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.
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.
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: “at least one cutting device…configured to perform a resurfacing cut to resurface ice at the frozen surface of the skating area” in claim 24, and “a detection system for detecting the position configured to detect…the position of said machine relative to a map of said skating area” in claim 39.
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. The specification describes the at least one cutting device as a blade structure, and the detection system as a GPS, a LIDAR module and/or an IMU device.
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 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 39 and 40 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 39, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 40 is rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 24-26 and 33-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bremer (US 2020/0309521).
As concerns claim 24, Bremer shows an ice resurfacing machine (10) for resurfacing a frozen surface of a skating area, comprising: a towing vehicle (12); a slide (16) connected to said towing vehicle at the frozen surface; at least one cutting device (paragraph 0023: blade) fitted to said slide and configured to perform a resurfacing cut to resurface ice at the frozen surface of the skating area; means for removing ice (paragraph 0023: wash system) configured to remove the ice resurfaced by said cutting device, at least one sensor (paragraph 0038: ultrasound device) arranged on board said vehicle and configured at least to: detect a distance between said frozen surface of the skating area and a bottom surface of the skating area arranged below the frozen surface and on which the ice rests so as to determine a thickness of the ice (paragraph 0038: thickness profile; paragraph 0058: surface profiles & reference profile), during movement of said vehicle; and generate one or more detection signals containing thickness ice values of the thickness of the ice according to a position of the vehicle (Fig. 5); and a control unit (22) operationally connected to said sensor and configured to receive said one or more detection signals during the movement of said vehicle (Fig. 1; paragraph 0039).
As concerns claim 25, Bremer shows wherein said sensor (paragraph 0038: ultrasound device) is configured to emit a mechanical wave or a light wave through an ice layer below said frozen surface of the skating area so as to detect the thickness of the ice, as a distance between the bottom surface and the frozen surface, without penetrating inside the thickness of the ice.
As concerns claim 26, Bremer shows wherein said sensor comprises an ultrasound sensor (paragraph 0038: ultrasound device).
As concerns claim 33, Bremer shows wherein said sensor is arranged at a front portion of said vehicle (paragraph 0039).
As concerns claim 34, Bremer shows wherein said sensor is arranged at a rear portion of the vehicle, near said slide (paragraph 0039).
As concerns claim 35, Bremer shows wherein said sensor is arranged on said machine so as to be spaced apart from said frozen surface by a predefined distance (paragraph 0038).
As concerns claim 36, Bremer shows wherein said cutting device is configured to be moved towards and/or away from the frozen surface in function of a thickness of ice to be resurfaced (paragraph 0039).
As concerns claim 37, Bremer shows wherein said control unit is configured to move said cutting device relative to the frozen surface in function of the thickness value of the frozen surface detected by said sensor (paragraph 0039 & 0040).
As concerns claim 38, Bremer shows wherein said control unit is configured to operate at least in a first operating mode, in which said cutting device is so moved as to obtain a levelled frozen surface, and/or in a second operating mode, in which said cutting device is so moved as to obtain a frozen surface having a constant thickness, understood as distance between said frozen surface and said bottom surface of the skating area (paragraph 0039, 0040 & 0043).
As concerns claim 39, Bremer shows a detection system for detecting the position configured to detect the position of said machine relative to a map of said skating area (paragraph 0040 & 0042).
As concerns claim 40, Bremer shows wherein said detection system comprises a LIDAR device and/or an IMU device (paragraph 0041).
As concerns claim 41, Bremer shows wherein said control unit is configured to map the thickness of the skating area, said control unit being configured to associate, with each zone of the skating area, a relative thickness value of the frozen surface detected by said sensor or by said sensors (paragraph 0040).
As concerns claim 42, Bremer shows a process for resurfacing the frozen surface of a skating area, comprising steps of: providing an ice resurfacing machine according to claim 24 (Fig. 1); moving said ice resurfacing machine along at least part of the frozen surface of the skating area (Fig. 4A); detecting the thickness of the frozen surface of the skating area by means of at least one thickness detection sensor (paragraph 0038 & 0058); performing an ice-resurfacing cut at the frozen surface of the skating area so as to smooth said frozen surface (paragraph 0039, 0040 & 0043), wherein said detecting step is performed during said moving step (paragraph 0038 & 0039).
As concerns claim 43, Bremer shows wherein said sensor is configured to detect the thickness of the ice without penetrating inside the thickness of the ice (paragraph 0038: ultrasound device).
As concerns claim 44, Bremer shows a step of adjusting the distance of said cutting device from the frozen surface in function of the detected thickness value (paragraph 0039).
As concerns claim 45, Bremer shows wherein said adjusting step includes adjusting the distance of said cutting device so as to make a levelled cutting surface and/or so as to make a cutting surface having the same thickness value for each zone, understood as distance between said frozen surface and said bottom surface of the skating area (paragraph 0039, 0040 & 0043).
As concerns claim 46, Bremer shows a mapping step of mapping the skating area wherein the relative thickness value of the frozen surface is associated with each zone of the skating area (paragraph 0040).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bremer alone.
As concerns claims 27-30, Bremer discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said sensor comprises a laser sensor, a LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) sensor, a Radar sensor, and/or a PMD (Photonic Mixer Device) distance sensor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a laser sensor, a LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) sensor, a Radar sensor, and/or a PMD (Photonic Mixer Device) distance sensor in place of the ultrasound sensor, since the examiner takes official notice of the equivalence of various types of sensors for their use in the art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a laser sensor, a LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) sensor, a Radar sensor, and/or a PMD (Photonic Mixer Device) distance sensor for the expected benefit of providing a known sensor that is used to measure distances. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a laser sensor, a LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) sensor, a Radar sensor, and/or a PMD (Photonic Mixer Device) distance sensor in the ice resurfacing machine would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Bremer to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31 and 32 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious an ice resurfacing machine for resurfacing a frozen surface of a skating area, comprising: a towing vehicle; a slide connected to said towing vehicle at the frozen surface; at least one cutting device fitted to said slide and configured to perform a resurfacing cut to resurface ice at the frozen surface of the skating area; means for removing ice configured to remove the ice resurfaced by said cutting device; at least one sensor arranged on board said vehicle and configured at least to: detect a distance between said frozen surface of the skating area and a bottom surface of the skating area arranged below the frozen surface and on which the ice rests so as to determine a thickness of the ice, during movement of said vehicle; and generate one or more detection signals containing thickness ice values of the thickness of the ice according to a position of the vehicle; a control unit operationally connected to said sensor and configured to receive said one or more detection signals during the movement of said vehicle; and a first sensor and a second sensor, wherein: the first sensor is configured to detect the distance between the first sensor itself and said bottom surface of the skating area and to generate a corresponding primary detection signal, and the second sensor is configured to detect the distance between the second sensor itself and said frozen surface and to generate a corresponding secondary detection signal, and said control unit being operationally connected to said sensors and configured to: receive said primary detection signal and said secondary detection signal during the movement of said vehicle; and combine data contained in said primary and secondary detection signals to calculate the distance between said frozen surface and said bottom surface.
The prior art of record does not show using two different sensors to determine the thickness of the ice, wherein one sensor measures the distance to the bottom surface of the skating area, and the other sensor measures the distance to the frozen surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pirila (US 7,510,247) shows an ice resurfacing machine having a sensor for measuring the thickness of the ice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
