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 Objections
Claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. Generally, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim.” See MPEP 2173.05(s). Since the claim scope is not affected by the reference characters, the applicant is invited to cancel the reference characters.
Claim 1, has recites “Wherein” in lines 13 and 15 that should recite “wherein”
Claim 7, line 3: “and tapered upper section” should read --and a tapered upper section—
Claim 8, line 3: “evacuation.,” should read --evacuation,--
Claim 13, lines 4 and 5: “shaft(1)” and “cap(4)” should respectively read --shaft (1)-- and --cap (4)--, if reference numbers remain in the claims (please see remark above).
Claim 13 line 6: “comprises vacuum channel” should read --comprises a vacuum channel—
Claim 13, line 9: “and tapered upper section” should read --and a tapered upper section--
Claim 14, line 2: “of:- attaching” should read --of: attaching--
Claim 17, line 2: “of:- positioning” should read --of: positioning--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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 1 recites the limitation “the penis shaft” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “thinner” in claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 13, 17, and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thinner” 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. Additionally, the limitation “thinner” is a relative term defined by comparison to something else. As claimed, this limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what element the base section diameter is compared to in order to determine the base section diameter is “thinner”. In other words, the limitation “a thinner diameter base section” raises the question “than what?”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the upper portion” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the exterior” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “interior circular wall that acts as a valve lock post (13b) to compress a valve flap (9a) of the valve (9) down firmly against the flat distal surface of the valve housing (10)”. As claimed, it is unclear whether applicant intends to require the valve flap as configured in the limitation.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the flat distal surface” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a thinner diameter base section” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether the “thinner diameter base section” is intended to be the same as that of claim 1.
The same issue appears in claims 5 and 7.
The term “slightly” in claims 9 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slightly” 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the glans cap” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the exterior of an outer wall” in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the plurality of vacuum channels” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a thinner diameter base section” in lines 3-4. It is unclear whether the “thinner diameter base section” is intended to be the same as that of claim 13.
The same issue appears in claim 18.
Conclusion
The examiner notes that, though no art has been applied against the claims at this time, they are not presently allowable. The question of prior art will be revisited upon resolution of the numerous clarity issues noted above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5707341 (Mathewuse) teaches a penile enlargement device comprising a vacuum secured to a cap (Figure 3)
US 5115800 (Matejevic et al.) teaches a penile enlargement device comprising a vacuum secured to a cover (Figure 1)
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