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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 16, 20, 22, 23, and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8: “the medium” should apparently read --the gaseous and/or liquid medium-- for consistency within the claim.
In claim 2, line 3: “as” should apparently be deleted.
In claim 16, lines 5-6: “the stationary electromagnetic coil element” should apparently read --the at least one stationary electromagnetic coil element--.
In claim 20, lines 5-6: there should apparently be a comma between “the venting pump” and “the control device.”
In claim 22, lines 6-7: “and is designed” should apparently read --and designed-- (i.e., “is” should be deleted).
In claim 23, lines 6-7: “and is designed” should apparently read --and designed-- (i.e., “is” should be deleted).
In claim 26, the syntax of the recited alternatives is confusing and does not read properly. Suggested language would be --The stimulation device of claim 25, wherein the socket [[is]] at least one of: is provided with the second check valve arrangement…--.
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 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: a medium influencing arrangement and a drive device in claim 1, as well as a volume changing element in claim 13 and a control device in claims 20-23. The medium influencing arrangement and volume changing element are taught to be a membrane and/or a movable side wall. The drive device is taught by be a motor (linear or rotary). The control device is taught to be a control circuit board.
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
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 1-26 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 limitations "the direction of the medium influencing arrangement" in lines 22-23, “the direction of the first section” in line 28, and “the direction of the outside” in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a substantially sinusoidal-periodic pressure profile” in lines 2-3. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the pressure profile that meet the claim language are not readily determinable.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “is arranged sealed off on the peripheral side wall” in lines 4-5. It is not clear what is meant by “arranged sealed off on.”
Claim 6 also recites the limitations “is arranged” in lines 4-5 and “is provided” in line 7. It is not clear if these limitations refer to the first check valve arrangement or to the wall element.
Claim 6 also recites the limitation “away from it” in line 7. It is not clear what component “it” refers to in this limitation.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the interchangeable socket provided with the second check valve arrangement" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 8 recites that the interchangeable socket is provided with the first check valve arrangement and/or second check valve arrangement; thus, it does not necessarily include the second check valve arrangement.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “at least one section of the peripheral side wall … is movable” and “the volume changing element including a movable side wall section.” It is not clear if these two side wall sections that are movable are intended to be the same component or to be separate components.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the movable side wall section" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “its” in line 6, line 7, and line 9. It is not clear what component “its” refers to in these limitations.
Claim 18 also recites the limitations “essentially unchanged” in lines 7-8 and “almost constant” in line 8. The terms “essentially” and “almost” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of amount of change that is acceptable to still meet the claim language are not readily determinable.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “which is open” in line 5. It is not clear if “which” refers to the venting pump or to the outlet.
Claims 2-26 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-26 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: check valves in similar stimulation devices are known in the prior art (e.g., U.S. No. 5,003,966; WO 2018/220120 A1; U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0022533 A1; WO 2014/081600 A1; U.S. No. 6,099,463; EP 3705106 B1). However, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests such a first check valve arrangement between the application opening and the medium influencing arrangement, the first check valve arrangement being movable towards and away from the application opening and having a first check valve that closes towards the application opening and opens towards the medium influencing arrangement, along with a second check valve arrangement that connects a first section of the cavity to an outside of the device and that has a second check valve that closes towards the first section and opens towards the outside, in combination with the other recited components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791