DETAILED ACTION
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 27-43 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.
Re claim 27, the claim recites within the third limitation “detecting the probability that human accessible emission levels from said wireless power transmission a predetermined threshold”, but using the article “the” within the phrase “the probability” suggest that there is a probability previously stated. However, there is no mention of “a probability” such that the phrase “the probability” lacks antecedent basis hence it is unclear what is being detected. Additionally, there is no mention of any previous disclosure of determining the probability that human access emission levels from said wireless power transmission system exceeds a predetermined threshold, such that there is no way to determine from where or how this is being detected from.
Additionally, the claim recites within the last step “executing one or more responses based on the result of said comparison, said responses being configured to achieve at least one of:
reducing the probability of occurrence of one or more of said potential unwanted situations
reducing the effect of one or more said potential unwanted situations, and
facilitating successful recovery from one or more of said potential unwanted situations.”
Within these limitations, the references of “the effect of one or more potential unwanted situations” is unclear what “effect” is being referred to within the phrase of “one or more potential unwanted situations”. Rather, in the instance that “one or more potential unwanted situations” was mentioned, it states “an increased probability of one or more potential unwanted situations”, such that no effect was mentioned and is unclear as these unwanted situations are still a potential and therefore it is unclear if there is an effect.
Along similar ways to thinking, the limitation of “facilitating successful recovery from one or more potential unwanted situations”, such that the term “potential” is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “existing in possibility: capable of development into actuality” and “expressing possibility”, such that it is not currently in existence. Hence, it is unclear how one of facilitate a “successful recovery” from something that does not currently exists.
Re claims 28-39, these claims are dependent upon claim 27 and do not remedy the issues within claim 27, such that they also suffer from the issues previously presented.
Reclaim 40, the claim recites within the third limitation “detecting the probability that human accessible emission levels from said wireless power transmission a predetermined threshold”, but using the article “the” within the phrase “the probability” suggest that there is a probability previously stated. However, there is no mention of “a probability” such that the phrase “the probability” lacks antecedent basis hence it is unclear what is being detected. Additionally, there is no mention of any previous disclosure of determining the probability that human access emission levels from said wireless power transmission system exceeds a predetermined threshold, such that there is no way to determine from where or how this is being detected from.
Additionally, the claim recites within the last step “executing one or more responses based on the result of said comparison, said responses being configured to achieve at least one of:
reducing the probability of occurrence of one or more of said potential unwanted situations
reducing the effect of one or more said potential unwanted situations, and
facilitating successful recovery from one or more of said potential unwanted situations.”
Within these limitations, the references of “the effect of one or more potential unwanted situations” is unclear what “effect” is being referred to within the phrase of “one or more potential unwanted situations”. Rather, in the instance that “one or more potential unwanted situations” was mentioned, it states “an increased probability of one or more potential unwanted situations”, such that no effect was mentioned and is unclear as these unwanted situations are still a potential and therefore it is unclear if there is an effect.
Along similar ways to thinking, the limitation of “facilitating successful recovery from one or more potential unwanted situations”, such that the term “potential” is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “existing in possibility: capable of development into actuality” and “expressing possibility”, such that it is not currently in existence. Hence, it is unclear how one of facilitate a “successful recovery” from something that does not currently exists and therefore furthering the indefinite scope of the claim.
Reclaims 41-43, these claims are dependent upon claim 40 and do not remedy the issues within claim 40, such that they also suffer from the issues previously presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7488. The examiner can normally be reached 9-4.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
TANYA MOTSINGER
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/TANYA T MOTSINGER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2635
