DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: Application filed on 09/17/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for Examination. Claims 1 and 12 are independent.
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 .
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 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.
Claim 1 recites that the rotor controller is configured: “to compare a time when the
threshold value of the control pulse is received with a time that the rotor angular position pulse is transmitted and to adjust rotation speed of the rotor when there is a difference…”
The specification describes that the control pulse period may be proportional to the desired rotation period and may be a rational multiple or a whole fraction of the rotor rotation period. However, the specification does not provide sufficient detail showing possession of the full scope of comparing the threshold value time with the rotor angular position pulse time for all such pulse-period relationships. In particular, where the control pulse period is longer than the rotor rotation period, multiple rotor angular position pulses may occur between control pulse threshold events. The specification does not adequately describe which rotor angular position pulse is selected for comparison or how the timing comparison is performed in those circumstances. Therefore, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed timing-comparison function across the full scope of claim 1.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further recites calculating an expected time of position pulse transmission and comparing the actual pulse transmission time to the expected time. The specification does not provide sufficient detail describing how the expected time is calculated for each claimed proportional relationship between the control pulse period and the rotor rotation period. Claim 3 is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 12 recites that the rotor controller is configured: “to transmit a rotor position pulse and/or rotor phase information to the tool controller once every predetermined angular displacement of the rotor” and further recites comparing:
“the time the rotor angular position pulse is transmitted to the expected time of position pulse transmission…”.The specification describes rotor angular position pulses and also generally mentions rotor phase information. However, the specification does not adequately describe how the claimed timing comparison is performed when only rotor phase information is transmitted instead of a rotor position pulse. Because claim 12 covers an embodiment in which no rotor position pulse is transmitted, but still requires comparing the time of transmission of a rotor angular position pulse, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of the full claimed scope.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and includes similar limitations regarding the control pulse and comparison of the control pulse threshold with the rotor angular position pulse and/or rotor phase information. Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Under MPEP § 2164, the enablement requirement is satisfied when the specification teaches one of ordinary skill in the art how to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
The claims require the rotor controller to perform timing comparisons and speed adjustments based on differences between control pulse threshold times, rotor angular position pulse transmission times, and expected pulse transmission times. However, the specification does not provide sufficient implementation detail, algorithmic steps, or control logic for carrying out these timing comparisons across the full scope of the claims, particularly when:
1. the control pulse period is a multiple of the rotor rotation period;2. the control pulse period is a fraction of the rotor rotation period;3. rotor angular position pulses occur more frequently than control pulse threshold events; or
4. only rotor phase information, rather than a rotor position pulse, is transmitted.The specification states the desired result of adjusting rotor speed when a timing difference exists, but does not adequately teach how the rotor controller determines the appropriate timing difference and corresponding adjustment over the full claimed scope.
Accordingly, undue experimentation would be required to practice the full scope of claims 1, 3, 12, and 13.
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 12-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites: “to transmit a rotor position pulse and/or rotor phase information to the tool controller once every predetermined angular displacement of the rotor”and further recites: “to compare the time the rotor angular position pulse is transmitted to the expected time of position pulse transmission…”
The use of “and/or” renders the scope unclear because claim 12 covers multiple alternatives, including:
1.transmitting only a rotor position pulse;
2.transmitting only rotor phase information; or
3. transmitting both a rotor position pulse and rotor phase information.However, the subsequent comparison step requires comparing the time the rotor angular position pulse is transmitted to an expected time of position pulse transmission. If only rotor phase information is transmitted, it is unclear how the claimed comparison is performed, because no rotor angular position pulse would necessarily be transmitted.Accordingly, the claim is internally inconsistent and fails to clearly define whether the rotor controller must transmit a pulse, phase information, or both.
Claims 13, 15, and 16 depend from claim 12 and contain similar “and/or” language directed to use of a rotor angular position pulse and/or rotor phase information. Therefore, claims 13, 15, and 16 are indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 13 recites: “a rotor controller further configured to receive the control pulse…”
However, claim 12 already recites a rotor controller. Claim 13 then introduces:
“a rotor controller further configured…”
It is unclear whether claim 13 is referring to the same rotor controller previously recited in claim 12 or is introducing an additional rotor controller. The phrase lacks antecedent clarity and creates uncertainty regarding the number and identity of rotor controllers in the claimed system.
See MPEP § 2173.05(e) regarding lack of antecedent basis and unclear claim references.Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
Claim 1 recites: “to compare a time when the threshold value of the control pulse is received with a time that the rotor angular position pulse is transmitted”Claim 12 similarly recites comparison of: “the time the rotor angular position pulse is transmitted to the expected time of position pulse transmission…”
The claims fail to specify which rotor angular position pulse transmission time is being compared. The specification states that the rotor angular position pulse may be transmitted once per revolution or once every other predetermined angular displacement. The control pulse period may be a rational multiple or fraction of the desired rotation period.For example, where the control pulse period is multiple revolutions of the rotor, several rotor angular position pulses may occur between successive threshold values of the control pulse. The claim does not specify whether the comparison is made to:
1. the most recent rotor angular position pulse;
2. the next rotor angular position pulse;
3. a pulse occurring during the same revolution;
4. a predicted pulse; or
5. some other selected pulse.
Thus, the scope of the claimed comparison is unclear. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine with reasonable certainty which timing event is required by the claim.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 12 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Appropriate correction is requested.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8439. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 6:00pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 571-272-2060. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights