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 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). Each feature specified in the claims must be shown in the drawings or made the subject of a disclaimer. The following features recited in the claims are not depicted in the drawings:
Position sensors and temperature sensors recited in claim 14. These elements are described in paragraph [0059] of the specification but are not illustrated in any figure.
Corrected drawings, in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d), are required in reply to this Office Action.
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0030] recites: "The contact area 17 of the S-brake plate 14, which is located between the induction area 10 and the profile area 9 …." The reference numeral 9 is identified in the List of Numerals as the "conductor area," not the "profile area" (which is identified as element 11). Correction is required.
Paragraph [0047] recites: "The S-brake plate 16 is fastened to the fastening profiles 6 with the fastening screws 8." The reference numeral 16 is identified in the List of Numerals as the "contact surface of a segment 20," not the S-brake plate (which is identified as element 14). Correction is required.
Paragraph [0058] ends with the sentence: "The two contact conductors of an S-brake plate are moved synchronously to the ON or OFF position – and claim 13." The trailing phrase "– and claim 13" appears to be an editorial artifact and should be removed.
Paragraph [0026] refers to "claims 1 to 3" and "claims 4 to 14," which no longer accurately characterizes the amended claim set (now claims 1–20). Update is recommended for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 — Lack of Written Description
Claims 1, 4, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Regarding claim 1, the final clause recites based on the conveying of the contact conductor into the ON position or the OFF position, reducing the braking force of the WBS. The specification at paragraph [0045] discloses that when the contact conductors are in the ON position, the spring contacts short-circuit the segments and the braking force is at its maximum; paragraph [0046] discloses that the OFF position interrupts the connections and opens the short circuits of the segments. Accordingly, the specification supports reducing the braking force only when the contact conductor is conveyed into the OFF position, not when conveyed into the ON position. The claim as drafted recites that reducing occurs based on either position, which is not supported by the original disclosure.
Regarding claim 4, the same defect is present. The clause recites an ON actuator and an OFF actuator with which a contact conductor can be conveyed into an ON position or into an OFF position to reduce the braking force of the WBS. For the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1, the specification does not support reducing the braking force in both the ON and OFF positions of the contact conductor.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites electrically connecting the WBS followed by increasing the braking force of the WBS in response to electrically connecting the WBS. The specification consistently discloses electrically connecting or short-circuiting the segments of the S-brake plate (see paragraphs [0026], [0042]–[0045]), not "electrically connecting the WBS" itself. The recited action of electrically connecting the WBS as a whole is not supported by the specification as filed.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites short-circuiting the WBS followed by increasing the braking force of the WBS in response to short-circuiting the WBS. For the reasons stated above with respect to claim 15, the specification discloses short-circuiting the segments of the S-brake plate, not short-circuiting the WBS itself.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the braking force of the WBS is increased in response to electrically connecting the WBS or short-circuiting the WBS. For the reasons stated above with respect to claims 15 and 16, the recited subject matter is not supported by the original disclosure.
Claims 2-3, 5-14, and 17-19 are rejected for being dependent on claims 1 and 4.
Claim 8 — Combining Mutually Exclusive Embodiments
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 8 depends from claim 5 and recites the contact conductor comprises two rows of individually spring-loaded plug contacts. Parent claim 5, however, defines the contact conductor as having spring contacts that, in the ON position, make contact with the contact surfaces of the plurality of segments and that, in the OFF position, are insulated from the contact surfaces of the plurality of segments by an air gap. The specification at paragraphs [0049]–[0052] describes the spring-contact embodiment (Figure 6) and the plug-contact embodiment (Figure 7) as two distinct alternative embodiments — the spring-contact embodiment uses spring contacts (29) on a contact conductor (28); the plug-contact embodiment uses plug contacts (34) on a contact conductor (32). The specification does not describe a single contact conductor that comprises both spring contacts and two rows of plug contacts. Accordingly, the claimed structure of a single contact conductor having both spring contacts (per claim 5) and plug contacts (per claim 8) is not supported by the original disclosure.
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 1-20 — Logical Contradiction with Specification
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. As discussed above with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection, claim 1 recites based on the conveying of the contact conductor into the ON position or the OFF position, reducing the braking force of the WBS, and claim 4 recites the analogous limitation to reduce the braking force of the WBS. A person of ordinary skill in the art reading these claims in light of the specification cannot ascertain the metes and bounds, because the specification teaches that conveying the contact conductor into the ON position increases braking force (by short-circuiting the segments — see paragraph [0045]) while conveying the contact conductor into the OFF position reduces braking force (by opening the segment short circuits — see paragraph [0046]). The claim language stating that reducing occurs based on either ON or OFF position is internally inconsistent with the specification and renders the scope of the claims unclear.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for being dependent on claims 1 and 4.
Claims 5–14 and 17–20 — Lack of Antecedent Basis for "the S-brake plate"
Claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failure to provide proper antecedent basis for the recited term the S-brake plate. Independent claim 4, from which these claims directly or indirectly depend, recites only at least one brake plate and does not introduce the term "S-brake plate." Although amended claim 1 introduces the term segmented brake plates (S-brake plates), the device claim 4 does not contain a corresponding antecedent. Consequently, each subsequent reference to the S-brake plate in claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, and 20 lacks proper antecedent basis. Correction is required, for example, by amending claim 4 to introduce segmented brake plates (S-brake plates) in a manner analogous to claim 1.
Claim 5 — Quantity Ambiguity
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for the following further reasons:
Claim 5 recites that switches are provided each having two pairs of actuators, and further recites that each pair of actuators comprises the ON actuator and the OFF actuator. The use of definite articles ("the ON actuator" and "the OFF actuator") implies prior, singular antecedents; however, where multiple pairs of actuators are present, the singular references render unclear which ON actuator and which OFF actuator are intended.
Claim 9 — Lack of Antecedent Basis for "the plug contacts" and "the slots"
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Claim 9 depends from claim 5 and recites the spring contacts, the plug contacts and the contact surfaces of the plurality of segments are coated with a contact material and the slots are filled with an insulator. However, the plug contacts are introduced only in claim 8 and not in claim 5, and the slots are introduced in claim 4 but not in claim 5. Accordingly, both the plug contacts and the slots lack antecedent basis in the claim 5 → claim 9 dependency chain. Correction is required, for example, by re-pointing claim 9's dependency or by introducing the missing antecedents in claim 5.
Claims 13 and 14 — Singular/Plural Mismatch for "contact conductor(s)"
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Claim 13 recites the contact conductors of the S-brake plate are synchronously conveyed into an ON or OFF state, and claim 14 recites position sensors configured to detect when the contact conductors reach the ON position and the OFF position. Parent claim 5, however, introduces only a contact conductor in the singular. The plural recitation in claims 13 and 14 therefore lacks proper antecedent basis. Correction is required to make the references consistent (e.g., by amending claim 5 to introduce contact conductors in the plural, consistent with the disclosure at paragraph [0044] which describes two contact conductors per S-brake plate).
Claim 8 — Improper Dependent Form
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form because it fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends. Parent claim 5 requires the contact conductor to have spring contacts that, in the ON position, make contact with the contact surfaces of the segments, and that, in the OFF position, are insulated from the contact surfaces by an air gap. Claim 8 attempts to alter this structure by reciting that the contact conductor comprises two rows of individually spring-loaded plug contacts between which the S-brake plate is inserted. The specification at paragraphs [0049]–[0052] makes clear that the spring-contact embodiment (Figure 6) and the plug-contact embodiment (Figure 7) are alternative species, not species in which one further limits the other. Claim 8 therefore does not further limit claim 5 but rather substitutes a different structure for the contact conductor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1–20 contain allowable subject matter and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), § 112(b), and § 112(d) set forth in this Office Action.
Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record — Pribonic (US 2008/0105503 A1), Felix (US 3,206,655), Baermann (US 4,482,034), and Shi (CN 105591523 A) teach all the limitations except "segmenting, via slots in the at least one brake plate, the at least one brake plate into segmented brake plates (S-brake plates); dividing, via the slots in the at least one brake plate, the at least one brake plate into open segments which are insulated from one another and which reduce a braking force of the linear eddy-current brake (WBS) compared with a continuous brake plate; electrically connecting or short-circuiting the open segments via pairs of actuators, wherein each pair of actuators comprises an ON actuator and an OFF actuator; conveying a contact conductor into an ON position or an OFF position", as recited in claim 1. Claims 2-3 and 15-16 are allowed for being dependent on claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the same reasoning applies. The device of claim 4 recites slots in the at least one brake plate segment and divide the at least one brake plate into open segments which are insulated from one another and that the open segments are electrically connected or short-circuited by pairs of actuators, wherein each pair of actuators comprises an ON actuator and an OFF actuator with which a contact conductor can be conveyed into an ON position or into an OFF position. This structural arrangement is not taught or suggested by Pribonic, Felix, Baermann, or Shi, individually or in in combination. Claims 5-14 and 17-20 are allowed for being dependent on claim 4.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
SPIELDIENER(US6062350A) is an application with a similar braking system for an amusement device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 571-272-2098. 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 http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights