DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Application filed on August 26, 2024, which is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of International Application No. PCT/CN2023/078715, filed on February 28, 2023, which claims foreign priority to Chinese Application No, CN202210232476.2, filed on March 9, 2022. An action on the merits follows. Claims 1-6 are pending on the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “1” and “2” have been used to designate both “main shaft 1” and color-coded pattern “1”, and “camera 2” and color-coded pattern “2”, as shown in Figs, 1 and 2 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
834
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, for example.
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. 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.
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) are: “system for measuring” in claims 1-6.
Because these claim limitation(s) 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. Fig. 1; Par. [0005, 9, 56] describe a programmed computing device or computer, including for example software, hardware, or a combination of hardware and software, capable of performing the described functionality.
If applicant does not intend to have 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 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 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
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 1-6 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 1 recites the limitation “measuring creep of a hydro-generator by using image monitoring” in line 1 of the claim. Claim 1 is indefinite because it merely recites a use (e.g. “by using image monitoring”) without reciting any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “wherein a circle of "sawtooth waveform" ribbon is arranged around an outer wall of a main shaft (1) of a hydro-turbine, a "sawtooth waveform" of the ribbon is formed” in lines 2-3 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed "sawtooth waveform" recited in lines 2-3 of the claim are part of the feature limitations of the claim, or not, for example. For examination purposes the claimed “wherein a circle of "sawtooth waveform" ribbon is arranged around an outer wall of a main shaft (1) of a hydro-turbine, a "sawtooth waveform" of the ribbon is formed” recited in lines 2-3 of the claim will be interpreted as “wherein a circle of sawtooth waveform ribbon is arranged around an outer wall of a main shaft (1) of a hydro-turbine, a sawtooth waveform of the ribbon is formed”. However, based on aforementioned ed interpretation, it is not clear if the claimed “a sawtooth waveform” recited in line 3 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “sawtooth waveform” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or not, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “measuring the creep of the hydro-generator by using the image monitoring according to claim 1” in lines 1-2 of the claim. Claim 2 is indefinite because it merely recites a use (e.g. “by using image monitoring”) without reciting any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 3-6 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “measuring the creep of the hydro-generator by using the image monitoring according to claim 1” in lines 1-2 of the claim. Claim 3 is indefinite because it merely recites a use (e.g. “by using image monitoring”) without reciting any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 4-6 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected claim 3.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “measuring the creep of the hydro-generator by using the image monitoring according to claim 2” in lines 1-2 of the claim. Claim 4 is indefinite because it merely recites a use (e.g. “by using image monitoring”) without reciting any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 5-6 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “measuring the creep of the hydro-generator by using the image monitoring according to claim 4” in lines 1-2 of the claim. Claim 5 is indefinite because it merely recites a use (e.g. “by using image monitoring”) without reciting any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 6 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “measuring method using the system for measuring the creep of the hydro-generator by using the image monitoring according to claim 5” in lines 1-2 of the claim. Claim 6 is indefinite because it merely recites a use (e.g. “using the system for measuring the creep of the hydro-generator by using the image monitoring”) without reciting any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1 recites the limitation “measuring creep of a hydro-generator by using image monitoring” in line 1 of the claim. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of aforementioned limitation, claim 1 is a “use” claim that is directed to non-statutory subject matter because it is a type of claim that describes how a known product or composition is used (e.g. “by using image monitoring”), but without specifying the actual steps or actions involved in that use and is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 2 recites the limitation “measuring the creep of the hydro-generator by using the image monitoring according to claim 1” in lines 1-2 of the claim. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of aforementioned limitation, claim 2 is a “use” claim that is directed to non-statutory subject matter because it is a type of claim that describes how a known product or composition is used (e.g. “by using image monitoring”), but without specifying the actual steps or actions involved in that use and is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 3 recites the limitation “measuring the creep of the hydro-generator by using the image monitoring according to claim 1” in lines 1-2 of the claim. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of aforementioned limitation, claim 3 is a “use” claim that is directed to non-statutory subject matter because it is a type of claim that describes how a known product or composition is used (e.g. “by using image monitoring”), but without specifying the actual steps or actions involved in that use and is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 4 recites the limitation “measuring the creep of the hydro-generator by using the image monitoring according to claim 2” in lines 1-2 of the claim. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of aforementioned limitation, claim 4 is a “use” claim that is directed to non-statutory subject matter because it is a type of claim that describes how a known product or composition is used (e.g. “by using image monitoring”), but without specifying the actual steps or actions involved in that use and is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 5 recites the limitation “measuring the creep of the hydro-generator by using the image monitoring according to claim 4” in lines 1-2 of the claim. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of aforementioned limitation, claim 5 is a “use” claim that is directed to non-statutory subject matter because it is a type of claim that describes how a known product or composition is used (e.g. “by using image monitoring”), but without specifying the actual steps or actions involved in that use and is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 6 recites the limitation “measuring method using the system for measuring the creep of the hydro-generator by using the image monitoring according to claim 5” in lines 1-2 of the claim. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of aforementioned limitation, claim 6 is a “use” claim that is directed to non-statutory subject matter because it is a type of claim that describes how a known product or composition is used (e.g. “using the system for measuring the creep of the hydro-generator by using the image monitoring”), but without specifying the actual steps or actions involved in that use and is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in PTO-892 and not relied upon appears to be pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4979. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights