DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
2. This application, filed April 30, 2025, is the national stage entry of PCT/KR2023/010107, filed July 14, 2023. Claims 1-16 are pending.
EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT
3. An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
The application has been amended as follows:
[Claim 13] (Currently Amended) The method of claim 11, wherein the step (e) comprises: generating, by the calculation unit 160, an alarm code when the predefined strength condition and the predefined continuity condition are satisfied, and generating a rule for determining the severity grade based on the alarm code.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 3, 5, 6, 13, and 14 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.
In particular, claim 3 recites the limitation, “assesses an alarm grade according to a predefined strength condition and a predefined continuity condition of the defined condition when the filtered residual value becomes greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, and generates only an alarm equal to or greater than the predetermined condition as the final alarm.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term, “defined condition” refers to the “condition” recited in claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. The limitation, “the predetermined condition” does not have an exact antecedent. Claim 1 does not recite the word, “predetermined” when referring to the “condition” recited in claim 1. Clam 3 recites “a predetermined threshold value” before reciting, “the predetermined condition.” The term “predetermined condition” could refer to a condition that exceeds “a predetermined threshold value,” but then does that condition refer to “a predefined strength condition,” “a predefined continuity condition,” or both? Alternatively, the limitation, “the predetermined condition” could refer to the “condition” recited by claim 1. Because there are at least 4 different possible antecedents to the limitation, “the predetermined condition,” one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would not have understood the meaning of this limitation, which renders claim e indefinite.
In particular, claim 5 recites the limitation, “the condition of the intensity.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 2 nor claim1, from which claim 5 depends, recites “intensity.”
In particular, claim 6 recites the limitation, “the determination result.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 5 nor claim 3 nor claim 2 nor claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites “a determination result.”
In particular, claim 13 recites the limitation, “the severity grade.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 11 nor claim 10 nor claim 9, from which claim 13 depends, recites “a severity grade.”
In particular, claim 14 recites the limitation, “the determination result.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 13 nor claim 11 nor claim 10 nor claim 9, from which claim 14 depends, recites “a determination result.”
In particular, claim 16 recites the limitation, “the training data.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 15 nor claim 9, from which claim 16 depends, recites “training data.”
Claim Interpretation
6. 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.
7. 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:
“data acquisition unit” in claims 1 and 9;
“recommendation unit” in claims 1 and 9;
“compression unit” in claims 1 and 9;
“training unit” in claim 1; and
“calculation unit” in claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-15; and
“learning unit” in claim 9.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 1 and 9 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.
In particular, the claim limitation, “recommendation unit” invokes 35 USC. 112(f), but the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed recommendation function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed recommendation function. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would recognize that such a function could be performed in any number of ways by hardware alone or by a combination of hardware and software. The specification does not provide sufficient details to inform one of ordinary skill in the art which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function. For these reasons, claims 1 and 9 are indefinite.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 because claims 2-8 and 10-16 depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively.
In particular, the claim limitation, “compression unit” invokes 35 USC. 112(f), but the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed compression function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed compression function. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would recognize that such a function could be performed in any number of ways by hardware alone or by a combination of hardware and software. The specification does not provide sufficient details to inform one of ordinary skill in the art which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function. For these reasons, claims 1 and 9 are indefinite.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 because claims 2-8 and 10-16 depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively.
Claim 1 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In particular, the claim limitation, “training unit” invokes 35 USC. 112(f), but the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed training function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed training function. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would recognize that such a function could be performed in any number of ways by hardware alone or by a combination of hardware and software. The specification does not provide sufficient details to inform one of ordinary skill in the art which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function. For these reasons, claims 1 and 9 are indefinite.
Claims 2-8 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 because claims 2-8 depend from claim 1.
Claim 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In particular, the claim limitation, “learning unit” invokes 35 USC. 112(f), but the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed learning function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed learning function. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would recognize that such a function could be performed in any number of ways by hardware alone or by a combination of hardware and software. The specification does not provide sufficient details to inform one of ordinary skill in the art which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function. For these reasons, claims 1 and 9 are indefinite.
Claims 10-16 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 because claims 10-16 depend from claim 9.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not descried in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that, at the time the application was filed, the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed recommendation function. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 because claims 2-8 and 10-16 depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not descried in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that, at the time the application was filed, the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed compression function. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 because claims 2-8 and 10-16 depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not descried in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that, at the time the application was filed, the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed training function. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-8 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 because claims 2-8 depend from claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not descried in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that, at the time the application was filed, the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed learning function. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-16 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 because claims 10-16 depend from claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 1 and 9 are objected to as being rejected under Section 112 but would be allowable if the Section 112 rejections were avoided without materially changing the scope of the claims.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are objected to for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 because claims 2-8 and 10-16 depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 ET.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/JOHN F MORTELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights