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 .
Claims 1-6,8-9,11-12,16 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.
As to claim 1, the last 5 lines are problematic as the “means for conveying a second portion” (lines 4-5 from last) and the “means for conveying an unenriched first portion” (last 3 lines) are entirely separate (structural) limitations, while the disclosed structure (valves, fluid lines and pump; all of Figure 1) suggests that each of those 2 means plus functional limitations include the same structure. As such, the claim includes the same limitation claimed. Consider that a means plus functional limitation is limited to the structure that provides the function (and equivalents), and that there is no explanation as to what exact structure the first means (lines 4-5 from last) represents that is entirely separate from what the exact structure the second means (last 3 lines) represents. Again, claim 1 is confusing, as it provides two different means plus functional limitations (in the last 5 lines) that results in an apparatus claim that is claiming the same structure twice. It’s not clear what exact structure the first means (lines 4-5 from last) corresponds to, and what different exact structure the second means (last 3 lines) corresponds to. They should not overlap.
As to claims 2-4, these added limitations are possibly structure of the 2 means clauses (last 5 lines, claim 1). It appears that the same structure is being claimed twice.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights