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 .
Claims 1-2,4-5 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, “non-rectangular” is indefinite, as it’s not clearly defined in the specification. It’s noted that Para 64 (Pub) states that “opposite sides of a rectangle are arc-shaped” (italics added) by itself, and thus is contrary to what a rectangle (straight sides) is normally considered, which Paragraph adds to the indefinite nature of the meaning of non-rectangular.1 Nothing in the specification provides clarity on what “non-rectangular-shape”2 means.
As to claim 1, then there are drawings (Figures 5-7,10) that provide for differently shaped polygons. As a polygon comprises 3-8 sides (lines 34+, col. 8, Patent No. 11,524,238) just as provided in Figure 5-7, it appears that Applicant’s own opening is rectangular. As such, the meaning of “non-rectangular” opening is again indefinite.
As to claim 1, it’s not clear what exactly makes at least one embodiment “non-rectangular”. Applicant has not defined non-rectangular with any particularity.
As to claim 1, lines 26-27 (“the opening … second distance”) are confusing because the first and second axes in the context of the structure in the claims are undefined, thus making it difficult grasp what structure is shorter than what other structure. Consider that even a circle can have as many axes as one might wish. For instance,
PNG
media_image1.png
224
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There is nothing in the claims that define the axes relative to any claimed structure. The term “axis” is fine in a drawing, but such by itself does not provide clarity in the claims.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
1 Consider that “arc” suggests a circle, and thus the quoted passage suggests circle may potentially be rectangular.
2
Prosecution Insights