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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5-10, and 16-19 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 5-10, and 16-19 are directed to a method for catalytic treatment. However, this subject matter is not adequately described in the specification in such a way to enable one having ordinary skill in the art to use the invention without undue experimentation.
The breath of the claims are very broad in that it requires only magnetic force alone (without specifying the strength of the magnetic force) would be able to cause catalytic treatment for any kind of substance including fuels and chemicals. The nature of invention is dealing with magnetic field to transform to-be-catalyzed substance to an excimer state, and the level of predictability of this art is very high. On the other hand, there is very litter prior art associated with utilizing virtual photon effects for catalytic treatment of material, and the amount of direction provided by the applicant is very minor.
The instant specification merely states that the catalysis apparatus of the present invention utilizes a virtual photon effect of a magnetic field to transform the to-be-catalyzed substance to an excimer state, to enable it to react fully (paragraph [0029]). However, the instant specification does not provide any evidence to support such statement. Moreover, no working example demonstrates that catalytic treatment is achieved by using the catalysis unit having various magnetic components. Furthermore, the instant specification does not disclose how to conduct a catalytic treatment with the catalytic unit.
Figure 2 and paragraphs [0036] –[0042] describes test results with an engine test bench for variation of fuel consumption as a function of rotation speed of the engine bench by using a virtual photon catalysis apparatus. The curves 201 and 202 in Figure 2 are the test results of fuel consumption with and without using the virtual photon catalysis apparatus, respectively. The test results merely demonstrate the differences in fuel consumption. However, the instant specification does not provide any details how the tests are conducted with the catalytic unit or any evidence shows catalytic treatment being achieved with the catalytic unit. That is, the instant specification does not disclose how the catalytic unit is installed for receiving material, for performing the catalytic treatment on the material, or for outputting the treated material.
There is insufficient guidance provided by the instant specification to one having ordinary skill in the art how to use a catalysis unit for catalytic treatment.
Therefore, claims contain subject matter that is not adequately described in the specification in such a way to enable one having ordinary skill in the art to practice the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Claims 5-10, and 16-19 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.
Claims 5-10, and 16-19 are directed to a method for catalytic treatment by using a catalysis apparatus.
Claim 5 recites steps of “receiving a to-be-catalyzed substance, …”, “performing a catalytic treatment on the to-be-catalyzed substance with a catalysis unit by enhancing a magnetic force with a catalysis unit……” and “outputting a substance obtained by means of the catalytic treatment”.
Figure 5 is the only schematic structural diagram of the catalysis unit. However, the drawing does not show (i) how the received to-be-catalyzed substance is related to the catalytic unit for performing a catalytic treatment or (ii) how to enhance a magnetic force within a catalysis unit.
That is, the instant specification does not describe (i) which part of the catalysis unit receives to-be-catalyzed substance or (ii) how to perform a catalytic treatment on the to-be-catalyzed substance with the catalytic unit or (iii) how to enhance a magnetic force within a catalysis unit.
NOTE: the instant specification does not disclose (i) which part of the catalysis unit could receive or associate with the to-be-catalyzed substance or (ii) how the catalysis unit is related to or coupled to the to-be-catalyzed substance for the treatment.
Figure 2 and paragraphs [0036] –[0042] describes test results with an engine test bench for variation of fuel consumption as a function of rotation speed of the engine bench by using a virtual photon catalysis apparatus. The curves 201 and 202 in Figure 2 are the test results of fuel consumption with and without using the virtual photon catalysis apparatus, respectively. The test results merely demonstrate the differences in fuel consumption. However, the instant specification does not provide any details how the tests are conducted. No disclosure in the specification is provided regarding
(i) how the catalysis unit is applied for or related to catalytic treatment,
(ii) what the intensity/strength of the magnets or other process parameters are used for the tests,
(iii) how the curves 201/202 are obtained,
(iv) how a catalytic treatment is achieved or
(v) how to enhance magnetic force within the catalysis unit.
Without relating the catalysis unit to the substance to be catalyzed, one having ordinary skill in the art would not have known how to use the catalysis unit to perform a catalytic treatment thereupon.
Therefore, the instant specification does not provide sufficient written description how to use the catalysis unit for catalytic treatment of “a to-be-catalyzed substance”.
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 6-10, and 16-19 are rejected.
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 5-10, and 16-19 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 5 does not require any step or any structure that could associate the catalysis unit to the to-be-catalyzed substance for performing a catalytic treatment thereupon. Thus, it is not clear from the claim language how to achieve at least the step of “performing a catalytic treatment on the to-be-catalyzed substance with a catalysis unit”. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 6-10, and 16-19 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
In response to the arguments regarding Figure 2 (pages 7- 8 of REMARKS), it should be noted Figure 2 and paragraphs [0036] –[0042] describes test results with an engine test bench for variation of fuel consumption as a function of rotation speed of the engine bench by using a virtual photon catalysis apparatus. The curves 201 and 202 in Figure 2 are the test results of fuel consumption with and without using the virtual photon catalysis apparatus, respectively. The test results merely demonstrate the differences in fuel consumption, which is NOT catalytic treatment. There is no disclosure regarding catalytic treatment with the claimed catalysis unit.
Therefore, the instant specification does not provide sufficient written description how to use the catalysis unit for catalytic treatment of “a to-be-catalyzed substance”.
Conclusion
Claims 5-10, and 16-19 are rejected. Claims 1-4 and 11-15 are canceled.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 XIUYU TAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/XIUYU TAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795