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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following details must be shown in enabling detail or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Acquiring module;
Locating module; and
Control module.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Enabling details of the following means for claim components:
Acquiring module;
Locating module; and
Control module.
Rule 105 - Request for Information
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
In view of Applicant’s Figures which comprise mere block diagrams for the component(s) listed below, it appears Applicant intends for said components to comprise what is conventional and known in the art (see MPEP 608.02(d)) however applicant has failed to provide an adequate disclosure and description of said components, nor has applicant used conventional terminology for said components making the components unknown.
Therefore, Applicant is required to provide further background information on their invention, particularly for the following components of:
Fault location device (900, FIGURE 9);
Acquiring module (910, FIGURE 9);
Determining module (920, FIGURE 9); and
Controlling module (930, FIGURE 9).
including:
Component name as used in the art and as used by the manufacturer;
Component manufacturer; and
Component specification data sheet(s).
as well as a detailed summary of the improvements associated with the invention and any technical information known to applicant concerning the related art particularly for said components listed above.
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.
Regarding Claim 7
Claim limitation(s):
Acquiring module;
Locating module;
Control module.
have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim(s) limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claim(s) have 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 appears to be the 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:
Acquiring module = mere generic block 910, FIG9;
Locating module = not shown;
Control module = possibly said mere generic block “controlling module” 930, FIG9.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function in enabling and sufficient details noting that mere generic blocks are not sufficient.
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, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function 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 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.
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 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 7
The disclosure does not provide enabling detail for the following components:
Acquiring module;
Locating module; and
Control module.
A disclosure of an electrical circuit apparatus, depicted in the drawings by block diagrams with functional labels, was held to be non-enabling (In re Gunn, 537 F2d 1123, 1129, 190 USPQ 402, 406, CCPA 1976). In regard to said components above, there is no indication in the specification as to whether the parts represented by boxes are “off the shelf” or must be specifically constructed or modified for applicant’s system. Also there are no details in the specification of how the parts should be interconnected, timed and/or controlled so as to obtain the specific operations claimed by the applicant. See MPEP 2164.06(a).
Applicant is directed to either identify said component as "off the shelf" and provide request support in terms of the part name, manufacturer, part number and specification data sheets; or otherwise provide enabling details for said custom made structure for said component. No new matter should be added.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding Claims 1-6
The claims, when taken as a whole, are incompressible and fail to set forth actionable, identifiable and known “steps” as expected for a method claims to achieve the desired and claimed goal of “locating the fault”. Instead, the claim presently sets forth a piecemeal collection of unidentifiable and overly broad narrative statements that simply state the desired goal of fault location without any identifiable steps to achieve fault location.
All of said “acquiring” and “determining” steps are indefinite since the claims fail to set forth what method step in terms of an electrical process step is intended by “acquiring” and “determining” and neither are known particular steps in the art as used.
More particularly:
Regarding Claim 1
The term “target state” is not a term of art nor does the claim set forth identifiable steps to define the claimed “target state” making the term unclear and indefinite.
The limitation “acquiring a second signal sensed by the sensor in the target state” fails to set forth what is doing the acquiring nor is a first signal sensed claimed making it unclear with first and second signals are sensed or just one and what is doing the acquiring. Furthermore “acquire” is not an electrical term and should be stated in terms of an electrical method step such as “sensing”.
“In response” indefinite as written and the claim fails to set forth how said “acquiring” is “responsive” to the first signal particularly since said condition is based on the vague and undefined “first preset condition” which is not stated making the claim read as a whole indefinite.
Furthermore, the claim jumps to the conclusionary step of “locating the fault” “according to” wherein said “According” is not set forth in method step form in the claim.
Regarding Claim 2
Same issues as with claim 1 and further the term “acquiring” in regard to an electrical method step is indefinite and not defined. The term “first candidate signal” is not defined and unclear what is intended and constitutes a “candidate signal”.
Said “second preset condition is not defined and therefore indefinite.
The claim sets forth conclusory statements rather than method steps including “determining the first candidate signal as the second signa;” (noting that this in itself is an unintelligible statement and method step) and “determining that the fault occurs in the first branch”.
Said “preset condition” is not defined and therefore indefinite which makes the claim as a whole and desired step attached of “determining that the fault occurs” indefinite and unintelligible.
Regarding Claim 3
The claim term “a first/second candidate signal” is indefinite since “candidate signal” does not refer to a particular or known signal in the art nor is defined by the claim nor does the claim define what steps is associated with “acquiring”.
The claim term “determining the second candidate signal as the second signal” is unintelligible as written and void of any identifiable method step.
The claimed “in response” is void of any identifiable method steps to add to the method claim.
The claim limitation “locating the fault according to…” resulting from the amount of indefiniteness in the claim results in a conclusory statement rather than a method step.
Regarding Claim 4
The claim limitation “wherein the second signal numbers more than one” is unintelligible.
The claims fails to set forth what method step is meant by “acquiring” and what component is doing said “acquiring”.
“Candidate signal” is not a known or particular signal in the art and the claim fails to set forth what this signal is.
The claim limitation “determining the first candidate signal and the second candidate signal as the second signal” is unintelligible as written without any identifiable method step.
Regarding Claim 5
The claim limitation “locating the fault according to a relationship between the first difference the second difference and a preset change range” is unintelligible as written given that the claimed “relationship” is not disclosed nor said “according to” resulting in a conclusory “method step”.
Regarding Claim 6
The term “and/or” is confusing and unclear. It is unclear whether “and” or “or” is intended and it is noted that the two terms (“and” and “or”) having different meanings making it imperative to know which term is intended in order to understand the metes and bounds of the claim. Applicant is advised to select EITHER “and” or “or”, but not both. The claim will be examined as best understood wherein “and/or” is taken to mean “or”.
Because of the great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim(s), it is not proper to reject the present claim(s) on the basis of prior art. (See MPEP 2173.06 and In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CAVALLARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8541. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-18:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836