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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because on line 1, “polyvinyl” should not be capitalized. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text (MPEP § 608.01(b)).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, lines 11-12 involve a run-on or fused sentence. On page 5, line 18, “was” should be --is--; on line 20, “polyvinyl” should not be capitalized; on line 26, “illustrated” should read --illustrates--; on line 28, “proved” should apparently be --proves--. On page 6, line 1, “illustrated” should be --illustrates--. 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.
Claims 1-2 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. In claim 1, line 4, “polyvinyl” should not be capitalized; on line 6, “the prepared solution” (emphasis added) lacks a proper antecedent basis; on line 7, “liquid nitrogen only contact” lacks proper grammatical syntax; on line 9, “the shape” lacks a proper antecedent basis. Claim 2 recites product or apparatus elements and method steps and is thus confusing as to whether a mold or an assembly method is being claimed; it is also unclear whether the “four pillars” (line 3) are the same as or different from the “four cylinders” (lines 7 and 9) and whether “one disc” (line 4), “a disc” (line 7), and “a disc” (line 9) are the same as or different from one another; on line 6, “the copper sheet” lacks a proper antecedent basis; on line 7, “the penetration points” lack proper antecedent bases; on line 8, “the disc’s center” lacks a proper antecedent basis; on line 9, “the prepared pipe” and “the whole pipe” lack proper antecedent bases, and “can” is vague; moreover, the parentheses throughout claim 2 should be replaced with more precise language in order to clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 5,127,142: drawings: copper discs 8 and copper rods 11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David H. Willse, whose telephone number is 571-272-4762. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Thomas Barrett can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4746. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/DAVID H WILLSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774