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 15-34 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 claims 15 and 25, “each characteristic curve represents a full cycle consistent of two branches” (italics added, last line) is confusing:
Considering characteristic curve 16; it’s not clear how a characteristic curve 16 represents a “cycle” (claim 15). Consider that the “curve 16 for the flow Q” (Para 39, Pub) is a loop (as shown below), but how is a single loop representative of a “full cycle”? How is the term “full cycle” in any way representative of “curve 16” which is a loop representative of range?
PNG
media_image1.png
350
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Considering characteristic curve 16; it’s not clear how a such may consist of two branches? There do not appear to be branches in a curve in the shape of a loop. Consider that the term “branch” (specification) is unrelated to the any curve, and that the drawing by itself does not seem to provide for branches.1
Considering characteristic curve 17; it’s not clear how a characteristic curve 17 represents a “cycle” (claim 15). Consider that the “characteristic curve 17 for the fluid pressure p” (Para 39) is a generally straight line in Figure 2, and as such it’s unclear how such may represent a “cycle” (claim 15) any manner. How is the term “cycle” (claim 15) in any way consistent with a straight line?
Considering characteristic curve 17; it’s not clear how a such may consist of two branches? There do not appear to be branches in a straight line. Consider that the term “branch” (specification) is unrelated to the any curve, and that the drawing by itself does not seem to provide for branches.
Claims 15-34 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 claims 15 and 25, the last line of each of those 2 claims is new matter either by itself, or in combination with remaining claim limitations.
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 That term “branch” appears in Paragraph 10 of Prior Art Reference Allerding 2005/0171668, and is potentially the source of the problematic term.