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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (i.e., claims 1-3) in the reply filed on 06/06/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that elected invention would not work without claims 7-9 (i.e., Group III) and without to bend post as to the size and confined location of said materials used. This is not found persuasive. If the elected invention (i.e., claims 1-3) would not work without claims 7-9 (i.e., Group III), it unclear why the subject matter of claims 7-9 is not included/recited in the elected invention (claims 1-3). Examiner further notes that Applicant does not link claims 7-9 to the elected invention in the claims such as in a combination and subcombination relationship. Furthermore, the claims do not limit the bend, size, or location of the materials used, and the manner of using the apparatus or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use. See MPEP §§ 2114 II and 2115. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Accordingly, claims 1-3 are examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed “elevation plates”, “material cooling plate”, “thermal prop locations”, “system device inline base heating dc v”, etc. must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: marker points 100-112.
The drawings are objected to because the numbering of Figures does not start with 1. See MPEP § 608.02 V (u).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because its content and language are improper.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. Legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
In pg. 1of the Specification, the language set forth in the REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS 63/207298 and 63/312441 is improper and unclear. A cross-reference to related applications is generally made when the current application claims benefit to prior-filed copending provisional and non-provisional applications. Is applicant trying to claim benefit to the listed provisional applications? The ADS filed on 06/06/2025 does not claim benefit to 63/207298, there is no co-pendency between the current application and 63/207298, and the type of relationship (e.g., continuation, provisional, divisional, etc.,) between current application and the listed related applications is unclear. At least for the reasons set forth above, Examiner has not given the benefit to 63/207298. See 37 CFR § 1.76 and 37 CFR § 1.78.
In view of the ADS filed on 06/06/2025, Examiner recommends replacement of the current language in the related application section with the following language: This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/312441 filed 02/22/202, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entity.
In pg. 1of the Specification, the language set forth in the REFERENCE TO RELATED PATENTS is improper and unclear. The language does not set forth a patent number, a filing date, and the type of relationship between current application and the listed patent. The ADS filed on 06/06/2025 does not claim benefit to patents. Examiner did not find a patent with the tittle “Machine to make part or parts attaching flexing material”. A provisional application is not a patent, and Applicant needs to provide the application number instead of the USPS tacking number. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 are not present in the drawings. Is applicant referring to Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 of which application, publication, patent? See 37 CFR § 1.78 and MPEP 211. Examiner recommends the deletion of this section because a provisional application is not a patent and the ADS filed on 06/06/2025 does not claim benefit to patents.
In pg. 1of the Specification, the language set forth in the BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION is improper and unclear. The statement should be directed to the subject matter of the claimed invention and clearly identify the field of the art to which the invention pertains. The problems known in the prior art and solved by Applicant’s invention are not indicated. See MPEP 608.01 (c).
In pg. 1 of the Specification, the language set forth in the BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION is improper and unclear. Is the invention a machine or a manufacturing process? The language makes the relationship of the patented product and the invention unclear. Examiner recommends the following language: A machine for the manufacturing of a Supplement Support System Sleeve For A Universal Joint disclosed in US Patent No. 9, 884, 410 B1.
In pg. 1of the Specification, the language set forth in the SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION is not concise and clear. The statement “The machine that of describe can be described as of 4 basic components,” is unclear. The summary is not commensurate with the invention as claimed because it uses mere generalities such as “means to …” instead of components or subject matter of the machine in the claims. Furthermore, the object recited “That a manufacturing process of patented Supplement Support System Sleeve for a Universal Joint, Patent No. 9,884,410 B1” is not the object of the invention as claimed. See 37 CFR § 1.73 and MPEP 608.01(d).
In pg. 2 of the Specification, the language set forth in the FIELD AND BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION is improper and unclear. The statement “That of a inventor of the patent and that to a machine in the process of manufacturing of described patent” is unclear. Which patent is Applicant referring to? It is unclear why there are two BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTIONS. This section should be directed to the subject matter of the claimed invention, identify the field of the art to which the invention pertains, and indicate the problems known in the prior art or problems solved by Applicant’s invention. See MPEP 608.01 (c).
In pg. 2 of the Specification, the language set forth in the DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART and BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE PRIOR ART are improper and unclear. The language is the same in both sections. It is unclear why the repetitive language is present. Examiner cannot properly identify the prior art with only the provided tracking number. Provisional applications and non-provision applications such as17/676946 that are not published do not qualify as prior art. Applicant should use the patent number “US 12325108 B1” instead of the application number 17/676946 to identify the prior art. Lastly, the DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART and the FIELD should be subsections of the BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION. See MPEP 608.01 (c).
In pg. 2 of the Specification, the section BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS is equivalent to BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES. Also, the statement “That of the parts made and of purchased and the assembly of as a working machine” is improper, confusing, and irrelevant to the content of this section. See MPEP § 608.01(f) and 37 CFR 1.74. Examiner recommends to delete “That of the parts made and of purchased and the assembly of as a working machine” and “BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES”.
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
The specification has numerous grammatical errors. For instance, numerous sentences and paragraphs do not have a period at the end.
The detailed description fails to describe the invention adequately and accurately. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
Numerous terms in the detailed description are not clear, concise, and/or adequate. For instance, the term “not limited to” without other setting forth specific limits/boundaries is unclear and unconcise.
The detailed description currently sets forth a listing of the reference characters instead of a detailed description of the organization and interconnection/correlation of structural elements in such a manner as to present a complete operative machine.
Numerous sentences in the detailed description are not clear, concise, and/or adequate:
In pg. 2 of the Specification:
The language “FIG. 15 Showing: On demand electric switch panel, prior art and new to prior art” is not clear and concise. What is new to prior art? Is the electric switch panel a prior art panel or a new switch panel?
In pg. 4 of the Specification:
The language “Fig. 14, 1. Installation of device (Machine)system components Angled aluminum base length of system device,” is not clear, concise, and/or adequate. Is reference character “1” referencing the entire (all components of) machine/system, components of the Angled aluminum base, or only the angled aluminum base? Is the device system same or different from the system device? The relationship of the length of the system to the aluminum base is unclear. Based on Fig. 14, --Fig. 14 shows a perspective view of the machine. The machine comprises an angled aluminum base 1. A length of the base 1 is equivalent to the length of the machine.-- is an example of a more proper language for the detailed description.
The language “la. Aluminum support structure assembly, from base to top angle 1b., 1b Angled aluminum top proportional length of the system device, aluminum and its alloys not limited to,” is not clear, concise, and/or adequate. Is the base same or different from the base 1 introduced earlier? The scope of reference character “1b” is unclear because the meaning of top angle 1b is different from angled aluminum top 1b. The relationship of the length of the system to the angled aluminum top is unclear. It is also not clear what is not limited to aluminum and its alloys. It is unclear what other materials are encompassed by the specification when the material is not limited to aluminum and its alloys.
The language “3. Air vacuum tube connectors to top mold plate 31, connected by means of connector, grommet, bonded, 14a.,” is not clear, concise, and/or adequate. Reference characters 31 and 14a are not shown in Fig. 14. The scope of 14a is unclear. It is unclear if the “connector, grommet, bonded” are alternative options on the connection means or a combination.
The language “6a. DC 12 v mini electric DC solenoid valve normally closed, Use Vacuum
valve, not limited to,” is not clear, concise, and/or adequate. Is 6a a solenoid valve or a vacuum valve? The scope of the term “normally closed” is unclear. When is the solenoid valve closed?
The language “9a. Digital Panel Meter, Temperature, Mounted as to stacked as to limited space within Fig. drawing and that of not a exact location, not limited to,” is not clear.
The language “9b. Wiring that of to probe or censor and connection,” is not clear.
The language “Degree angle that of described” is not clear, concise, and/or adequate. No description of the degree angle is found in the specification.
Applicant is reminded that these are just some examples; therefore, a thorough revision of the application is required in order to correct all the objections and grammatical errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any objections and errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because each element of the claims should be separated by a line indentation and plural indentations should be used to further segregate sub-elements of the element. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
In claim 1, “brands an types” should be changed to --brands and types--.
In claim 2, “heat means , heat means” should be changed to --heat means, heat means--.
In claim 2, the words starting with an upper case should be changed to start with a lower case. For instance, “Angled Table” should be changed to --angled table--.
In claim 2, “locations, , Interchangeable” should be changed to -- locations, interchangeable--.
In claim 2, “angle table” should be changed to --angled table--.
In claim 2, “complete working machine as described and draw. wherein …” should be changed to --complete working machine as described and draw, wherein--.
In claim 2, “the machine systems” should be changed to --the machine systems.--
In claim 3, “The machine of claim 1 wherein” should be changed to --The machine of claim 1, wherein--.
In claim 3, “weld, soldering.” should be changed to --weld, and soldering.--
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3 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 1-3 recite terms which are not clear, concise and exact. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the claims are:
“extrusion filament retraction”,
“there brands and types on the marker”,
“parts installation panel and its parts”,
“wiring described”,
“diagrams for vacuum system and heat”,
“system device inline base heating dc v”,
“purchased items”
“thermal prop locations”,
“negative friction split connection”,
“props”,
“angle table componence”,
“control and preheat that of filaments”,
“assemble to complete working machine as described and draw”,
“materials and components listed within the detailed description”,
“general list of components”,
“not limited to a type, components of, brand names of within patent wording”, etc.
The written description requirement fails to describe these terms in 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. Additionally, the claims and the written description fail to describe the organization and interconnection/correlation of the structural elements in such a manner as to present a complete operative machine as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 1-3 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claims 1-3 are rejected failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 1-3 are rejected as prolix. Claims 1-3 contain long recitations and unimportant details that the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined. See MPEP § 2173.05(m).
Claim 1 recites the language “machine for filament extrusion and extrusion filament retraction producing part or parts and attachment to that of flexible material as to belting, banding, elastic, and there brands an types on the market” which is indefinite. It is unclear if the machine, the filament extrusion, or the extrusion filament retraction produces the part or parts and attachment to that of flexible material. According to Examiner’s understanding of Applicant’s disclosure, filament extrusion and/or extrusion filament retraction is/are incapable of producing part or parts and attachment to that of flexible material. According to Examiner’s understanding of Applicant’s disclosure, a filament is melted and extruded/injected into a mold and the molded material forms the part while attaching the part to a flexible material. In addition, the term “extrusion filament retraction” is indefinite. It is unclear to the Examiner how the extrusion filament can be retracted because the filament is in a molten state during filament extrusion. Also, the term can have multiple interpretations such as the interpretation of stopping of molten filament extrusion or retraction of filament that is unmelted and unextruded after the completion of molding. Furthermore, the language “flexible material as to belting, banding, elastic, and there brands an types on the market” is indefinite. The phrase “as to” implies examples/preferences of flexible materials which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The claim has been examined below as if the limitations following the phrase “as to” are not part of the claimed invention (i.e., are not required). Last but not least, the scope of “brands and types on the market” is unclear and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) III E.
Claim 1 recites the language “that of a machine of lower cost,” which is indefinite. The language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. The term “lower cost” is subjective and there is no objective/guidance to measure that result. Is the machine in this language same or different from the machine introduced in claim 1?
Claim 1 recites the language “DC V compatible with low amperage use direct or none direct use of grid or off grid power supplied, fixed or portable” in the preamble which is indefinite. The language is vague and incoherent. The language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. It is also unclear if the language is the intended use of the machine or limitations of the machine. The scope of the term “DC V” is unclear/undefined. The term “DC V” can have multiple plausible interpretations.
Claim 1 recites the language “and of extrusion to injection molding system by means manual, mechanical movement of parts of said machine and of” in the preamble which is indefinite. The language is vague and incoherent. The language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. It is also unclear if the language is the intended use of the machine or required limitations of the machine. Is the injection molding system part of the machine? Is the manual means part of the machine?
Claim 1 recites the language “and of heat management that of a system of said extrusion parts comprising:” in the preamble which is indefinite. The language is vague and incoherent. The language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. It is also unclear if the language is the intended use of the machine or required limitations of the machine. Is the system part of the machine? What provides heat management? Last but not least, there is not sufficient antecedent basis for “said extrusion parts” in the claim.
The scope of claim 1 is not clear because it is not in one sentence form. It is unclear where claim 1 ends because claim 1 lacks a period. As currently written, claim 1 merely sets forth a preamble.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
The scope of claim 2 is not clear because it is not in one sentence form. It is unclear where claim 2 begins because claim 2 does not properly start as a dependent claim depending from claim 1. It is also unclear where claim 2 ends as it comprises a period in the middle of its body and no period before claim 3 is introduced.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “material cooling plate” which is indefinite. Which material of the multiple materials (unmelted filament, flexible material, extruding molten filament, or molded material) previously recited is Applicant referring to?
Claim 2 recites the limitation “material holding parts” which is indefinite. Which material of the multiple materials (filament, flexible material, or extruded/molded material) previously recited is Applicant referring to? The scope of holding parts is also unclear.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “Parts installation panel and its parts” which is indefinite. The language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention because it leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wiring described and diagrams for vacuum system and heat” which is indefinite. The language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought because the it fails to point out what is included or excluded. See MPEP §§ 2173.05(r) and 2173.05(s).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “clamping” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “heat and movement of bottom plate” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “splitting of top mold plate expansion heat management” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “top mold plate as to sealing” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “angle of relief and tip clearance to injection port” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “system device inline base heating dc v” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. Is the system device inline base heating dc v same or different from the heating system introduced earlier?
Claim 2 recites the limitation “base heat as ac v fast warm” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “On demand extrusion to injection port guide” which is indefinite. The term “on demand” is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. When the extrusion to injection port guide is not available?
Claim 2 recites the limitation “Purchased items as means to extrude” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “extrusion Control System that of heat means” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. Is the heat means same or different from the heating system introduced earlier?
Claim 2 recites the limitation “heat means that of an attachment of extended heating contoured block and power controls that of an extrusion to injection system” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “extended heat system to the extrusion tip and top mold plate heat control” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. Also, there is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the extrusion tip”. The extrusion tip ins introduced in the next line.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “means of on demand temperature readings” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. Temperature readings of which element or material? How are the temperature readings obtained?
Claim 2 recites the limitation “Angled Table and its componence” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “demand heat contact points and mount” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. Mount for which structural element? demand heat contact points of which of the many heating systems/means recited?
Claim 2 recites the limitation “forward and rear track are of the same” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. Are the forward and rear track part of the angled table guide assembly, the forward angled track assembly, or additional parts/tracks?
Claim 2 recites the limitation “base and thermal prop locations” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. Is the base same or different from the base introduced earlier in the claim. The scope of thermal prop locations is unclear.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “neg friction split of connection” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. The scope of “neg friction split of connection” is unclear.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “parts, on separate stand,” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wiring to angle table componence” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “probs” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. The term can have multiple plausible interpretations. It seems that Applicant intends to claim temperature probes.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “means to hold material” which is indefinite. Which material of the multiple materials (filament, flexible material, or extruded/molded material) previously recited is Applicant referring to? Is the “means to hold material” same or different from the “material holding parts” recited earlier?
Claim 2 recites the limitation “control and preheat that of filaments” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. The scope of the subject matter covered by the claim is not clear as to the structure of the machine that performs the claimed functions of controlling and preheating filaments. See § MPEP 2173.05 (g). Is the machine feeding and extruding one filament or multiple filaments?
Claim 2 recites the limitation “Flexible material spool supply feed as described within” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought because the it fails to point out what is included or excluded. See MPEP §§ 2173.05(r) and 2173.05(s).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “air flow lines and connectors” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “rubber flat” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “O-rings, assemble to a complete working machine as described and draw.” which is indefinite. The language is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the heat to filament density per process of extrusion to said tip can heat to larger melting points in addition to without changing said tip heat temperature settings as per material travel maintain density for drive by means of filament retraction to volume to heat with that of less heat needed to volume of said base heat to, translates that of the air flow that of heated to unit of vacuum resulting in a lower constant temperature to achieve molding and that of its attachment and that of the machine systems” which is indefinite. The language is incoherent and vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. The scope of the subject matter covered by the claim is not clear as to the structure and function of the machine the achieves the claimed results. See § MPEP 2173.05 (g). Is said tip same or different from the extrusion tip? Also, there is not sufficient antecedent basis for “said tip heat temperature settings”, “the air flow” and “the machine systems” in the claim(s).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim in view of the recitation “the machine comprising materials and components listed within detailed description …”. See MPEP §§ 2173.05(r) and 2173.05(s).
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the machine comprising materials and components listed within detailed description and general list of components, not limited to a type, components of, brand names of within patent wording are assembled that of machine screws, taped threads, bolts, nuts, washers, lock washers, wire terminals, wire connectors, wire connections, wire panel connectors, weld, soldering.” which is indefinite. The language is incoherent and vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. What is the general list of components? “weld and soldering” read as verbs or manners of connecting instead of components. What is the difference between wire terminals, wire connectors, and wire connections? The scope of “a type” and “brand names of” is unclear and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) III E. Are the connectors being claimed in the alternative? If not, what elements of the machine are connected via each of the claimed connectors? Applicant is claiming the connectors in broad generic terms that the language “not limited to a type, components of, brand names of within patent wording” is unnecessary.
Notes
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claim(s) 1-3 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details).
Claims 1-3 cannot be evaluated with respect to prior art at this time as the examiner cannot reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and cannot make a proper comparison between the subject matter of claims 1-3 and the prior art due to the 112(b) issues explained above. Nevertheless, relevant prior art is made of record below.
Prior Art made of Record
Ferguson (US 20100159197) discloses a machine for molding a part and attaching the part to a flexible material (abstract), the machine comprising: a device platform (See annotated Fig. 1), a base (See annotated Fig. 1), elevation plates (See annotated Fig. 1), material holding parts (25, 30) for holding the flexible material, a means (16) for melting and injecting molding material, top mold plate (18), bottom mold plate (20), a heating system (15), and a spool (26) configured for supplying the flexible material (Abstract, P0043-0063, annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kang (US 20010007376) discloses a relevant machine for molding a part and attaching the part to a flexible material (abstract, Fig. 1) comprising a heating system (200, Fig. 13) and a cooling means (105: P0045, Fig. 13).
McDONALD (US 20170334145) discloses a relevant heating system configured for heating mold plates (P0054, Fig. 3).
Takeuchi (US 5674004) discloses a filament extrusion means for injection molding machines (Fig. 6, and accompanying text).
Holland (US 20170190109) discloses an extrusion means capable of controlling filament feeding rate, filament pre-heating, filament extrusion rate, and filament retraction (P0041-0062, Figs. 2-3).
Nadeau (US 20200147882) discloses a cabinet for controlling heating, temperature, and humidity of a filament in a filament source (P0072, Fig. 8).
Ford (US 9884410) discloses a flexible sleeve in combination with a universal joint (Abstract, claim 1, Figures). Ford is silent about a method or machine for manufacturing the part.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743