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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 17, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1:
In line 18, the limitation “(…) movable in multiple different width ranges, forming different (…)” should read “(…) movable in multiple different width ranges and forming different (…)” in order to be grammatically correct.
In lines 23-35, claim limitation should read “(…) wherein the different contactors have different potentials, each of the positioning parts has a fixed potential, and when each of the positioning parts contacts one of the contactors, the potential of the one of the contactors changes and triggers a unique position signal, wherein the control unit determine whether the driving unit reaches an end of rotation in a selected one of the infusion modes, wherein when the selected infusion mode is not met, the driving unit does not reach the end of rotation and the control unit continues to instruct the power unit to pull the driving unit, leading the driving unit to continue rotating until the end of rotation is reached, wherein the position signals determine different rotation terminal points of the driving unit in different rotation cycles, so that the driving unit is able to stop at a plurality of optional positions, thereby defining the multiple different width ranges, wherein the rotation terminal points are all controlled by the control unit according to the position signals, wherein when the selected infusion is met, the driving unit stops rotating once it (…)” to improve clarity of claim language.
In line 35, the phrase “the selected infusion” should recite “the selected infusion mode” since it is clear that the term “mode” was incorrectly omitted.
In line 36, the term “reached” should read “reaches” in order to be grammatically correct.
In regards to claim 17:
In lines 25-38, claim limitation should read “(…) wherein the different contactors have different potentials, each of the positioning parts has a fixed potential, and when each of the positioning parts contacts one of the contactors, the potential of the one of the contactors changes and triggers a unique position signal, wherein the control unit determines whether the driving unit reaches an end of rotation in a selected one of the infusion modes, wherein when the selected infusion mode is not met, the driving unit does not reach the end of rotation and the control unit continues to instruct the power unit to pull the driving unit, leading the driving unit to continue rotating until the end of rotation is reached, wherein the position signals determine different rotation terminal points of the driving unit in different rotation cycles, so that the driving unit is able to stop at a plurality of optional positions, thereby defining the multiple different width ranges, wherein the rotation terminal points are all controlled by the control unit according to the position signals, wherein when the selected infusion is met, the driving units stops rotating once it reached the rotation terminal point.”
In line 37, the phrase “the selected infusion” should recite “the selected infusion mode” since it is clear that the term “mode” was incorrectly omitted.
In line 38, the term “reached” should be “reaches” in order to be grammatically correct.
In regards to claims 6 and 22:
In line 3, the term “includes” should be “in ” in order to be grammatically correct.
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 1-6 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each of the positioning parts, while rotating is able to be in electrical contact with the different contactors" in lines 21-22. Lines 10-12 have introduced that each “plurality of contactors” includes “at least one intermediate contactor” and “two terminal contactors”. It is unclear if the phrase the “different contactors” refers to the “plurality of contactors” or to just the “intermediate contactor(s)” or to just the “terminal contactors”. Based on the disclosure, it appears that the contact is between each positioning part and at least some of the contactors of the “plurality of contactors” but not necessarily all of the “plurality of contactors” (see Fig 6a).
Examiner recommends to amend claim limitations of lines 21-22 to recite “each of the positioning parts, while rotating, is able to be in electrical contact with at least some of the plurality of
In line 36, the phrase “the rotation terminal point” lacks proper antecedent basis. The claim previously recites “rotation terminal points” (see line 31) but this phrase only recites one “terminal point”. It is not clear if one specific terminal point is meant to be referred to or not.
Examiner recommends to amend claim limitations of line 36 to recite “the rotation terminal point corresponding to the selected infusion mode”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation " each of the positioning parts, while rotating is able to be in electrical contact with the different contactors" in lines 23-24. Lines 12-14 have introduced that each “plurality of contactors” includes “at least one intermediate contactor” and “two terminal contactors” It is unclear if the phrase the “different contactors” refers to the “plurality of contactors” or to just the “intermediate contactor(s)” or to just the “terminal contactors”. Based on the disclosure, it appears that the contact is between each positioning part and at least some of the contactors of the “plurality of contactors” but not necessarily all of the “plurality of contactors” (see Fig 6a).
Examiner recommends to amend claim limitations of lines 23-24 to recite “each of the positioning parts, while rotating, is able to be in electrical contact with at least some of the plurality of
In line 38, the phrase “the rotation terminal point” lacks proper antecedent basis. The claim previously recites “rotation terminal points” (see line 33) but this phrase only recites one “terminal point”. It is not clear if one specific terminal point is meant to be referred to or not.
Examiner recommends to amend claim limitations of line 38 to recite “the rotation terminal point corresponding to the selected infusion mode”.
Claims 3 and 19 recites the limitation “the driving unit comprises two driving parts” in line 3. Claims 1 and 17 introduces “a driving part”. It is unclear if the “two driving parts” of claims 3 and 19 are in addition to the “driving part” of claims 1 and 17 (requiring a total of 3 driving parts) or include the “driving part” of claims 1 and 17 (requiring a total of 2 driving parts). Based on the disclosure, it appears that the “two driving parts” of claims 3 and 19 include the “driving part” of claims 1and 17.
Examiner recommends to amend claim limitations of lines 3-4 of claims 3 and 19 to recite “the driving unit comprises [[two]] a second driving part[[s]], and the two driving parts respectively cooperate with the two sub-wheels”.
Claims 4 and 20 recites the limitation “the driving unit includes more than two said driving parts” in lines 2-3. Claims 1 and 17 introduces “a driving part”. As written “more than two said driving parts” does not require more than two driving parts, but rather is much broader and only requires the driving unit to include more than JUST the two driving parts (i.e. it could include some other non-driving part structure). So it is unclear if these lines are intended to require more than two driving parts in total or to include the driving unit with something else in addition to the two driving parts. Based on the disclosure, it appears that this limitation is intended to require more than two of the driving parts.
Examiner recommend amending lines 2-3 of claims 4 and 20 to recite “the driving unit includes at least a third driving part, each driving part of the at least three driving parts cooperating with a corresponding one of the sub-wheels.
Claims 5 and 21 recites the “the driving unit includes four driving parts” in lines 2. Claims 1 and 17 introduces “a driving part”. Since claims 3 and 19 introduces two driving parts and claims 4 and 20 introduces at least one more driving part, it is unclear if these three parts are included in the “four driving parts” or if the “four driving parts” are in addition to the three driving parts already recited (resulting in a total of 7 drive parts). Based on the disclosure, it appears that the three driving parts are included in the “four driving parts” of claims 5 and 21.
Examiner recommends to amend lines 2-3 of claim 5 and 21 to recite “the at least a third driving part comprising a third driving part and a fourth driving part
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 17-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Amended limitation overcomes prior art of record.
Regarding claim 1, Dilanni do not discloses “(…) a position detecting area comprises two position detecting sub-areas, each of the two position detecting sub-areas includes a plurality of contactors spaced apart and each of the two positioning parts interacts with a respective one of the two position detecting sub-areas at different positions to trigger different position signals, wherein, along different moving directions of the positioning parts, the plurality of contactors of each of the two position detecting sub- areas includes at least one intermediate contactor positioned between two terminal contactors along a path of a respective one of the positioning parts (…)”
Regarding claim 17, Dilanni do not discloses “(…) wherein the position detecting area comprises two position detecting sub-areas, each of the two position detecting sub-areas includes a plurality of contactors spaced apart, and each of the positioning parts interacts with a respective one of the position detecting sub-areas at different positions to trigger different position signals, wherein, along different moving directions of the positioning parts, the plurality of contactors of each of the two position detecting sub-areas includes at least one intermediate contactor positioned between two terminal contactors along a path of a respective one of the positioning parts (…)”
The position detecting area of Dilanni is comprised of two position detecting sub-areas, each comprising only one contactor. Therefore the two-position detecting sub-areas and related limitations seen above are not disclosed by Dilanni. Examiner assessed prior art; however, a prior art reference that could teach or suggest the missing limitations could not be found.
The restriction requirement among the first, second, third and fourth group of species, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 08/09/2024 , has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is maintained because the nonelected claims do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
This application is in condition for allowance except for the presence of claim 11-16, and 27-32 directed to an invention non-elected with traverse in the reply filed on 09/02/2024. Applicant is given TWO (2) MONTHS from the date of this letter to cancel the noted claims or take other appropriate action (37 CFR 1.144). Failure to take action during this period will be treated as authorization to cancel the noted claims by Examiner’s Amendment and pass the case to issue. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted since this application will be passed to issue.
The prosecution of this case is closed except for consideration of the above matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO G PAZ ESTEVEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-5951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached on (571) 272-4965. 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.
/GUILLERMO G PAZ ESTEVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/KAMI A BOSWORTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights