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 .
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 case that monitors (claim 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claims 1-16 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.
As to claims 1,13, how does a motor determine torque? There is no signal from the motor. There is not disclosed correlation between the motor and torque to provide for such? There are no Specification/drawings do not express how rotating an element is measuring the same? The drawings/specification do not provide an algorithm? No manner of experimentation is apparent.
As to claim 14, “repeating … parameters” (lines 2-4) has no connection with “precision of the structure”. The structure is the cylinder; nothing more. The structure has precision only to the extent of dimension. The “speed …data” does not define “precision of the structure” (italics added). There are no examples. There is no hint how to vary precision of such as claimed.
Claims 4,11 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.
As to claim 4, there is no support for “means for controlling rotation speed”.
As to claim 11, there is no support for “means for determining the weight …structure”.
Claims 1-16 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.
As to claim 1, “particularly .. means” (line 4, italics added) is indefinite.
As to claims 1,13, what exact structure does the “other means for measuring the torque” (lines 4,5 of claim 1; lines 8-9, claim 13) relate to in the drawings/specification? Means plus function is limited to such (and equivalents), but the exact structure must be made of record.
As to claim 1, does the “motor” measure (“measuring the torque”, line 5) torque? The claim calls for such, but neither specification/drawing seems to provide the same.
As to claims 1,13, “cylinder” shaped section is confusing, as Para 87 (Pub) relates the adjective cylinder to “similar shape with the functions” (italics added) which effectively removes the term “cylinder” as is known to one of ordinary skill. The term “section” is not means plus function, and thus one of ordinary skill would recognize the term “cylinder” to mean … a cylinder. Is the claimed section limited to a “cylinder” shape, or does Para 87 (Pub) change the entire meaning of such to a mean plus functional statement that is yet to be (clearly) “described” (Para 87)?
As to claim 1, what is the alternative suggested by “or any other means” (line 4 of claim 1)? What might the means phrase relate to other than “a transducer”, or maybe the “particularly .. motor” (line 4), or even “an electric motor”. Is there anything in the specification/drawings? One must know the alternative to grasp metes and bounds of means plus function.
As to claim 1,”measuring the torque from said liquid” is problematic, as the cylinder section has something to do with such measured value. Is the torque somehow measured at the interface between the liquid and inner wall of the cylinder?
As to claim 1, is this claim limited to a mixture of liquid, fluid, floating material and rigid float? Is the term “and” (second occurrence, line 2) intended? What alternatives does “or” present? (Consider that the term - - either - - is often useful)
As to claim 2, are “a liquid” (line 1) and “a liquid” (line 1, claim 1) the same liquid, or is the same liquid claimed twice. There appears to be 3 in the claim, but maybe there are really 2. What might Applicant’s intent be?
As to claims 4,11, what structure does this means plus function relate to in drawings/specification? It’s not apparent what such relates to.
As to claims 1-20, use of “particularly” is per se indefinite.
As to claim 12, “may” is indefinite in this claim.
As to claim 13,”determining torque from said liquid” is problematic, as the cylinder section has something to do with such measured value. Is the torque somehow measured at the interface between the liquid and inner wall of the cylinder?
As to claim 14, what is the alternative of “or” (line 2 from last)?
As to claim 14, what is done to “increase precision” (line 2 from last) of structure? It’s not clear what inherent property/structural component of the structure can be changed to allow for an increase in precision. After all, the structure is a “free spinning structure”, and such is the cylinder. What is it about the cylinder that increases any precision of such?
As to claim 14, how do different cylinders (i.e. structures) provide for affecting precision of the same structure itself? They do not. How is “to increase the precision of the structure” related to entirely different (diameters, lengths) structures?
Claim 2 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. The “rigid float” (claim 2) removes claim 1’s “liquid”. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sanders teaches (Figure 6) measuring viscosity of a liquid by employing a horizontal rotatable cylinder 601 that received the liquid. However, such does not extend to the device that measures torque from the liquid as called for in Applicant’s claims.
Vod RU 2653175 teach (Figure 1) measuring viscosity of liquid by employing a horizontal rotatable cylinder 2 that receive the liquid under test. The measured variable in the test is time; not torque as called for in Applicant’s claims.
Henz CN 105874315 teach measuring viscosity of liquid by employing a horizontally rotatable cylinder 2 that receives the liquid under test. The measured variable in the test is speed; not torque as called for in Applicant’s claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855