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 .
Claim Numbering
The presently filed claim set includes claim 12 followed by claim 13, with the statement “The device of claim 1 wherein the cap is removable.” Therebetween, which has been renumbered “ 12’ ” for the purposes of examination. Applicant is invited to correct the claim numbering and dependencies in the next response.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 6, 7, and 9 be found allowable, claims 16, 17, and 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-20 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 “a surface extending between inflection points”. As presently written it is unclear on what surface or element the inflection points are disposed.
The same issue appears in claims 12 and 20.
Claim 6 recites “the cap seals off a sealed chamber”. The limitation “seals off a sealed chamber” is indefinite as it is unclear whether applicant intends to require a sealed chamber is additionally sealed by the cap, or the cap closes a chamber such that it is thereby “sealed”. Additionally, since parent claim 1 recites “a cavity” which is ultimately also covered by the cap, it is unclear how the “sealed chamber” is related to the remainder of the structure of the cup and/or cavity.
The same issue appears in claim 16.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and further recites “wherein changes to the interior pressure of the sealed chamber causes the cap to expand or contract”. As claimed, the cup cavity volume of claim 1 contracts and expands to consequently deform and release the cup top, and claim 7 separately states changes to the sealed chamber interior pressure causes the cap to expand or contract. It is unclear whether and how the pressure change of the top is related to the pressure change of the chamber.
The same issue appears in claim 17.
Claim 20 recites “a removable cap…and seals off a sealed chamber”. The limitation “seals off a sealed chamber” is indefinite as it is unclear whether applicant intends to require a sealed chamber is additionally sealed by the cap, or the cap closes a chamber such that it is thereby “sealed”.
Claim 20 recites “a cup…having a cavity”, “cause the driver to contract and expand a volume of the cavity of the cup”, and subsequently recites “a sealed chamber, wherein changes to the interior pressure of the sealed chamber causes the cap to expand or contract”. As claimed, the cup cavity volume contracts and expands to consequently deform and release the cup top, and separately states changes to the sealed chamber interior pressure causes the cap to expand or contract. It is unclear 1) how the “sealed chamber” is related to the remainder of the structure of the cup and/or cavity, as well as 2) whether and how the pressure change of the top is related to the pressure change of the chamber.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 215385793 (He): stimulation device including a cup and cavity with a top, motor, battery, control circuit, and a cap over the top (Figures 1-3)
US 10,993,873 (Haddock et al.): stimulation device including a cup and cavity with a motor, battery, control circuit, to vary pressure within the cup for stimulation
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carrie R Dorna whose telephone number is (571)270-7483. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 571-272-4233. 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.
/CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights