DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
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) is/are: “receiving unit”, “processing unit”, and “storage unit” in claims 32-43; and “transmission unit” in claims 33-35. These units are supported by structure in the specification which is interpreted as being configured to perform the functions attributed to each in the claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/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(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/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 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 40-42 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 40 recites “the visual indicator responsive to the processing unit to provide a visual indication of a danger condition in the structure”, but the application as originally filed (See provisional 63024500, filed 05/13/2020) does not describe any structure of the visual indicator which is linked to the processing unit in order to provide this responsive functioning, and does not detail the visual indicator much at all in the context of this specifically claimed “structure” embodiment of the disclosure. This responsiveness of the visual indicator in claim 40 is therefore unsupported in the originally filed application, and considered new matter. Relevant paragraphs 00100 and 00111 are directed to an indicator structure which is different from the generated indicator of paragraph 00109 which is a signal generated by the processing unit, and which is not described as being controlled responsive to the processing unit.
Claims 41-42 are also rejected by virtue of dependence.
Claim 42 also recites “an audible responsive to the processing unit to provide an acoustical indication of a danger condition in the structure”, but an “audible” is not described in the application as originally filed as being responsive to the processing unit. Therefore, this limitation is considered new matter as well.
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 40-42 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.
As noted above, Claim 40 recites “the visual indicator responsive to the processing unit to provide a visual indication of a danger condition in the structure”, but the claim and disclosure do not describe any structure of the visual indicator which is linked to the processing unit in order to provide this responsive functioning, and does not detail the visual indicator much at all in the context of this specifically claimed “structure” embodiment of the disclosure. This issue also renders the actual structure of claim 40 unclear because no understanding of potential structure to perform the functioning is actually conveyed by the disclosure.
Claims 41-42 are also rejected by virtue of dependence.
As noted above, Claim 42 also recites “an audible responsive to the processing unit to provide an acoustical indication of a danger condition in the structure”, but an audible is not a structural element, and is not described in the specification as being responsive to the processing unit, further compounding the lack of clarity from claim 40.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32-39 and 43 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach the structure that accepts a plurality of vehicles, which includes computing structure which receives signals from vehicles entering the structure which are encoded with information identifying energy sources used by the vehicles, and identifies the energy sources used by the vehicle. This has clear benefits for emergency response, as well as for controlling risk.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The collection of closest art is cited in the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R STECKBAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-0433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30-7:30 PST.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/KEVIN R STECKBAUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747