DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 1/17/2025 and 3/26/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC §112f
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 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.
The following elements are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Regarding claim 14, “storage unit” (because A – “unit” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “on which at least one selected from the group consisting of an energy storage unit threshold value and an actuation element threshold value is stored” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “storage unit” is understood as equivalent to “means for storing one selected from the group consisting of an energy storage unit threshold value and an actuation element threshold value”). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is an electrical capacitor or a battery (see page 4, lines 12-15 of the specification dated 01/17/2025 or equivalent.
If the 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(b)
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 9, and 11-13, the phrase “…triggering a blocking signal when the bias element state parameter is outside the normal range” lacks antecedent basis for “the normal range.” Earlier in the claim, applicant introduces a “standard range” assigned to the bias element state parameter. It is unclear if “normal range” is intended to be synonymous with “standard range” or if it introduces a new, undefined boundary.
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 11-13, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependence upon rejected claim 2.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wiker (DE 102018200197 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wiker discloses a method (Described in ¶s [0043] - [0054] and shown in figures 1 and 2) for operating an emergency brake unit (Paragraph [0010]) for a motor-driven tool (Figures 1 and 2, #1), wherein the emergency brake unit has an actuator (Figures 1 and 2, #10) with an actuation element (Figures 1 and 2, #10 as part of the actuator; described in ¶ [0044]) and at least one electrical energy storage unit (Figures 1 and 2, #14), which is electrically coupled to the actuation element (Figures 1 and 2, #10) via an electrical switching element (Figures 1 and 2, #12), in such a way that the actuation element is configured to be selectively supplied with electrical energy stored in the energy storage unit by actuating the switching element (Described in ¶ [0036]), the method comprising:
detecting an energy storage unit state parameter (Z1) (Described in ¶ [0037]) which characterises a state of the energy storage unit (Figures 1 and 2, #14) and/or an actuation element state parameter (Z2) (Described in ¶ [0037) which characterises a state of the actuation element (Figures 1 and 2, #10),
comparing (Described in ¶ [0037]) the detected energy storage unit state parameter (Z1) with an energy storage unit threshold value (Si) which limits a standard range assigned to the energy storage unit state parameter (Z1), and/or comparing the detected actuation element state parameter (Z2) with an actuation element threshold value (S2) which limits a standard range assigned to the actuation element state parameter (Z2) (Described in ¶ [0037]),
triggering a blocking signal (Described in ¶'s [0015] - [0022] - the "safety-relevant triggers") if at least one selected from the group consisting of the detected energy storage unit state parameter (Z1) and the detected actuation element state parameter (Z2) is outside the respectively assigned standard range (Described in claims 1-13).
Regarding claim 10, Wiker further discloses wherein the energy storage unit state parameter describes a storage capacity of the energy storage unit, and the energy storage unit threshold value (S1) describes a minimum permissible storage capacity (Paragraph [0046] describes a rechargeable lithium-ion battery).
Regarding claim 14, Wiker discloses a monitoring unit (Described in ¶s [0043] - [0054] and shown in figures 1 and 2) for monitoring a state of an emergency brake unit (Paragraph [0010]) for a motor-driven tool (Figures 1 and 2, #1), wherein the emergency brake unit has an actuator (Figures 1 and 2, #10) with an actuation element (Figures 1 and 2, #10 as part of the actuator; described in ¶ [0044]) and at least one electrical energy storage unit (Figures 1 and 2, #14), which is electrically coupled to the actuation element (Figures 1 and 2, #10) via an electrical switching element (Figures 1 and 2, #12), in such a way that the actuation element is configured to be selectively supplied with electrical energy stored in the energy storage unit by actuating the switching element (Described in ¶ [0036]), the monitoring unit comprising;
at least one state sensor which is designed to detect an energy storage unit state parameter (Z1) (Described in ¶ [0037]) which characterises a state of the energy storage unit (Figures 1 and 2, #14) and/or to detect an actuation element state parameter (Z2) (Described in ¶ [0037) which characterises a state of the actuation element (Figures 1 and 2, #10),
a storage unit, on which at least one selected from the group consisting of an energy storage unit threshold value (Si) (Described in ¶ [0037]) and an actuation element threshold value (S2) is stored, which limits a respectively assigned standard range (Described in ¶ [0037]),
a computing unit, which is designed to compare the energy storage unit state parameter (Z1) (Described in ¶ [0037]) detected by the state sensor with the energy storage unit threshold value (Sl) and/or to compare the detected actuation element state parameter (Z2) with the actuation element threshold value (S2) (Described in ¶ [0037]), and
a communication interface for triggering a blocking signal (Described in ¶'s [0015] - [0022] - the "safety-relevant triggers").
Regarding claim 15, Wiker further teaches an emergency brake unit for a motor-driven tool comprising a monitoring unit according to claim 14 (Described in claims 1-13).
Allowable Subject Matter
If the above rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are overcome, claims 2-9 and 11-13 would be 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 JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights