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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 11/20/2024 (claimed foreign priority date 07/28/2022):
Claims 1-11 have been examined.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
L = line, e.g., l25 = line 25; l25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Specification
1. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
1.1 In Para [0009, 0018, 0050] the specification designates the “coil of the power supply relay” as “K1,” while in Para [0038, 0050-0052] the specification designates the “coil of the power supply relay” as “8.” Clarification and/or appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the Examiner will interpret that the “coil of the power supply relay” is designated as “K1,” similar to how it is designated and recited n the claims 1 and 8.
1.2 In Para [0018] the specification designates both the ”power supply relay” as “K1;” and “coil of the power supply relay” as “K1.” Clarification and/or appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
1. 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 “excavator system power supply” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “8” has been used to designate both “Power supply relay,” in fig. 1; and “K1 – coil of power supply relay,” in fig. 3.
3. 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.
Claim Objections
1. Claims 1 and 11 objected to because of the following informalities: in the claim preambles, it is recommended to insert a “colon” (punctuation mark used to precede a list of items, a quotation, or an expansion of explanation) after the term(s) “comprising/comprises” for conformance with other claim preambles. Appropriate correction is required.
2. Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 recites the designation “K1” for both limitations/features: “coil of the power supply relay” and the “power supply relay.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
1. 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.
1.1 This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “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) but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “engine starting unit,” “switch control unit,” “biometric unit,” “engine control module,” “communication module,” “mobile terminal” in claims 1-2, 5-7, 9 and 11.
Per fig. 1-4, Para [0030, 0036, 0041, 0044-0045, 0047-0053] of the specification, at least as published, the claimed/specified “units,” “modules,” “terminal” appear to be structure elements/components of a bigger structure(s).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
1.1 Claims 1-11 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.
1.1.1 Claim 1 recites the limitation "the on-off of the excavator system power supply" in the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
1.1.2 Claims 2-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 1, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
2. Claims 2-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
LI (US20230352257) – (see entire LI document, particularly abstract – teaching a relay protective device, a construction machine, a relay protection control method and apparatus, and a computer readable storage medium; the relay protective device that includes: a power supply input contact; a relay protective module comprising a bistable relay and an output contact, wherein the bistable relay comprises a contact, a pull-in coil, and a release coil; an input terminal of the contact, an input terminal of the pull-in coil, and an input terminal of the release coil are connected to the power supply input contact; an output terminal of the contact is connected to the output contact; and a central control unit comprising a first port connected to the output contact, a second port connected to an output terminal of the pull-in coil, and a third port connected to an output terminal of the release coil; the central control unit is used for controlling the pull-in coil and the release coil to be alternately powered on so as to oscillate the contact when a voltage of the output contact is less than a first threshold and is not less than a second threshold, wherein the first threshold is less than a standard working voltage of the bistable relay, and the second threshold is the minimum allowable working voltage of the bistable relay).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. 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://pair-direct.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).
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.
/YURI KAN, P.E./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662