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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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: “communication module” in claim 8.
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. Corresponding structure for the claimed “communication module” is provided in at least paragraph [0077] of the specification as-filed.
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 3-8 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 3, the claim recites the limitation "verification unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination on the merits, Examiner will treat the limitation “verification unit” to refer to the claimed “verifier” from claim 1.
The claim further recites the limitation "correction unit" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination on the merits, Examiner will treat the limitation “correction unit” to refer to the claimed “corrector” from claim 1.
Regarding claims 4-8, these claims depend from claim 3 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 3, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 3 noted above.
Further regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation "verification unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination on the merits, Examiner will treat the limitation “verification unit” to refer to the claimed “verifier” from claim 1.
The claim further recites the limitation "correction unit" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination on the merits, Examiner will treat the limitation “correction unit” to refer to the claimed “corrector” from claim 1.
Further regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation "verification unit" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination on the merits, Examiner will treat the limitation “verification unit” to refer to the claimed “verifier” from claim 1.
Further regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation "verification unit" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination on the merits, Examiner will treat the limitation “verification unit” to refer to the claimed “verifier” from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to “[a] computer program stored on a recording medium.” As such, the claim is directed to software per se and may be embodied in a transitory manner, and therefore does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. This is further evidenced by the claim requiring the computer program to be “combined with hardware” in order to “execute the method of claim 9”. Accordingly, the claimed computer program is not hardware, but instead software per se.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 9 are allowed.
Claims 3-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 recites the following:
A device for sensing and correcting a marine transport environment of a ship, comprising:
an inertial sensor, configured to measure a roll of the ship; and
a processor, configured to:
receive sensing information regarding temperature and humidity inside a cargo on the ship from an external source,
verify the temperature and the humidity of the sensing information based on at least one of a Global Positioning System (GPS) indicating a location of the ship and an Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) at a destination of the ship along a navigation route, and
correct transport environment information including the temperature and the humidity based on the verification results,
wherein the processor comprises:
a verifier, configured to:
measure a current location of the ship based on GPS,
verify the temperature and the humidity inside the cargo by comparing predicted values at the current location of the ship with a predefined first reference value,
measure ETA along the navigation route based on externally received input, and
verify the temperature and the humidity inside the cargo by comparing predicted values at the current ETA with a predefined second reference value;
a computation unit, configured to calculate correction parameters based on the measured temperature and humidity and reference values; and
a corrector, configured to correct the transport environment based on the verification results from the verification unit and the correction parameters from the computation unit.
Claim 9 recites similar limitations. These limitations are not disclosed, taught, or otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art.
Tervo (US 2015/0149135 A1) discloses a device for a ship (see Figure 1 and Abstract) that gathers sensor data for a roll of the ship (see [0010]-[0014]). Tervo further discloses ambient temperature and humidity data is gathered (see [0044]). However, Tervo does not disclose that the device is configured to “verify the temperature and the humidity of the sensing information based on at least one of a Global Positioning System (GPS) indicating a location of the ship and an Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) at a destination of the ship along a navigation route, and correct transport environment information including the temperature and the humidity based on the verification results” as claimed in claims 1 and 9.
Additionally Tervo does not disclose that the processor is configured to “verify the temperature and the humidity inside the cargo by comparing predicted values at the current location of the ship with a predefined first reference value, measure ETA along the navigation route based on externally received input, and verify the temperature and the humidity inside the cargo by comparing predicted values at the current ETA with a predefined second reference value” and then to “correct the transport environment based on the verification results.”
These differences between Tervo and the invention of claims 1 and 9 are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any evidence in the available prior art.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 9 are allowed.
Claims 3-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, based upon their dependency from claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHUL SOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-9411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ANSHUL SOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667