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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 15-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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:
"a restriction member" in claims 1, 15-17; which is being interpreted as a "lock pin" as in [0048].
"a reception portion" in claims 1, 15-17; which is being interpreted as a "shaft groove" as in [0050]
"an energization drive unit" in claims 1 and 15-17; which is being interpreted as a "solenoid" as in [0060].
"an energization unit" in claims 15-16; which is being interpreted as a "solenoid coil" as in [0060].
"an energization-based restriction portion" in claims 1 and 18; which is being interpreted as "a plunger" as in [0026].
"a mechanical permission portion" in claim 1, 15-18; which is being interpreted as "a pressing unit" as in [0025], and "a pressing unit" which is being interpreted as "a pressing member" as in [0054] which is additionally being interpreted as "an elastic member such as a spring" as in [0054].
“a restriction command process” in claims 1, 15-18; However, there appears to be no mention of “a restriction command process” in the immediate specification or the original claims and has no apparent steps associated with said restriction command process and renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
“a restriction release process” in claims 1, 15-18; However, there appears to be no mention of “a restriction release process” in the immediate specification or the original claims and has no apparent steps associated with said restriction release process and renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
“a release confirmation process” in claims 1, 15-18; which is being interpreted as, “In the release confirmation process, on an assumption that the lock of the propeller 20 is released, the motor 61 is energized such that the propeller 20 rotates. In the release confirmation process, on an assumption that the lock of the propeller 20 is not released, the motor 61 is energized such that a rotational force that does not deform the lock pin 101 is generated in the propeller 20.” as in paragraph [0086].
“a rotation deceleration process” in claim 17; which in being interpreted as “In the rotation deceleration process, the motor control is performed to slow down the rotation of the motor 61.” as in paragraph [0074].
"a first energization unit" in claim 18; which is being interpreted as a "first solenoid coil" as in
[0136].
"a second energization unit" in claim 18; which is being interpreted as a "second solenoid coil" as in [0136].
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 Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 3-5 recite, “a restriction confirmation process for confirming that the rotary blade does not rotate by generating a rotation force in the rotary blade”. The Examiner notes that [0080] of the immediate specification indicates, “The lock confirmation process is a process for confirming that the propeller 20 does not rotate. In the lock confirmation process, on an assumption that the lock pin 101 is moved to the locked position P11, the motor 61 is energized such that a rotational force that does not release the engagement between the lock pin 101 and the shaft groove 55 is generated in the propeller 20. In the lock confirmation process, on an assumption that the lock pin 101 is not moved to the locked position P11, the motor 61 is energized such that a rotational force larger than the frictional force between the pin portion 103 and the shaft outer circumferential surface 51a is generated in the propeller 20.” and “a restriction confirmation process” should read as “a lock confirmation process” to conform with the immediate specification.
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 and 15-25 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.
Regarding claim 1:
The claim recites, “a restriction command process” in line 20; However, there appears to be no mention of “a restriction command process” in the immediate specification or the original claims and has no apparent steps associated with said restriction command process and therefore does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention as the time of filing.
The claim recites, “a restriction release process” in line 22; However, there appears to be no mention of “a restriction release process” in the immediate specification or the original claims and has no apparent steps associated with said restriction release process and therefore does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention as the time of filing.
Claims 18-25 are rejected based on their dependencies.
Regarding claim 15:
The claim recites, “a restriction command process” in line 20; However, there appears to be no mention of “a restriction command process” in the immediate specification or the original claims and has no apparent steps associated with said restriction command process and therefore does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention as the time of filing.
The claim recites, “a restriction release process” in line 22; However, there appears to be no mention of “a restriction release process” in the immediate specification or the original claims and has no apparent steps associated with said restriction release process and therefore does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention as the time of filing.
Regarding claim 16:
The claim recites, “a restriction command process” in line 20; However, there appears to be no mention of “a restriction command process” in the immediate specification or the original claims and has no apparent steps associated with said restriction command process and therefore does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention as the time of filing.
The claim recites, “a restriction release process” in line 23; However, there appears to be no mention of “a restriction release process” in the immediate specification or the original claims and has no apparent steps associated with said restriction release process and therefore does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention as the time of filing.
Regarding claim 17:
The claim recites, “a restriction command process” in line 20; However, there appears to be no mention of “a restriction command process” in the immediate specification or the original claims and has no apparent steps associated with said restriction command process and therefore does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention as the time of filing.
The claim recites, “a restriction release process” in line 22; However, there appears to be no mention of “a restriction release process” in the immediate specification or the original claims and has no apparent steps associated with said restriction release process and therefore does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention as the time of filing.
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 and 15-25 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.
Regarding claim 1:
The claim recites, “a restriction command process” in line 20; However, there appears to be no mention of “a restriction command process” in the immediate specification or the original claims and has no apparent steps associated with said restriction command process and renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
The claim recites, “a restriction release process” in line 22; However, there appears to be no mention of “a restriction release process” in the immediate specification or the original claims and has no apparent steps associated with said restriction release process and renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 18-25 are rejected based on their dependencies.
Regarding claim 15:
The claim recites, “a restriction command process” in line 20; However, there appears to be no mention of “a restriction command process” in the immediate specification or the original claims and has no apparent steps associated with said restriction command process and renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
The claim recites, “a restriction release process” in line 22; However, there appears to be no mention of “a restriction release process” in the immediate specification or the original claims and has no apparent steps associated with said restriction release process and renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16:
The claim recites, “a restriction command process” in line 20; However, there appears to be no mention of “a restriction command process” in the immediate specification or the original claims and has no apparent steps associated with said restriction command process and renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
The claim recites, “a restriction release process” in line 23; However, there appears to be no mention of “a restriction release process” in the immediate specification or the original claims and has no apparent steps associated with said restriction release process and renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17:
The claim recites, “a restriction command process” in line 20; However, there appears to be no mention of “a restriction command process” in the immediate specification or the original claims and has no apparent steps associated with said restriction command process and renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
The claim recites, “a restriction release process” in line 22; However, there appears to be no mention of “a restriction release process” in the immediate specification or the original claims and has no apparent steps associated with said restriction release process and renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571)-270-3508. 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.
/R.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3745 /COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745