DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/9/2025, 3/31/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, at least in Fig. 9, the failsafe device configured to operate in two modes, in a normal mode configured to perform operation by at least one non-electronic system when said at least one non-electronic system is controlled by said at least one electronic system and in an emergency mode, said failsafe device is configured so that said operation is still performed by said at least one non- electronic system without control by said one or more electronic system must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 22, 24 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitations “the one or more operations” in lines 7, 8, 11, 14, and 17 of claim 21 should read “the one or more basic operations” for consistency throughout the claims to avoid confusion.
The limitation “the at least one electronic control system” in lines 1-2 of claim 22 should read “the at least one electronic system”, referencing the same element in claim 21.
The limitations “the one or more operations” in line 1 of claim 24 should read “the one or more basic operations” for consistency throughout the claims to avoid confusion.
The limitations “the emergency mode” in line 1 of claim 29 should read “the emergency performance mode” for consistency throughout the claims to avoid confusion.
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 21-35 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 21 recites a failsafe device “being capable of one or more basic operations selected from the group consisting of a power generation operation, furnace operation, a heating operation, and a cooling operation”. However, the originally filed specification merely provided these in a general list of operations without any descriptions, details or explanations as to what these operations relates to one another as part or as a whole of the failsafe device. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot recognize what possibility the fail-safe device may be without sufficient descriptions and/or disclosures. For instance, the claim recites “a power generation operation”. Nowhere in the originally filed specification provide any descriptions or definition of what this operation may be. The only disclosure of the term in paragraphs 0067, 0086, and 0091 of the PGPub of the present application merely appeared within a laundry list of general operations without any specificities lack written descriptions toward the present claimed invention. Further, “a furnace operation”, which only appeared in paragraphs 0067 and 0092 of the PGPub within a laundry list also lack written descriptions.
Claims 22-33, depend on claim 21 include all its limitations also fail to meet written description requirement.
Claim 34 recites a failsafe device having at least two different modes of operation, wherein the device is configured to be a part of or a whole of an electrical power generation system. Similar to the discussion above, an electrical power generation system is only mentioned with high generality in paragraph 0086 of the PGPub within a laundry list of devices, equipment and systems has insufficient description or definition as to what the system may be and what is its structural details or relationships between components, if any, that can achieve the function(s) presently claimed.
Claim 35 recites a failsafe device having at least two different modes of operation, wherein the device is configured to be a part of or a whole of a telecommunications system. Similar to the discussion above, a telecommunications system is only mentioned with high generality in paragraphs 0064 and 0086 of the PGPub within a laundry list of devices, equipment and systems has insufficient description or definition as to what the system may be and what is its structural details or relationships between components, if any, that can achieve the function(s) presently claimed.
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 21-35 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 21 recites, as discussed above, a failsafe device “being capable of one or more basic operations selected from the group consisting of a power generation operation, furnace operation, a heating operation, and a cooling operation”, lacks written descriptions, render the claim indefinite because the originally filed specification merely provided these in a general list of operations without any descriptions, details or explanations as to what these operations relates to one another as part or as a whole of the failsafe device. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot recognize what possibility the fail-safe device may be without sufficient descriptions and/or disclosures. Therefore, it is indefinite.
Claims 22-33, depend on claim 21 include all its limitations are also indefinite.
Claim 32, which depends on claim 21 recites the limitation "said one or more internal hardware access barriers" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites a failsafe device having at least two different modes of operation, wherein the device is configured to be a part of or a whole of an electrical power generation system. Similar to the discussion above, an electrical power generation system is only mentioned with high generality in paragraph 0086 of the PGPub within a laundry list of devices, equipment and systems has insufficient description or definition as to what the system may be and what is its structural details or relationships between components, if any, that can achieve the function(s) presently claimed. Therefore, the limitations render the claims indefinite.
Claim 35 recites a failsafe device having at least two different modes of operation, wherein the device is configured to be a part of or a whole of a telecommunications system. Similar to the discussion above, a telecommunications system is only mentioned with high generality in paragraphs 0064 and 0086 of the PGPub within a laundry list of devices, equipment and systems has insufficient description or definition as to what the system may be and what is its structural details or relationships between components, if any, that can achieve the function(s) presently claimed. Therefore, the limitations render the claims indefinite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2012/0328270 A1) Dykman, given the BRI to the indefinite claims above, relates to a heating and cooling system switching automatically into an emergency shutdown mode when failure of the electronic control unit is detected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657