DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-7 as originally filed on 11/07/2023 are pending, and have been examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 2-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In claim 2, line 6, the recitation of “the through hole” should instead recite --the at least one through hole-- to be consistent with the prior recitation in the claim.
b. In claim 3, lines 6-7, the recitation of “through which refrigerant supply channel passes” should instead recite --through which the refrigerant supply channel passes--.
c. In claim 4, lines 2-3, the recitation of “is installed to be fixed on the refrigerant supply channel” should instead recite --is fixed on the refrigerant supply channel--.
d. In claim 5, lines 4-5, the recitation of “the plurality of electrode leads each penetrate the plurality of through holes” should instead recite --the plurality of electrode leads penetrate the corresponding plurality of through holes--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
6. Claim 1 recites the limitation “and have a frontside thereof being open” in lines 4-5. This recitation renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear whether the recitation of “thereof” in “frontside thereof” is referring to the handpiece housing (previously recited in line 2 of the claim), or the first containing space (previously recited in lines 2-3 of the claim). As such, the structure required by the claim is not clear, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
7. Claim 1 recites that the electrode assembly comprises “a first body portion” in line 21. This recitation renders the claim indefinite, as the relationship (if any) between the recited “first body portion” and the “main body” of the electrode assembly previously recited in line 13 of the claim, is not clear. Clarification is required.
8. Claim 1 recites the limitation “so as to close an open area” in line 24. This recitation renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear what “open area” is being referred to in the recitation. As such, the structure required by the claim is not clear, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
9. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a gaseous refrigerant” in line 26. This recitation renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear whether the recited “a gaseous refrigerant” is intended to be the same “a gaseous refrigerant” previously recited in lines 11-12 of the claim, or a different/separate gaseous refrigerant.
10. Claims 2-7 are rejected as ultimately depending from a claim (claim 1) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
11. Claim 3 recites the limitation “a second flange” in lines 8-9. This recitation renders the claim indefinite, as neither claim 3, nor claim 1 (from which claim 3 depends) recites “a first flange.” As such, it is not clear how many “flanges” are required by the claim. For this reason, the structure required by the claim is not clear. Clarification is required.
12. Claims 4-7 are rejected as ultimately depending from a claim (claim 3) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
13. Claim 7 recites the limitation “the refrigerant heat exchange space” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
14. NOTE: While claims 1-7 are not currently subject to a rejection under either 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, the claim objections and the rejections under § 112(b) above have precluded a determination of allowability at this time. Upon correction of the issues underlying the § 112(b) rejections, the allowability of claims 1-7 will be reconsidered by the Examiner.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradford C. Blaise whose telephone number is (571)272-5617. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linda Dvorak can be reached on 571-272-4764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bradford C. Blaise/Examiner, Art Unit 3794