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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4/22/2025. These drawings are acceptable. The drawings are acceptable, because in the claim set filed on 9/24/2025, Applicant canceled both claims 10 and 20 in each of which was previously set forth a not-shown “momentary switch”.
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:
“a fire suppression system” in claim 2 (noting that “fire suppression” is a function, such that the claim recites a system for performing the function of “fire suppression”, but recites no additional structure sufficient to perform the function of “fire suppression);
“the vision recognition system…configured to identify configurations of at least one camera of the associated mobile device,” in claim 11;
“a securement mechanism…configured to retain an associated mobile device,” in claim 12;
“a positioning mechanism…configured to move in the direction of an X axis, a Y axis perpendicular to the X axis, or a Z axis orthogonal to the X and Y axis” in claim 12; and
“a fire suppression system” in claim 13 (noting that “fire suppression” is a function, such that the claim recites a system for performing the function of “fire suppression”, but recites no additional structure sufficient to perform the function of “fire suppression).
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 Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 14 of the claim, “the” should be inserted before “images”. 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 1-4, 6-9, 11-15, and 17-19 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.
Lines 12-13 of claim 1 state, “wherein the first track, the second track, and the bottom side of the housing define a space configured to retain an associated mobile device.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how or in what way that the bottom side of the housing helps to “define a space configured to retain an associated mobile device.” This is because the associated mobile device is seated upon a slip resistant pad (223), which is positioned between the bottom side of the housing and the securement mechanism. Noting this, since the associated mobile device doesn’t even interface with the bottom side of the housing, how or in what way does the bottom side of the housing function to define the claimed space that is “configured to retain an associated mobile device”?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the associated mobile communication device" in line 36. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant previously set forth an “associated mobile device” not “an associated mobile communication device.”
Lines 38-39 of claim 1 state, “establishing a profile of the associated mobile communication device in the images.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how a given profile is established “in” the images, for example. Are the images being edited, for example, for establishing a profile “in” the images?
Lines 34-35 and lines 42-43 of claim 1 state, “wherein the camera and the processor are configured to determine edges of the associated mobile device by:…determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how or in what way that the camera and the processor determine edges of the associated mobile device by “determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.” Wouldn’t the edges of the mobile communication device have to have been already identified in order to properly determine an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill? Also, isn’t determining the alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill the end result of having identified the associated mobile device? In other words, if “determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device” is the result of having identified the associated mobile device, how does “determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill” fall under how the camera and the processor determine the edges of the associated mobile device?
Line 43 of claim 1 states, “the mobile communication device.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if it referring to the “associated mobile device” of at least line 13 of claim 1, for example, or if it is instead referring to the “associated mobile communication device” of at least line 36 of claim 1, for example.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the plurality of profiles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the vision recognition system" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Noting this, does, for example, the claimed automated data destruction system comprises the camera set forth in claim 1 in addition to “the vision recognition system” set forth in line 3 of claim 11? Or is the camera of claim 1 part of, for example, the vision recognition system of claim 11?
Lines 16-17 of claim 12 state, “wherein the camera and the processor are configured to determine the associated mobile device.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by “determine the associated mobile device.” Is this to say that the camera and the processor are configured to identify the associated mobile device? Or does “determine” in this instance have a different meaning than identify?
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the associated mobile communication device" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant previously set forth an “associated mobile device” not “an associated mobile communication device.”
Lines 21-22 of claim 12 state, “establishing a profile of the associated mobile communication device in the images.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how a given profile is established “in” the images, for example. Are the images being edited, for example, for establishing a profile “in” the images?
Lines 16-18 and lines 25-26 of claim 12 state, “wherein the camera and the processor are configured to determine the associated mobile device and configurations of at least one camera of the associated mobile device by:…determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how or in what way that the camera and the processor determine the associated mobile device by “determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.” Isn’t determining the alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill the end result of having identified the associated mobile device? In other words, if “determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device” is the result of having identified the associated mobile device, how does “determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill” fall under how the camera and the processor determine the associated mobile device?
Line 26 of claim 12 states, “the mobile communication device.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if it referring to the “associated mobile device” of at least line 6 of claim 12, for example, or if it is instead referring to the “associated mobile communication device” of at least line 19 of claim 12, for example.
Lines 1-2 of claim 17 state, “The automated data destruction system as described in claim 16.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because claim 16 was previously canceled by Applicant, and as such, claim 17 depends on a canceled claim. Therefore, it is unclear as to which claim that claim 17 is intended to depend upon.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the plurality of profiles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the top side" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the front side" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-4, 6-9, 11-15, and 17-19 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.
Lines 34-35 and lines 42-43 of claim 1 state, “wherein the camera and the processor are configured to determine edges of the associated mobile device by:…determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.” This limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
First, with respect to the specification filed on 4/22/2025, at no point therein does Applicant disclose the camera and the processor being configured “to determine edges of the associated mobile device by:” (at least in part) “determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.” Noting this, Examiner now directs attention to paragraph [0014] of the specification:
[0014] In some embodiments, the automated data destruction system comprises a housing having a top side, a bottom side opposite from the top side, a front side coupled to the top side and the bottom side, a rear side opposite from the front side, and two lateral sides coupled to the top side, the bottom side, the front side and the rear side. The housing comprises an opening configured to provide access to an interior of the housing. A securement mechanism is disposed within the interior of the housing and comprises a first track disposed on the bottom side of the housing in the direction of an X-axis and a second track coupled to the first track on the platform and in the direction of a Y-axis perpendicular to the X-axis. A joining portion of the first track and the second track is configured to retain a communication device. A positioning mechanism is disposed within the interior of the housing and comprises a first rail disposed along a first end of the bottom side, a second rail disposed along a second end of the bottom side, opposite from the first end, and a beam having a first edge and a second edge positioned in the direction of the Y-axis. Each of the first edge and the second edge of the beam is mounted on the first rail and the second rail respectively, and the beam is configured to move in the direction of the X-axis. A tower is mounted on the beam configured to move along the beam in the direction of the Y-axis. Further, the tower includes at least one guide bar in the direction of a Z-axis orthogonal to the X-axis and the Y-axis and a movable carriage mounted on the guide bar, configured to move along the guide bar. A drill is coupled to the carriage. A vision recognition system is configured to identify the mobile communication device. A controlling system communicates with the positioning mechanism and the drill. Further, the controlling system further comprises a processor; the vision recognition system and the processor are configured to determine edges of the mobile communication device and configurations of at least one camera or flash of the mobile communication device; and the processor determines alignment of the securement mechanism, the positioning mechanism and the drill.
As can be seen above, there is disclosure for the visual recognition system (which is disclosed in paragraph [0011] of the specification as comprising the camera) and the processor being “configured to determine edges of the mobile communication device and configurations of at least one camera or flash of the mobile communication device.” There is further disclosure in the same sentence for, “the processor determines alignment of the securement mechanism, the positioning mechanism and the drill.” There; however, is no correlation made between the camera and the processor being “configured to determine edges of the mobile communication device by:” (at least in part) “determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.”
Next, Examiner directs attention to the paragraphs [0102] and [0104] of the specification filed on 4/22/2025, wherein paragraphs [0102] and [0104] have been provided below.
[0102] Next, turning to FIGS. 3, 4 and in conjunction with FIG. 13, the controlling system 160 may be a separate device and further comprises at least one controller 161 and a processor. The processor communicates with the vision recognition system 150 and the controller 161. Further, the controller 161 communicates with the securement mechanism 120, the positioning mechanism 130, and the drill 140. Based on the mobile communication device 10 identified by the camera, the processor determines alignment of the securement mechanism 120, and movement of the positioning mechanism 130 and the drill 140.
[0104] An exemplary method of using the apparatus is presented herein to further demonstrate the convenience and efficiency of the system. An exemplary user places the mobile communication device 10 on the platform 110, the vision recognition system 150 identifies the model of the mobile communication device 10 based on the established profiles. Thereafter, according to the loaded profile, the securement mechanism 120 secures the mobile communication device 10, the positioning mechanism 130 locates the drill 140 to the corresponding pre-determined location, and the drill 140 precisely and accurately penetrates the mobile communication device 10 at the exact location and depth of the flash memory chip. Lastly, a photo may be captured by the camera and stored in a separate database for proof of destruction.
As can be seen above, based on the mobile communication device (10) identified by the camera, the processor determines alignment of the securement mechanism (120), and movement of the positioning mechanism (130) and drill (140). Claim 1 though, sets forth “wherein the camera and the processor are configured to determine edges of the associated mobile device by:”
(at least in part) “determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.” In neither of paragraphs [0102] and [0104] of the specification nor elsewhere in the specification though, is there a correlation made between the camera and the processor being “configured to determine edges of the mobile communication device by:” (at least in part) “determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.” In other words, there is no disclosure provided by Applicant for the camera and the processor being “configured to determine edges of the mobile communication device by:…determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.”
Rather, what appears to be happening (based on the specification filed on 4/22/2025, particularly paragraphs [0102] and [0104] thereof) is that the mobile communication device is identified based on the established profile of the mobile communication device. After having identified the mobile communication device, in accordance with the established profile thereof, the securement mechanism (120) secures the mobile communication device, and the positioning mechanism (130) proceeds to locate the drill (140) such that the drill (140) can penetrate the mobile communication device at the exact location and depth of the flash memory chip.
Due to the discrepancy in disclosure versus what is being claimed in claim 1, the specification filed on 8/16/2024 is not in agreement with the limitation of claim 1 corresponding to, “wherein the camera and the processor are configured to determine edges of the associated mobile device by:…determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.”
With respect to the drawings filed on 8/16/2024, the controlling system (160) is shown schematically in Figure 13. Please note though that controlling system is not shown within Figures 17-19 which is the embodiment that the claims are directed toward. Noting this, the figures of the drawings provide no indication, one way or the other, regarding “wherein the camera and the processor are configured to determine edges of the associated mobile device by:…determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.”
Based on the foregoing, it has not been demonstrated that the Applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, Examiner suggests the following amendment to claim 1. (On a side note, please be advised that while not shown below, Examiner also suggests amending each instance in claim 1 of “associated mobile device” to “associated mobile communication device”).
(f)[[.]] a processor in communication with the camera, the positioning mechanism, and the drill;
wherein the camera and the processor are configured to identify the associated mobile communication device by:
receiving images of the associated mobile communication device captured by the camera; and
establishing a profile of the associated mobile communication device [[in]] from the images, the profile comprising measurements of the associated mobile communication device, and the profile further comprising a location and a depth of a flash memory chip within the associated mobile communication device; and
wherein, based on the established profile of the associated mobile communication device, the processor determines an alignment of the securement mechanism and determines movement of the positioning mechanism and the drill such that the drill penetrates the associated mobile communication device at the location and the depth of the flash memory chip of said associated mobile communication device.
Lines 16-18 and lines 25-26 of claim 12 state, “wherein the camera and the processor are configured to determine the associated mobile device and configurations of at least one camera of the associated mobile device by;…determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.” This limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
First, with respect to the specification filed on 4/22/2025, at no point therein does Applicant disclose the camera and the processor being configured “to determine the associated mobile device and configurations of at least one camera of the associated mobile device by;” (at least in part) “determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.”
Noting the above, Examiner now directs attention to paragraph [0014] of the specification:
[0014] In some embodiments, the automated data destruction system comprises a housing having a top side, a bottom side opposite from the top side, a front side coupled to the top side and the bottom side, a rear side opposite from the front side, and two lateral sides coupled to the top side, the bottom side, the front side and the rear side. The housing comprises an opening configured to provide access to an interior of the housing. A securement mechanism is disposed within the interior of the housing and comprises a first track disposed on the bottom side of the housing in the direction of an X-axis and a second track coupled to the first track on the platform and in the direction of a Y-axis perpendicular to the X-axis. A joining portion of the first track and the second track is configured to retain a communication device. A positioning mechanism is disposed within the interior of the housing and comprises a first rail disposed along a first end of the bottom side, a second rail disposed along a second end of the bottom side, opposite from the first end, and a beam having a first edge and a second edge positioned in the direction of the Y-axis. Each of the first edge and the second edge of the beam is mounted on the first rail and the second rail respectively, and the beam is configured to move in the direction of the X-axis. A tower is mounted on the beam configured to move along the beam in the direction of the Y-axis. Further, the tower includes at least one guide bar in the direction of a Z-axis orthogonal to the X-axis and the Y-axis and a movable carriage mounted on the guide bar, configured to move along the guide bar. A drill is coupled to the carriage. A vision recognition system is configured to identify the mobile communication device. A controlling system communicates with the positioning mechanism and the drill. Further, the controlling system further comprises a processor; the vision recognition system and the processor are configured to determine edges of the mobile communication device and configurations of at least one camera or flash of the mobile communication device; and the processor determines alignment of the securement mechanism, the positioning mechanism and the drill.
As can be seen above, there is disclosure for the visual recognition system (which is disclosed in paragraph [0011] of the specification as comprising the camera) and the processor being “configured to determine…configurations of at least one camera or flash of the mobile communication device.” There is further disclosure in the same sentence for, “the processor determines alignment of the securement mechanism, the positioning mechanism and the drill.” There; however, is no correlation made between the camera and the processor being “configured to determine…configurations of at least one camera of the associated mobile device by;” (at least in part) “determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.”
Next, Examiner directs attention to the paragraphs [0012] and [0101] of the specification filed on 4/22/2025, wherein paragraphs [0012] and [0101] have been provided below.
[0012] The controlling system comprises at least one controller and a processor. The vision recognition system and the processor identify the mobile communication devices, determines and controls the securement mechanism, the positioning mechanism, and the power drill to a corresponding pre-determined location based on the identified mobile communication devices.
[0101] The vision recognition system 150 comprising a camera (within the shown housing, not visible in the drawings) used to identify and capture images of the mobile communication device 10. The vision recognition system 150 identifies the mobile communication device 10 by measurements of the height, length, width, and shape of the mobile communication device 10, and may distinguish other details, such as the location, shape, size and dimensions of at least one camera or flash of the mobile communication device 10 to determine the specific model of the mobile communication device 10.
As can be seen above, there is disclosure for the visual recognition system (which is disclosed in paragraph [0011] of the specification as comprising the camera) and the processor
identifying mobile communication devices and also determining and controlling the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the identified mobile communications devices. There; however, is no correlation made between the camera and the processor being “configured to determine the associated mobile device…by;…determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.” This is seemingly because determining and controlling the positioning mechanism and the drill is the end result of having identified the associated mobile device. In other words, what is being claimed is that the associated mobile communication device is determined by the camera and the processor at least in part by “determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.” However, what is disclosed is that only after having identified the associated mobile communication device is there, for example, determining and controlling the positioning mechanism and the drill. As such, what is being claimed creates a new sequence of events that neither makes sense nor has disclosure.
Next, Examiner directs attention to the paragraphs [0102] and [0104] of the specification filed on 4/22/2025, wherein paragraphs [0102] and [0104] have been provided below.
[0102] Next, turning to FIGS. 3, 4 and in conjunction with FIG. 13, the controlling system 160 may be a separate device and further comprises at least one controller 161 and a processor. The processor communicates with the vision recognition system 150 and the controller 161. Further, the controller 161 communicates with the securement mechanism 120, the positioning mechanism 130, and the drill 140. Based on the mobile communication device 10 identified by the camera, the processor determines alignment of the securement mechanism 120, and movement of the positioning mechanism 130 and the drill 140.
[0104] An exemplary method of using the apparatus is presented herein to further demonstrate the convenience and efficiency of the system. An exemplary user places the mobile communication device 10 on the platform 110, the vision recognition system 150 identifies the model of the mobile communication device 10 based on the established profiles. Thereafter, according to the loaded profile, the securement mechanism 120 secures the mobile communication device 10, the positioning mechanism 130 locates the drill 140 to the corresponding pre-determined location, and the drill 140 precisely and accurately penetrates the mobile communication device 10 at the exact location and depth of the flash memory chip. Lastly, a photo may be captured by the camera and stored in a separate database for proof of destruction.
As can be seen above, based on the mobile communication device (10) identified by the camera, the processor determines alignment of the securement mechanism (120), and movement of the positioning mechanism (130) and drill (140). Claim 12 though, sets forth “wherein the camera and the processor are configured to determine the associated mobile device and configurations of at least one camera of the associated mobile device by;” (at least in part) “determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.” In neither of paragraphs [0102] and [0104] of the specification nor elsewhere in the specification though, is there disclosure for the camera and the processor being “configured to determine the associated mobile device and configurations of at least one camera of the associated mobile device by;” (at least in part) “determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.”
Rather, what appears to be happening (based on the specification filed on 4/22/2025, particularly paragraphs [0102] and [0104] thereof) is that the mobile communication device is identified based on the established profile of the mobile communication device. After having identified the mobile communication device, in accordance with the established profile thereof, the securement mechanism (120) secures the mobile communication device, and the positioning mechanism (130) proceeds to locate the drill (140) such that the drill (140) can penetrate the mobile communication device at the exact location and depth of the flash memory chip.
Due to the discrepancy in disclosure versus what is being claimed in claim 12, the specification filed on 8/16/2024 is not in agreement with the limitation of claim 12 corresponding to, “wherein the camera and the processor are configured to determine the associated mobile device and configurations of at least one camera of the associated mobile device by;…determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.”
With respect to the drawings filed on 8/16/2024, the controlling system (160) is shown schematically in Figure 13. Please note though that controlling system is not shown within Figures 17-19 which is the embodiment that the claims are directed toward. Noting this, the figures of the drawings provide no indication, one way or the other, regarding “wherein the camera and the processor are configured to determine the associated mobile device and configurations of at least one camera of the associated mobile device by;…determining an alignment of the positioning mechanism and the drill based on the established profile of the mobile communication device.”
Based on the foregoing, it has not been demonstrated that the Applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 9/18/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please be advised that all of the rejections of the current rejection are made under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph or under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Since all of these rejections are being made in response to the amendments filed on 9/18/2025, none of Applicant’s arguments submitted on 9/18/2025 apply.
Examiner’s Comment
A thorough search has been conducted re: the invention/claims. That being said, though no art rejections are considered to presently apply to claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-15, and 17-19. Examiner notes that no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-15, and 17-19 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, particularly given that it is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issue(s) with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722