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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 2, 2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6, 9-11, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “the said” appears to be confusing and awkward. Applicant is suggested to use either “the” or “said”, but not both at the same instance to denote antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “suction means” in claims 1 and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-17 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. Please note that the claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The examiner has made a concerted effort to identify all the possible 112 2nd paragraph issues. Applicant is responsible to ensure that all the claims address the 112 2nd paragraph issues, even with the claims not mentioned in order to provide consistency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the device" in lines 2, 8, 16, and 21-22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the other side" and “the outer shell of the device” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the end" in line 16 and “the suction cup chamber” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites "one or more passage(s)" (line 9) associated with the suction cup and "a portion" (line 10) associated with the suction fluid. The plural inclusion of "the passage" could lead to confusion as to whether subsequent recitations of "the passage" are one and the same. The same issue of multiple inclusion can be seen, for example, with “other portion”. The same issue of multiple inclusion can be seen on claim 10. Differentiation of the elements (e.g., a "first passage", a "second passage", etc.) would further enhance the clarity of the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the shells" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the said multiple cascaded flow passages" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the said recycling flow passage" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the device” and "the exhaust" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the device” and "the periphery" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the fluid" in lines 3-4 and “the flow of fluid” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the suction cup" in line 6, “the end” line 7, “the suction cup chamber” and “the flow diverter” in line 8, “the inlet” in line 11, “the outlet” in line 12, “the said portion of fluid” line 12, and “the suction means attachment” line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the device" and “the acceleration zone” in line 2 and “the diffusion zone” line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the fluid" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the shape" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the shape of suction cup can be a shape selected from circular, oval or polygo- nal or like." in lines 2-3. However, applicant does not appear to put the claim in the proper Markush format.
Regarding claims 14-15, the phrase "or like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 15 recites the limitation " capable of creating suc- tion, selected from fan(s), jet(s) or like." in lines 2-3. However, applicant does not appear to put the claim in the proper Markush format.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the recycling fluid flow passage" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "fin like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the said one or more recycled-flow passages" in line 2 and “the lower pressure” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 10 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, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-9 and 11-17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Quast, Wade, Chou, and Reinhold are cited as being relevant art, because each prior art discloses a non-contact suction cup device comprising a suction cup and a chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
STEPHEN VU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3651
/STEPHEN A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651