion because ‘computing unit’ has already been established in claim 15. The ‘computing unit’ in claim 21 needs to properly tie to the established element or properly distinguish itself from the established element.
Claim 28 recites ‘a computing unit’ in line 38 which creates antecedent confusion because ‘computing unit’ has already been established in claim 28 in at least line 6. The ‘computing unit’ in line 38 needs to properly tie to the established element or properly distinguish itself from the established element.
Claim limitation “a positioning device” and “a computing unit” in claim 15; “transmission and receiving units” in claim 22; “access system … configured to be actuated” in claim 25; “a positioning device”, “a computing unit” and “transmission and receiving units” in claim 26; “transmission device” and “receiving device” in claim 27; “a positioning device”, “a computing unit”, “transmission and receiving units” and “an access system” of claim 28; 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.
In claim 15:
“Positioning device” uses the generic term ‘device’ modified by ‘positioning’ which lacks the inherent structure to perform the claimed function. The disclosure does not provide sufficient structural support or a computer and algorithm combination to perform the claimed function.
“Computing unit” uses the generic term ‘unit’ modified by ‘computing’ which lacks the inherent structure to perform the claimed function. The disclosure does not provide sufficient structural support or a computer and algorithm combination to perform the claimed function.
In claim 22:
“transmission and receiving unit” uses the generic term ‘unit’ modified by ‘transmission and receiving’ which lacks the inherent structure to perform the claimed function. The disclosure does not provide sufficient structural support or a computer and algorithm combination to perform the claimed function.
In claim 25:
“access system” uses the generic term ‘system’ modified by ‘access’ which lacks the inherent structure to perform the claimed function. The disclosure does not provide sufficient structural support or a computer and algorithm combination to perform the claimed function. Note this limitation appears to be drawn to the control of the locks and not directly claiming the locking element.
In claim 26:
“Positioning device” uses the generic term ‘device’ modified by ‘positioning’ which lacks the inherent structure to perform the claimed function. The disclosure does not provide sufficient structural support or a computer and algorithm combination to perform the claimed function.
“Computing unit” uses the generic term ‘unit’ modified by ‘computing’ which lacks the inherent structure to perform the claimed function. The disclosure does not provide sufficient structural support or a computer and algorithm combination to perform the claimed function.
“transmission and receiving unit” uses the generic term ‘unit’ modified by ‘transmission and receiving’ which lacks the inherent structure to perform the claimed function. The disclosure does not provide sufficient structural support or a computer and algorithm combination to perform the claimed function.
In claim 27:
“transmission device” and “receiving device” uses the generic term ‘device’ modified by ‘transmission / receiving’ which lacks the inherent structure to perform the claimed function (in the disclosure these elements are not shown to be simple antennas but elements around which processing is specifically formed, see for example Paragraphs 24, 25, 40, Figure 2 element 24/25 is not the antenna). The disclosure does not provide sufficient structural support or a computer and algorithm combination to perform the claimed function.
In claim 28:
“Positioning device” uses the generic term ‘device’ modified by ‘positioning’ which lacks the inherent structure to perform the claimed function. The disclosure does not provide sufficient structural support or a computer and algorithm combination to perform the claimed function.
“Computing unit” uses the generic term ‘unit’ modified by ‘computing’ which lacks the inherent structure to perform the claimed function. The disclosure does not provide sufficient structural support or a computer and algorithm combination to perform the claimed function.
“transmission and receiving unit” uses the generic term ‘unit’ modified by ‘transmission and receiving’ which lacks the inherent structure to perform the claimed function. The disclosure does not provide sufficient structural support or a computer and algorithm combination to perform the claimed function.
“access system” uses the generic term ‘system’ modified by ‘access’ which lacks the inherent structure to perform the claimed function. The disclosure does not provide sufficient structural support or a computer and algorithm combination to perform the claimed function. Note this limitation appears to be drawn to the control of the locks and not directly claiming the locking element.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 15-28 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. Claims 15-28 are rejected for invoking a 112(f) interpretation of the claims while failing to provide adequate structural disclosure to support the interpretations. Per the noted limitations for the specifically noted claims in the 112(b) rejection above related to the 112(f) interpretation, Per MPEP 2163.03(VI), “A claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See also MPEP § 2181.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior arts are relevant to the scope of the claims but fail to anticipate or render obvious the limitations as specifically claimed:
Bauman (US Pub 20130342379)
Lickfelt (US Pub 20120092129)
O’Brien (US Pub 20140253288)
Ohta (US Pub 20120140073)
Amadi (US Patent 11210877)
Lavoie (US Pub 20190308612)
Golsch (US Pub 20180103414)
The above prior arts are cited as relevant to the scope of the invention, but fail to disclose or render obvious the two UWB positioning functions as well as the details specific to obtaining the data to perform the two positioning processes.
Oman (US Pub 20140330449)
Weghaus (US Patent 10800380)
The above prior arts were provided as part of the IDS and internation search report, however, the prior arts are relevant to the scope of the claims, but fail to disclose or render obvious the two UWB positioning functions as well as the details specific to obtaining the data to perform the two positioning processes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights