DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 appears to contain a typographical error, reciting “wherein a signal is received the ESC to indicate”, versus -wherein a signal is received by the ESC to indicate-.
Claims 12-20 are all directed to a system; however, said claims are presented as depending from claim 10 (which depends in-turn from claims 5 and 1). Claims 1, 5, and 10 are all directed to a method. It appears that claims 12-20 were intended to depend from claim 11 as claim 11 introduces a system. For the purposes of examination, claims 12-20 are interpreted as depending from claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 6, 9-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 introduces “an engine standby controller (ESC)”. Afterwards, claim 5 recites “when the engine is electrically connected to or at least partially controlled by an ESC”. It is unclear if the claim is referring to the same “ESC” in both instances.
Claims 9 and 10 are similarly rejected as the depend from claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the pressure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 is incomplete, ending with: “wherein the accumulator device and the safety block are configured to.” It is unclear what the accumulator device and the safety block are configured to do.
Claims 12-20 are similarly rejected as the depend from claim 11. See noted above, under Claim Objections, that claims 12-20, while presented as depending from claim 10, are interpreted as depending from claim 11.
Claim 14 introduces “a check valve” however, a check valve is previously introduced in claim 11. It is unclear if the noted limitations are referring to the same check valve.
See noted above, under Claim Objections, that claim 14, while presented as depending from claim 10 are interpreted as depending from claim 11.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the two-way solenoid valve”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 introduces “a pressure sensor” however, a pressure sensor is previously introduced in claim 11. It is unclear if the noted limitations are referring to the same pressure sensor.
See noted above, under Claim Objections, that claim 17, while presented as depending from claim 10 are interpreted as depending from claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 appears to contain allowable subject matter.
Claims 2-4 and 7-8 also appear to contain allowable subject matter, as they depend from claim 1 and do not contain separate rejections.
Claim 11 appears that it would contain allowable subject matter, should the 35 USC 112 rejection, noted above, be overcome.
Examiner Note
Finally, Examiner notes that the instant application is a continuation of applications 18/410,565 and 17/453,916 (Now US Patent Numbers 12,188,341 and 11,905,810). The instant application DOES NOT appear to raise issues of Double Patenting as currently presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB M AMICK whose telephone number is (571)272-5790. The examiner can normally be reached Core Hours 10-6 M-F (First Fridays Off).
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/JACOB M AMICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747