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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending and rejected.
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 limitations are:
“a first driving unit… used to drive the magnetic ball” in Claim 6.
“a data processing unit… for receiving the detection data” in Claim 6, as described in Para. [0079] of Applicant’s specification.
“a first processing unit used for obtaining the magnetic field intensity component” in Claim 8, as described in Para. [0079] of Applicant’s specification.
“a first processing unit used for obtaining the position with the magnetic field component” in Claim 9, as described in Para. [0079] of Applicant’s specification.
“a second processing unit used for determine the data direction” in Claim 9, as described in Para. [0079] of Applicant’s specification.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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(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 6-11 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.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 recites a “first driving unit” on Lines 2 & 4 which invokes 35 U.S.C § 112(f) means plus function interpretation as discussed above. While the “first driving unit” as claimed is mentioned in, inter alia, Para. [0042], Applicant’s specification provides no adequate structure to perform the claimed function of driving the magnetic ball to rotate around the first axis. Therefore, the examiner concludes that the Applicant’s disclosure does not provide sufficient written description to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 7-11, Claims 7-11 are rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
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 1-11 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 Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitations “rotating the magnetic ball” (Line 2), “the three-axis magnetic field components” (Line 3), “the direction of a second axis” (Line 6), “the magnetic polarization direction” (Lines 10-11), “the direction of Z-axis magnetic field component” (Line 15) and “the direction of the Y-axis magnetic field component” (Line 16). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “rotating the magnetic ball” (Line 2), “the three-axis magnetic field components” (Line 3), “the direction of a second axis” (Line 6), “the magnetic polarization direction” (Lines 10-11), “the direction of Z-axis magnetic field component” (Line 15) and “the direction of the Y-axis magnetic field component” (Line 16) are being interpreted as “rotating a magnetic ball” (Line 2), “three-axis magnetic field components” (Line 3), “a direction of a second axis” (Line 6), “a magnetic polarization direction” (Lines 10-11), “a direction of Z-axis magnetic field component” (Line 15) and “a direction of the Y-axis magnetic field component” (Line 16), respectively.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 recites the limitations “a zero point position” (Lines 1-2), “a magnetic field intensity component” (Line 2), “a second axis” (Line 3) and “the magnetic field intensity variation” (Line 4). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “a zero point position” (Lines 1-2), “a magnetic field intensity component” (Line 2), “a second axis” (Line 3) and “the magnetic field intensity variation” (Line 4) are being interpreted as “the zero point position” (Lines 1-2), “the magnetic field intensity component” (Line 2), “the second axis” (Line 3) and “a magnetic field intensity variation” (Line 4), respectively.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 recites the limitations “a zero point position” (Lines 1-2), “a magnetic field intensity component” (Line 2), “a second axis” (Line 3), “the position with the magnetic field component” (Line 4) and “the near-zero point position” (Line 5). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in claims. For the purpose of examination, “a zero point position” (Lines 1-2), “a magnetic field intensity component” (Line 2), “a second axis” (Line 3), “the position with the magnetic field component” (Line 4) and “the near-zero point position” (Line 5) are being interpreted as “the zero point position” (Lines 1-2), “the magnetic field intensity component” (Line 2), “the second axis” (Line 3), “a position with the magnetic field component” (Line 4) and “a near-zero point position” (Line 5), respectively.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 recites the limitations “a calibration position” (Line 2) and “the data direction” (Line 4). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “a calibration position” (Line 2) and “the data direction” (Line 4) are being interpreted as “the calibration position” (Line 2) and “a data direction” (Line 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 recites the limitations “a calibration position” (Lines 1-2), “α is the angle of rotation” (Line 10), “β is the angle” (Line 11)”, “the x-direction component” (Line 11) and “the y-direction component” (Line 11). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “a calibration position” (Lines 1-2), “α is the angle of rotation” (Line 10), “β is the angle” (Line 11)”, “the x-direction component” (Line 11) and “the y-direction component” (Line 11) are being interpreted as “the calibration position” (Lines 1-2), “α is an angle of rotation” (Line 10), “β is an angle” (Line 11)”, “a x-direction component” (Line 11) and “a y-direction component” (Line 11), respectively.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim limitation “a first driving unit” 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. The disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of driving the magnetic ball to rotate around the first axis. 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.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 recites the limitations “the magnetic ball” (Line 1), “the main axis direction” (Line 2), “the three-axis magnetic field components” (Line 7), “the detection position” (Line 7), “the zero point position” (Line 10), “the magnetic field intensity” (Line 11), “the calibration position” (Line 12), “the second axis” (Line 16), “the direction of the Z-axis magnetic field component” (Line 20) and “the direction of the Y-axis magnetic field component” (Line 21). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the magnetic ball” (Line 1), “the main axis direction” (Line 2), “the three-axis magnetic field components” (Line 7), “the detection position” (Line 7), “the zero point position” (Line 10), “the magnetic field intensity” (Line 11), “the calibration position” (Line 12), “the second axis” (Line 16), “the direction of the Z-axis magnetic field component” (Line 20) and “the direction of the Y-axis magnetic field component” (Line 21) are being interpreted as “a magnetic ball” (Line 1), “a main axis direction” (Line 2), “a three-axis magnetic field components” (Line 7), “a detection position” (Line 7), “a zero point position” (Line 10), “a magnetic field intensity” (Line 11), “a calibration position” (Line 12), “a second axis” (Line 16), “a direction of the Z-axis magnetic field component” (Line 20) and “a direction of the Y-axis magnetic field component” (Line 21), respectively.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 recites the limitations “the position with the magnetic field component” (Line 4) and “the near-zero point position” (Line 5). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the position with the magnetic field component” (Line 4) and “the near-zero point position” are being interpreted as “a position with a magnetic field component” (Line 4) and “a near-zero point position”, respectively.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 recites the limitation “the data direction” on Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the data direction” is being interpreted as “a data direction”.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 recites the limitation “the position where the three-axis magnetic sensor is located” on Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the position where the three-axis magnetic sensor is located” is being interpreted as “a position where the three-axis magnetic sensor is located”.
Regarding Claims 7-8, Claims 7-8 are rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claims 6-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Aloui et al. (US 2019/0301848) discloses a magnetic ball calibration method (Fig. 2, 100; [0087]), comprising:
rotating (Fig. 2, at step 112; [0090]) the magnetic ball (Fig. 1, 2; [0073]) around a first axis (Fig. 1, ez; [0075]) by a first angle (360°; [0147]), and obtaining detection data (Bd; [0091]) of the three-axis magnetic field components (Bdr, Bdθ,Bdz; [0091]) at a detection position during rotation (Fig. 1, Pm; [0078]), wherein the first angle is greater than or equal to 180° (360°; [0147]);
obtaining (Fig. 2, at step 112; [0090]) a zero point position P0 of the magnetic ball (P0; [0076] & [0089]);
a second axis (Fig. 1, eθ; [0075]);
the first axis is perpendicular to the second axis ([0075]);
the three-axis magnetic field components comprise an X-axis magnetic field component (Bdr; [0091]), a Y-axis magnetic field component (Bdθ; [0091]) and a Z-axis magnetic field component (Bdz; [0091]);
the direction of the Z-axis magnetic field component coincides with the direction of the first axis ([0075], [0076], [0079] & [0091]), and the direction of the Y-axis magnetic field component coincides with that of the second axis ([0075], [0076], [0079] & [0091]).
Aloui et al. (US 2019/0301848) fails to explicitly disclose wherein the zero point position P0 is where a magnetic field intensity component in the direction of the second axis is zero according to the detection data; obtaining a calibration position of the magnetic ball according to the detection data and the zero point position P0; calibrating the magnetic ball according to the calibration position of the magnetic ball; wherein, when the magnetic ball is located at the calibration position, the magnetic polarization direction of the magnetic ball coincides with the second axis; and wherein the direction of the Z-axis magnetic field component coincides with the direction of the second axis, and the direction of the Y-axis magnetic field component coincides with that of the first axis.
Regarding Claim 6, Aloui et al. (US 2019/0301848) discloses a magnetic ball calibration apparatus (Fig. 1, 1; [0073]), wherein the magnetic ball (Fig. 1, 2; [0073]) has magnetic poles along the main axis direction (Fig. 1, Aref; [0075]), comprising:
a first driving unit (Fig. 1, 7; [0084]),
a three-axis magnetic sensor (Fig. 1, M; [0078]) and
a data processing unit (Fig. 1, 4; [0080]);
the first driving unit is used to drive the magnetic ball ([0085]) to rotate around a first axis (Fig. 1, ez; [0075]) by a first angle (360°; [0147]);
the three-axis magnetic sensor is disposed adjacent to the magnetic ball ([0083]) to obtain detection data (Bd; [0091]) of the three-axis magnetic field components (Bdr, Bdθ,Bdz; [0091]) at the detection position during rotation of the magnetic ball (Fig. 1, Pm; [0078]); and
the data processing unit is connected to the three-axis magnetic sensor ([0081]) for
receiving the detection data of the three-axis magnetic field components ([0089] – [0091]),
obtaining the zero point position P0 ([0089]);
a second axis (Fig. 1, eθ; [0075]);
the first axis is perpendicular to a second axis ([0075]);
the three-axis magnetic field components comprise an X-axis magnetic field component (Bdr; [0091]), a Y-axis magnetic field component (Bdθ; [0091]) and a Z-axis magnetic field component (Bdz; [0091]); and
the direction of the Z-axis magnetic field component coincides with the direction of the first axis ([0075], [0076], [0079] & [0091]), and the direction of the Y-axis magnetic field component coincides with that of the second axis ([0075], [0076], [0079] & [0091]).
Aloui et al. (US 2019/0301848) fails to explicitly disclose wherein the zero point position P0 is where the magnetic field intensity in the second axis direction is zero according to the detection data; obtaining the calibration position of the magnetic ball according to the detection data and the zero point position P0; calibrating the magnetic ball according to the calibration position; wherein, when the magnetic ball is located at the calibration position, the main axis coincides with the second axis; and wherein the direction of the Z-axis magnetic field component coincides with the direction of the second axis, and the direction of the Y-axis magnetic field component coincides with that of the first axis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2022/0248943; US 2020/0196844 US 2019/0335983; US 2019/0320887; US 2017/0156574; US 2016/0066813; US 2007/0244388 and US 2002/0100486.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CAREY can be reached at (571)270-7235. 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.
/STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795