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 .
Drawings
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The needle through hole
The interlayer
The micro sealing door
The electromagnetic push rod
No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because of the following.
Element 8 –the sealing stack-- is pointing to a different structure in Figure 1 than in Figure 2
Element 11 –the central airway-- is pointing to a different structure in Figure 1 than in Figure 2
Element 9 –the sealing pressure rod-- is pointing to a different structure in Figure 1 than in Figure 2
Elements 2, 3 & 4 are pointing to the same structure in Figure 1
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because they fail to comply with the following §1.84 sections.
New corrected drawings in compliance with §1.84(m) are required in this application because the shading, in each of the figures, makes it difficult to determine the structure of the claimed invention.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 5 & 12.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows.
“wireless communication module” in Claim 6, where the generic placeholder is “module”, the functional language is “wireless communication”, and sufficient modifying structure is not provided; the instant application does not provide sufficient modifying structure for one of ordinary skill in the art to identify what structure constitutes the wireless communication module
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 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 1, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims the hole of the syringe needle (1) is connected with a needle through hole (5) defined on the needle tube (2), and an interlayer is provided between the needle tube (2) and the syringe needle (1). This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describe how fluid is capable of moving through the interlayer from/to the syringe needle hole to/from the needle tube needle through hole.
Instant application Paragraph 0022 describes a solution being sucked or discharged “in an interlayer”. As such, the instant application describes the solution staying within the interlayer, and being prevented from moving into or out of the needle tube. In light of this, the hole of the syringe needle is NOT connected with the needle through hole, as claimed. Therefore, the claimed limitation does not have sufficient support for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how the syringe needle hole is capable of being connected with the needle tube needle through hole when an interlayer is provided between the syringe needle hole and the needle tube needle through hole.
Applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims a sealing stack (8) embedded into a middle of the syringe plunger (6), and a sealing pressure rod (9) provided on a side of the sealing stack (8) facing towards the pneumatic assembly. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describe how the stack is capable of sealing or the rod is capable of providing a sealing pressure.
Instant application Paragraph 0023 describes the stack as “a unidirectional opening and self-closing stacking group”; which opens when suction is provided in the central airway, and closes with the absence of suction. However, sufficient structure has not been provided which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the stack is capable of performing these functions while providing a sealing effect.
Instant application Paragraph 0023 describes the sealing pressure rod as being comprised of a pressure rod arm and an air-controlled pressure rod shaft, where the air-controlled pressure rod shaft is actuated via air flowing through the pressure rod airway applying negative or positive pressure to the air-controlled pressure rod shaft, but this fails to describe how the air-controlled pressure rod shaft is able to drive the pressure rod arm. The instant application does not provide any means –i.e., structure on the air-controlled pressure rod shaft—which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude how the air-controlled pressure rod shaft is controlled via air. As such, the disclosure does not provide sufficient structure which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the sealing pressure rod is capable of performing these functions while providing a sealing pressure effect.
As to Claim 2, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims a needle sealing door. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describe how the door is capable of sealing/unsealing the needle.
Instant application Paragraph 0022 describes the needle sealing door as being comprised of a BLUETOOTH controlled electromagnetic sealing door, which is an electromagnetic push rod, and comprised of a micro sealing door. The electromagnetic push rod can drive the door to open the needle tube through hole, and power is supplied by an induction coil. However, instant application Figure 1 shows the needle tube 2, the induction coil 4, and the needle sealing door 3 as the same structure. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the door is capable of providing a sealing effect, since the door, needle tube and coil are all arranged as the same structure. As such, the disclosure does not provide sufficient written description for the needle sealing door.
As to Claim 4, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims an air-controlled pressure rod shaft (23). This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describe how the rod is capable of being controlled via air.
Instant application Paragraph 0023 describes the sealing pressure rod as being comprised of a pressure rod arm and an air-controlled pressure rod shaft, where the air-controlled pressure rod shaft is actuated via air flowing through the pressure rod airway applying negative or positive pressure to the air-controlled pressure rod shaft, but this fails to describe how the air-controlled pressure rod shaft is able to drive the pressure rod arm. The instant application does not provide any means –i.e., structure on the air-controlled pressure rod shaft—which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude how the air-controlled pressure rod shaft is controlled via air. As such, the disclosure does not provide sufficient structure which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the sealing pressure rod is capable of performing these functions while providing a sealing pressure effect.
As to Claim 6, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims a wireless communication module. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describe the structure of the claimed wireless communication module.
The only reference to a module is in instant application Paragraph 0009, which describes the wireless communication module and a separate Bluetooth module. Since the wireless communication module and the Bluetooth module are described as separate structure the two modules cannot be the same structure. Since no other description of the wireless communication module is provided in the original disclosure, sufficient structure for the wireless communication module has not been provided, since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to conclude what structure constitutes the wireless communication module from the original disclosure. As such, sufficient written description for the wireless communication module has not been provided.
As to Claim 11, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims a needle sealing door (3), disposed between the syringe needle (1) and the needle tube (2) and configured to block the needle through hole (5); an induction coil (4), disposed between the syringe needle (1) and the needle tube (2), and electrically connected to the needle sealing door (3). This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describe how the door is capable of sealing/unsealing the needle.
Instant application Paragraph 0022 describes the needle sealing door as being comprised of a BLUETOOTH controlled electromagnetic sealing door, which is an electromagnetic push rod, and comprised of a micro sealing door. The electromagnetic push rod can drive the door to open the needle tube through hole, and power is supplied by an induction coil. However, instant application Figure 1 shows the needle tube 2, the induction coil 4, and the needle sealing door 3 as the same structure. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the door is capable of providing a sealing effect, since the door, needle tube and coil are all arranged as the same structure. As such, the disclosure does not provide sufficient written description for the needle sealing door.
Applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims a sealing stack (8), embedded into a middle of the syringe plunger (6); a sealing pressure rod (9), disposed on a side of the sealing stack (8) facing away from the syringe needle (1)… a central airway (11), connected to the sealing stack (8), and configured to control opening or closing of the sealing stack (8); a pressure rod airway (15), connected to the sealing pressure rod (9); wherein the pressure rod airway (15) is configured to drive the sealing pressure rod (9) to lock the sealing stack (8), and the sealing stack (8) is not opened in a locking state. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describe how the stack is capable of sealing or the rod is capable of providing a sealing pressure.
Instant application Paragraph 0023 describes the stack as “a unidirectional opening and self-closing stacking group”; which opens when suction is provided in the central airway, and closes with the absence of suction. However, sufficient structure has not been provided which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the stack is capable of performing these functions while providing a sealing effect.
Instant application Paragraph 0023 describes the sealing pressure rod as being comprised of a pressure rod arm and an air-controlled pressure rod shaft, where the air-controlled pressure rod shaft is actuated via air flowing through the pressure rod airway applying negative or positive pressure to the air-controlled pressure rod shaft, but this fails to describe how the air-controlled pressure rod shaft is able to drive the pressure rod arm. The instant application does not provide any means –i.e., structure on the air-controlled pressure rod shaft—which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude how the air-controlled pressure rod shaft is controlled via air. As such, the disclosure does not provide sufficient structure which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the sealing pressure rod is capable of performing these functions while providing a sealing pressure effect.
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 1-11 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, the limitation “the syringe needle (1) defines a hole penetrating through itself and the hole of the syringe needle (1) is connected with a needle through hole (5) defined on the needle tube (2)”, in Lines 7-9, should read -- the syringe needle (1) defines a hole penetrating through the syringe needle, and the hole of the syringe needle (1) is connected with a needle through hole (5) defined in the needle tube (2)—to clarify structure and grammar.
The limitation “the hole of the syringe needle (1) is connected with a needle through hole (5) defined on the needle tube (2), and an interlayer is provided between the needle tube (2) and the syringe needle (1)” is indefinite. It is not clear how fluid is capable of moving through the interlayer from/to the syringe needle hole to/from the needle tube needle through hole. As described in the 112(a) rejection above, the disclosure does not provide sufficient description on how the syringe needle hole is capable of being connected with the needle tube needle through hole when an interlayer is provided between the syringe needle hole and the needle tube needle through hole. As such, it is not clear how the syringe needle hole is connected with the needle tube needle through hole.
The limitation “a sealing stack (8) embedded into a middle of the syringe plunger (6), and a sealing pressure rod (9) provided on a side of the sealing stack (8) facing towards the pneumatic assembly” is indefinite. It is not clear how the stack is capable of sealing or the rod is capable of providing a sealing pressure. As described in the 112(a) rejection above, the disclosure does not provide sufficient description on how the stack is capable of performing these functions while providing a sealing effect. As such, it is not clear how the stack is capable of providing a sealing effect.
The limitation “the central airway (11), the plunger airway (10) and the pressure rod airway (15) each extend along with a moving of the syringe plunger (6)”, in Lines 15-16, is indefinite. It is not clear if the central airway, the plunger airway, and the pressure rod airway extend as the syringe plunger moves, or if the structure of the central airway, the plunger airway, and the pressure rod airway extend in a direction in which the syringe plunger moves, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the central airway, the plunger airway, and the pressure rod airway extend in a direction in which the syringe plunger moves.
As to Claim 2, the limitation “a needle sealing door”, is indefinite. It is not clear how the door is capable of providing a sealing effect. As described in the 112(a) rejection above, the disclosure does not provide sufficient description on how the door provides a sealing effect. As such, it is not clear how the door provides a sealing effect, rendering the limitation indefinite.
As to Claim 3, the limitation “a side of the sealing stack (8) is connected with the needle tube (2), and another side of the sealing stack (8) is fixedly connected with the central airway (11)” is indefinite. It is not clear if “a side” or “another side” of the sealing stack is the same side of the sealing stack defined in Claim 1, Line 13, or if the sealing stack has three different sides. For the purpose of examination, the “another side” of the sealing stack will be interpreted as the side defined in Claim 1. Examiner suggests labeling the respective sides –i.e., first side, second side—to clarify the respective sides.
As to Claim 4, the limitation “an air-controlled pressure rod shaft (23)”, is indefinite. It is not clear how the pressure rod shaft is controlled via air. As described in the 112(a) rejection above, the disclosure does not provide sufficient description on how the rod shaft is controlled via air. As such, it is not clear how the air-controlled pressure rod shaft is actuated via air, rendering the limitation indefinite.
Additionally, the term “the air-controlled pressure rod shaft (14)” should read --the air-controlled pressure rod shaft (23). Alternatively, Applicant may remove all element numbers in the claims.
As to Claim 6, the limitation “a wireless communication module”, is indefinite. As described in the 112(a) rejection above, sufficient modifying structure for the wireless communication module has not been provided. As such, the structure of the wireless communication module is not clear, and it is not clear how the module is capable of wireless communication, rendering the claim indefinite.
The term “Bluetooth” is a trademark/trade name. 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 module and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
As to Claim 7, the limitation “a material of the component framework (18) is a plastic frame with and non-toxic”, is indefinite.
The limitation is grammatically confusing for at least two reasons. First, the use of the term “with” after “frame” does not appear to add any value to the limitation, so it is not clear how to interpret the term. Second, the term “a plastic frame” is not just a material as the limitation is attempting to claim. The term also provides structure, i.e., the frame.
Additionally, it is not clear how to determine what material is toxic or non-toxic. One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude nearly all materials are toxic, depending on the amount of the material in contact with or ingested into the body. Also, some materials are toxic to some people, but not other people. The original disclosure has not defined the term “non-toxic”. As such, the term is indefinite, rendering the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 8, The term “Bluetooth” is a trademark/trade name. 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 how an electromagnetic sealing door is controlled and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
The limitation “the BLUETOOTH controlled electromagnetic sealing door comprises an electromagnetic push rod (12) and a micro sealing door made of a non-toxic and wear-resistant plastic”, is indefinite. It is not clear if just the micro sealing door is non-toxic and wear-resistant plastic, or if both of the electromagnetic push rod (12) and micro sealing door are non-toxic and wear-resistant plastic.
It is not clear how to determine what material is toxic or non-toxic. One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude nearly all materials are toxic, depending on the amount of the material in contact with or ingested into the body. Also, some materials are toxic to some people, but not other people. The original disclosure has not defined the term “non-toxic”. As such, the term is indefinite, rendering the claim indefinite.
It is not clear how to determine what plastics are wear-resistant. One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude all plastics have some degree of wear-resistance. The original disclosure has not defined a standard for determining what constitutes “wear-resistant plastic”. As such, the term is indefinite, rendering the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 9, the limitation “the sealing stack (8) is a wear-resistant and non-toxic plastic sheet group coated with a wear-resistant sealing flexible coating”, is indefinite.
It is not clear how to determine what material is toxic or non-toxic. One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude nearly all materials are toxic, depending on the amount of the material in contact with or ingested into the body. Also, some materials are toxic to some people, but not other people. The original disclosure has not defined the term “non-toxic”. As such, the term is indefinite, rendering the claim indefinite.
It is not clear how to determine what plastics are wear-resistant. One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude all plastics have some degree of wear-resistance. The original disclosure has not defined a standard for determining what constitutes “wear-resistant plastic”. As such, the term is indefinite, rendering the claim indefinite.
The limitation “the sealing pressure rod (9) is a micro pneumatic curved non-toxic plastic rod fixed on a wall of the plunger airway (10)”, is indefinite.
It is not clear how to determine what material is toxic or non-toxic. One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude nearly all materials are toxic, depending on the amount of the material in contact with or ingested into the body. Also, some materials are toxic to some people, but not other people. The original disclosure has not defined the term “non-toxic”. As such, the term is indefinite, rendering the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 11, the limitation “a needle sealing door (3), disposed between the syringe needle (1) and the needle tube (2) and configured to block the needle through hole (5); an induction coil (4), disposed between the syringe needle (1) and the needle tube (2), and electrically connected to the needle sealing door (3)”, is indefinite. It is not clear how the door is capable of providing a sealing effect. As described in the 112(a) rejection above, the disclosure does not provide sufficient description on how the door provides a sealing effect. As such, it is not clear how the door provides a sealing effect, rendering the limitation indefinite.
The limitation “a sealing stack (8), embedded into a middle of the syringe plunger (6); a sealing pressure rod (9), disposed on a side of the sealing stack (8) facing away from the syringe needle (1)… a central airway (11), connected to the sealing stack (8), and configured to control opening or closing of the sealing stack (8); a pressure rod airway (15), connected to the sealing pressure rod (9); wherein the pressure rod airway (15) is configured to drive the sealing pressure rod (9) to lock the sealing stack (8), and the sealing stack (8) is not opened in a locking state” is indefinite. It is not clear how the stack is capable of sealing or the rod is capable of providing a sealing pressure. As described in the 112(a) rejection above, the disclosure does not provide sufficient description on how the stack is capable of performing these functions while providing a sealing effect. As such, it is not clear how the stack is capable of providing a sealing effect.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sharma (2020/0009017) and Lee (2006/0224144) describe fluid pressure actuated syringes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783