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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0079], reference numeral 10 is referred to as a sleeve, then in paragraph [0082], reference numeral 10 is referred to as the main body.
In paragraph [0084], reference numeral 6 is being used to describe the reservoir; however, reference numeral 6 has previously been used to describe the main body.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The specification recites that Figure 14 shows a plurality of furrows and striations; however no striations are referenced in the drawing and thus, it is unclear what distinction is being made between a furrow and a striation.
Further, each and every feature of the claim must be shown in the drawings. Thus, the claimed “each of the at least one striation has a cross-section whose surface area is between one fifth and half of a surface area of a cross-section of each of the furrows” must be shown or the features cancelled from the claims.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 7, “the longitudinal portion” should be amended as follows: “[[the]] a longitudinal portion”.
In lines 13-14, “equal to that of the furrows” should be amended as follows: “equal to that of the at least two helical furrows”.
In lines 15-16, “the at least one longitudinal portion” should be amended as follows: “the
In line 19, “each of the furrows” should be amended as “each of the at least two helical furrows”.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “wherein the furrows” should be amended as follows: “wherein the at least two helical furrows”.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “each of the furrows” should be amended as follows: “each of the at least two helical furrows”.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “each of the furrows” should be amended as follows: “each of the at least two helical furrows”.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “at least one furrow among the furrows” should be amended as follows: “at least one furrow among the at least two helical furrows”.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “each of the furrows” should be amended as follows: “each of the at least two helical furrows”.
In line 3, ‘the surface of the stick” should be amended as follows: “the external surface of the stick”.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “each of the furrows” should be amended as follows: “each of the at least two helical furrows”.
In line 3, “the surface of the stick” should be amended as follows: “the external surface of the stick”.
Claims 30, 31, 32, and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “each of the furrows” should be amended as follows: “each of the at least two helical furrows”.
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “each of the furrows” should be amended as follows: “each of the at least two helical furrows”.
In lines 4-5, “a corresponding one of the furrows” should be amended as follows: “a corresponding one of the at least two helical furrows”.
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “each of the furrows” should be amended as follows: “each of the at least two helical furrows”.
In line 4, “a corresponding one of the furrows” should be amended as follows: “a corresponding one of the at least two helical furrows”.
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 1-2, “according to claim 36 claim 19” should be amended as follows: “according to
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “the longitudinal direction of the reservoir” should be amended as follows: “[[the]] a longitudinal direction of the reservoir”.
In line 6, “mounted moveable” should be amended as follows: “mounted moveably”.
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “the at least two furrows” should be amended as follows: “the at least two helical furrows”.
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 24, 26-27, and 39-41 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.
The term “approximately” in claim 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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.
Regarding claim 26, line 3 recites “the at least two helical furrows extend in a rectilinear manner over a helix” which in unclear since helical is defined as “having the form of a helix” per Merriam-Webster and rectilinear is defined as “moving in or forming a straight line” per Merriam-Webster. Thus, claim 26 appears to be requiring that the at least two helical furrows are both linear and helical. Additionally, since the two furrows have already been recited as being helical, it is unclear what the limitation “over a helix” means with respect to the at least two helical furrows, i.e. the furrows are already defined as helical/forming a helix. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 27, lines 2-3 recite “the at least two helical furrows…undulating around a helix”; which is unclear since Merriam-Webster defines helical as “having the form of a helix”. Thus, requiring a helix to undulate around a helix is unclear. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 39, line 3 recites “a longitudinal portion”. It is unclear if this is the same or different from a longitudinal portion previously recited in claim 19.
Claim 40 recites “an end longitudinal portion”; it is unclear if this is the same or different from the “longitudinal portion” previously recited in claim 19. Clarification is required.
Claim 41 contains the trademark/trade name Bakelite. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a trademarked resin and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 42 requires that “a surface area of a cross-section of the at least one striation is smaller than a surface area of a cross-section of each of the at least two furrows”; claim 42 depends from claim 19, where claim 19 recites “each of the at least one striation has a cross-section whose surface area is between one fifth and half of a surface area of a cross-section of each of the furrows”. Thus, claim 42 does not further limit since claim 19 already requires that the cross section of the striation is 1/5 to ½ that of the furrows, wherein 1/5 and ½ are both smaller that the furrow. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-23, 25, 28-35, 37, and 42 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/16/2026, with respect to claims 19-35, 37, 42 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous grounds of rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH WOODHOUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-5635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 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, EDELMIRA BOSQUES can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/SARAH WOODHOUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights