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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/30/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 09/30/2025, (“Remarks”) were in response to the Final Rejection mailed on 05/30/2025 (“Final Rejection”).
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are canceled.
Claim(s) 1–4, 6–10, and 12–19 is/are pending. Of the pending claims, claim(s) 16–19 is/are currently withdrawn because they encompass other invention(s) not elected by Applicant on 10/28/2024.
Therefore, claim(s) 1–4, 6–10, and 12–15 is/are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph
Claim(s) 1–4, 6–10, and 12–15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
New matter issues remain. Applicant’s Remarks are addressed completely in the relevant sections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph
Claim(s) 1–4, 6–10 and 12–14 was/were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Examiner would like to thank Applicant for amending the claim(s) at issue. The rejection(s) made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the Final Rejection is/are moot and withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s amendment results in additional indefinite issues.
Prior Art
Applicant’s discussion of prior art, Remarks at 3, is acknowledged. Examiner does not disagree with Applicant’s characterization of US 20080085103, WO 2020201703, US 5564442.
A subsequent search failed to return a reference which could read on the claims as understood. Applicant is invited to schedule an interview to discuss the prior art of record, the below rejections, and potential amendment to advance compact prosecution.
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:
“an aerosol generating component for generating an aerosol from an aerosol generating material” in claim 1;
“at least one of the aerosol generating component and the consumable is arranged to provide relative movement between” in claim 1;
“at least one of the aerosol generating component and the consumable is arranged to provide relative movement between” in claim 2;
“at least one of the aerosol generating component and the consumable is arranged to provide relative movement between” in claim 9;
“at least one of the aerosol generating component and the consumable is arranged to move relative to the other” in claim 10; and
“at least one of the aerosol generating component and the receptacle is arranged to provide relative movement between” in claim 15.
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 (New Matter Resulting From 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Interpretation)
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, 6–10, and 12–15 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.
The below limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claims limitations use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited functions and the generic placeholders are not preceded by a structural modifier:
“at least one of the aerosol generating component and the consumable is arranged to provide relative movement between” in claim 1;
“at least one of the aerosol generating component and the consumable is arranged to provide relative movement between” in claim 2;
“at least one of the aerosol generating component and the consumable is arranged to provide relative movement between” in claim 9;
“at least one of the aerosol generating component and the consumable is arranged to move relative to the other” in claim 10; and
“at least one of the aerosol generating component and the receptacle is arranged to provide relative movement between” in claim 15.
As discussed more thoroughly in the relevant section below, the above limitations are indefinite because Applicant’s Specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function. Therefore, these limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. (See MPEP 2163.03(VI)).
Claims 2–4, 6–10, and 12 14 are rejected for the same reasons because of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (New Matter Related to Movement)
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, 6–10, and 12–15 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.
Claim 1 was amended to recite “at least one of the aerosol generating component and the consumable is arranged to provide relative movement between the aerosol generating component and the consumable along an axis substantially parallel to the first direction and along an axis substantially parallel to the second direction, wherein the first direction is substantially orthogonal to the second direction.”
Applicant argues that “the claims recite only that [the aerosol generating component and the consumable] are relatively movable (that is, that one is movable relative to the other), which does have support.” Remarks at 1. (annotation added) (emphasis in original) However, claim 1 captures an embodiment where both the aerosol generating component and the consumable move “along an axis substantially parallel to the first direction and along an axis substantially parallel to the second direction, wherein the first direction is substantially orthogonal to the second direction.” Remarks at 1 (explaining that [t]his language clearly indicates that the claims cover arrangements where movement may be provided to . . . both components, so long as relative movement between the two components is achieved along the specified axes.”) (annotation added). As explained in the Final Rejection, Applicant lacks support of an embodiment where both move along an axis substantially parallel to the first direction and along an axis substantially parallel to the second direction, wherein the first direction is substantially orthogonal to the second direction. Final Rejection at 10–12.
For support of the above amendment, Applicant argues:
The specification provides ample support for this broad interpretation. As set forth in the Applicant’s original independent claims, the system included “a movement mechanism for providing relative movement between the aerosol generating component and the consumable.” The specification at page 6, line 27 to page 7, line 6 describes this movement mechanism with reference to Figure 1, stating that it is “for providing relative movement between the aerosol generating component and the consumable.” Importantly, Figure 1 shows both the aerosol generating component and the consumable associated with the movement mechanism, demonstrating that the system is configured such that at least one of these components can be moved to provide the required relative movement.
Remarks 1–2. Respectfully, the issue is not whether “the system is configured such that at least one of these components can be moved to provide the required relative movement.” The issue is whether Applicant was in possession of an embodiment where both of the components can be moved in both the claimed orthogonal directions. Remarks at 1 (explaining that [t]his language clearly indicates that the claims cover arrangements where movement may be provided to . . . both components, so long as relative movement between the two components is achieved along the specified axes.”)
Applicant Argues “Examiner’s reliance on specific passages at page 8, line 4 to 9, page 10, line 6 to 7 and 19 to 31, and page 11, line 21 to 23 is misplaced. These passages merely describe exemplary movements shown in specific figures and are not intended to be exhaustive or limiting.” Remarks at 2. Respectfully, the question is not what Applicant intended, but what one of ordinary skill in the art understood Applicant was in possession of at the time of filing. As explained in the Final Rejection, the relevant portions of the Specification referenced above demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that “[w]hen movement of the consumable is most clearly described, Applicant’s Specification describes moving the consumable as an alternative to moving of the aerosol generating component.” Final Rejection at 11. (annotation added) Applicant further argues that “[the above portions of Applicant’s Specification] discuss the system in use, showing how the components may be moved by the movement mechanism in particular embodiments. They do not preclude other arrangements where different components are moved or where both components are moved.” Even if the above portions do not preclude other arrangements where different components are moved or where both components are moved, the above portions of Applicant’s Specification does not provide evidence that Applicant was in possession of an embodiment where both of the components are moved in both directions. Lastly, Applicant argues “[a] product claim should not be limited to only one of several possible configurations disclosed in the specification, particularly where the specification expressly contemplates various movement arrangements.” Respectfully, arguments of counsel, though possessing evidentiary weight as a possible admission, cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art. See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
As explained on pages 11–12 of the Final Rejection, the closest support Examiner can locate for an aerosol provision system configured to move both the aerosol generating component and consumable is reproduced below:
In the example of Figure 4, a portion of an aerosol provision system 400 is shown. The aerosol provision system has an aerosol generating component 410, a consumable 420 and a movement mechanism 430. The movement mechanism 430 is arranged to provide relative movement between the aerosol generating component 410 and the consumable 420 along an axis substantially perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction. The direction of the relative movement is shown by arrow C. Movement along the direction indicated by arrow C may move the aerosol generating component 410 and the consumable 420 directly closer or directly further apart. The movement provided by the movement mechanism 430 may be a translation of the aerosol generating component 410 towards the consumable 420, consumable 420 to aerosol generating component 410. The direction indicated by arrow C may be along a "z" axis. In an example, the movement mechanism 430 is arranged to provide relative30 movement between the aerosol generating component 410 and the consumable 420 along an axis perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction.
Page 10, Lines 19–31. (bold added). However, the bolded portion above is a fragmented sentence open to interpretation. On one hand, it could be understood to state “movement provided by the movement mechanism 430 may be a translation of the aerosol generating component 410 towards the consumable 420[[,]] and consumable 420 to aerosol generating component 410.” This would clearly communicate that both of these structures are moved. However, even if the above is assumed, this disclosure would only provide support for the two structures moving along the z-ais—potentially addressing new matter concerns for claim 9 but failing remedy the bi-directional and orthogonal movement of claim 1. On the other hand, it could be understood to state “movement provided by the movement mechanism 430 may be a translation of the aerosol generating component 410 towards the consumable 420[[,]] or consumable 420 to aerosol generating component 410.” One of ordinary skill in the art would determine that the fragmented sentence should be read to alternative because the interpretation is consistent with the remainder of Applicant’s Specification.
In sum, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 captures an embodiment where both the aerosol generating component and the consumable are capable of moving both of the claimed orthogonal directions, i.e., along an axis substantially parallel to the first direction and along an axis substantially parallel to the second direction, wherein the first direction is substantially orthogonal to the second direction. This embodiment is not supported by the Specification, for the reasons stated and above reasons similar to those articulate in the Final Rejection, see id. at 10–12, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Importantly, the claims can be amended to capture movements which are fully supported. Examiner invites Applicant schedule an interview to discuss proposed amendments which would overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2–4, 6–10, and 12–14 fail to remedy the above deficiencies are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 was amended to recite “wherein the aerosol generating component is provided within the receptacle, and wherein at least one of the aerosol generating component and the receptacle is arranged to provide relative movement between the aerosol generating component and the receptacle along an axis substantially parallel to a first direction and along an axis substantially parallel to a second direction, wherein the first direction is substantially orthogonal to the second direction.” Simply stated, this amended captures an embodiment where the receptacle is moveable in the two orthogonal directions, but in this embodiment only the aerosol generating component is configured to move relative to the receptacle.
In support of the above amendment to claim 15, Applicant argues:
the specification at page 12, line 14 to 17 provides specific support for independent claim 15, describing that “the aerosol generating component may be provided within the receptacle and may be configured to move relative to the receptacle in the first direction and the second direction.” Figure 6 illustrates the receptacle and aerosol generating component associated with the movement mechanism, supporting the claimed arrangement where at least one of these components is arranged to provide relative movement.
Remarks at 2. Respectfully, the relevant portions cited by Applicant demonstrate that, in this embodiment, the receptacle is not stationary and only the aerosol generating component is configured to move in the first direction and second direction. Please see the below reproduction:
PNG
media_image1.png
563
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Figure 6 an example of a portion of an aerosol provision system 600 is shown. The aerosol provision system 600 has an aerosol generating component 610, a movement mechanism 630 and a receptable 650. The aerosol provision system 600 comprises a receptacle 650 for receiving at least a part of the consumable. The aerosol generating component 610 may be provided within the receptacle 650 and may be configured to move relative to the receptacle in the first direction and the second direction. The receptacle may be removably insertable into the aerosol provision system 600. The consumable may be preloaded into the receptacle 650, which leads to a cleaner user experience as the user only needs to handle the receptacle 650 which has no aerosol generating material on external surfaces.
Drawings at Fig. 6 and Specification at 12 ll. 11–20. While the “receptacle may be removably insertable into the aerosol provision system 600,” this would not result in the “receptacle is arranged to provide relative movement between the aerosol generating component and the receptacle are relatively moveable along an axis substantially parallel to a first direction and along an axis substantially parallel to a second direction, wherein the first direction is substantially orthogonal to the second direction.”
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that Applicant was not in possession of the full scope of the claim 15.
Lastly Applicant argues:
[t]he technical advantages of the claimed invention are achieved regardless of which specific component provides the movement, so long as relative movement between the components is accomplished. The specification describes these advantages at page 8, line 25 to page 9, line 4 and page 9, line 29 to page 10, line 4, explaining that enabling relative movement allows for individual alignment of regions of the consumable with the aerosol generating component and more efficient use of space within the system since the aerosol generating component can have a smaller area compared to the consumable.
Remarks at 2. Respectfully, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the above portions of the Specification provide support for only moving the aerosol generating component relative to the to the consumable. The portions do not provide support for moving the consumable (or receptacle as is relevant for claim 15) relative to aerosol generating component—much less the embodiment captured where both the aerosol generating component and the consumable (or receptacle as is relevant for claim 15) both move in the two directions, which are orthogonal.
Accordingly, claims 1–4, 6–10, and 12–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a0 because they contain 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 had possession of the claimed invention at the time the invention was filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Indefinite Limitations)
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, 6–10, and 12–15 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.
The below limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claims limitations use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited functions and the generic placeholders are not preceded by a structural modifier:
“at least one of the aerosol generating component and the consumable is arranged to provide relative movement between” in claim 1;
“at least one of the aerosol generating component and the consumable is arranged to provide relative movement between” in claim 2;
“at least one of the aerosol generating component and the consumable is arranged to provide relative movement between” in claim 9;
“at least one of the aerosol generating component and the consumable is arranged to move relative to the other” in claim 10; and
“at least one of the aerosol generating component and the receptacle is arranged to provide relative movement between” in claim 15.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function(s). Applicant explains that these structures are arranged to provide the relative movement using a movement mechanism. Remarks at 1–2. Specifically, Applicant argues:
The specification provides ample support for this broad interpretation. As set forth in the Applicant’s original independent claims, the system included “a movement mechanism for providing relative movement between the aerosol generating component and the consumable.” The specification at page 6, line 27 to page 7, line 6 describes this movement mechanism with reference to Figure 1, stating that it is “for providing relative movement between the aerosol generating component and the consumable.” Importantly, Figure 1 shows both the aerosol generating component and the consumable associated with the movement mechanism, demonstrating that the system is configured such that at least one of these components can be moved to provide the required relative movement.
Remarks at 1–2. Respectfully, Applicant’s reliance on the movement mechanism as evidence possession of the above functional limitations also evidences that the Specification and Drawings fail to dislcose the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure to the claimed function. See Non-Final Rejection mailed on 12/02/2024, p. 8 (rejecting similar limitations capturing “a movement mechanism for providing relative movement”).
Restated differently, Applicant explains that these structures are “arranged to provide” or “arranged to move” by a movement mechanism. Remarks at 1–2. Applicant’s Drawings only illustrate the movement mechanism as a box, e.g., Fig. 4’s 430 and Fig. 6’s 630) and only describe the movement mechanism in generic functional terms. Specification at 8 l. 18–p. 9 l. 2, id. at Page 10; id. at 13 ll. 13–20). This disclosure amounts to little more than a mere restatement of function claimed (See MPEP 2181(IV) stating “[m]erely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness.”)
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2–4, 6–10, and 12–14 are rejected for the same reasons via their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites the inadvertent drafting error of “; ,” in line 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANLEY L CUMMINS IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (CST).
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, Michael H. Wilson can be reached on (571) 270-3882. 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.
/MANLEY L CUMMINS IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights