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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The second NPL reference on the IDS submitted on 10 April 2024 has been lined through and not considered by Examiner, as it pertains to a link to a web page that is no longer in use and Examiner could not view the contents thereof.
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 buttons, wiring, charging port, and ultrasonic sensor 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.
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.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim language in line 5, regarding “a multiple-means-based attachment mechanism”. Examiner looks to the Specification to see: 1) if Applicant is invoking a means plus function limitation and 2) to see how Applicant defines/quantifies/qualifies said limitation. Examiner finds that Applicant’s claim language is indefinite as Applicant has failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Further regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation "the connections" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further regarding claim 1, Applicant claims in lines 7-8, “an ultrasonic sensor within the ultrasonic cleaner”. Examiner finds this claim language as indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art realizes that an ultrasonic sensor is generally used to detect and respond to ultrasound produced by a transducer, and said sensor does not produce a cleaning effect. However, when Examiner reads through Applicant’s Specification, along with that of claim 6, Examiner finds that Applicant purports/puts forth that the ultrasonic sensor cleans a target object. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “ultrasonic sensor” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “ultrasonic transducer/generator,” while the accepted meaning is “to detect and respond to ultrasound produced by a transducer.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for containing the same indefiniteness issues as claim 1 from which they depend thereon.
Regarding claim 3, the term “easily” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easily” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant claims in lines 1-2, “employs ultrasonic seonsor technology to efficiently clean accessories”. Examiner finds this claim language as indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art realizes that an ultrasonic sensor is generally used to detect and respond to ultrasound produced by a transducer, and said sensor does not produce a cleaning effect. However, when Examiner reads through Applicant’s Specification and this claim, Examiner finds that Applicant purports/puts forth that the ultrasonic sensor cleans a target object. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “ultrasonic sensor” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “ultrasonic transducer/generator,” while the accepted meaning is “to detect and respond to ultrasound produced by a transducer.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Further regarding claim 6, the term “efficiently” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “efficiently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the terms “compact” and “portable” in claim 7 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “compact” and “portable” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the term “easy” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 204105130 U to Sun et al. (Sun).
Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses an ultrasonic cleaning and storage device (Fig. 1, generally; machine translation, paragraph 3) , comprising: a. An integrated storage component with an opening designed to store a variety of accessories (Fig. 1, parts 26-29); b. A lower-level ultrasonic cleaner with a detachable basin for cleaning accessories (Fig. 1, part 22); d. Integrated buttons for controlling the start, stop, and power of an ultrasonic sensor within the ultrasonic cleaner (machine translation, paragraphs 6 and 15); e. Associated wiring, charging port, and buttons to power on/off the Clarity Case (Fig. 4, parts 34-37). The claim language regarding “c. A multiple-means-based attachment mechanism to secure the connections between the integrated storage component and the lower-level ultrasonic cleaner” is regarded as intended use as Examiner has no reasonable manner of ascertaining the understanding of the claim language due to the Specification failing to define/quantify/qualify said limitation as rejected above in the 35 USC 112 rejection. Therefore, the limitations of the claim are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 2, the claim language regarding “wherein the Clarity Case is available in multiple size options to accommodate different accessory sizes” is regarded as intended use as Applicant is claiming the device itself and not an optional size based on intended use of accessory size, does not add further structural limitations to the claim, and because the apparatus of Sun is capable of performing said intended use, the limitations of the claim are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 3, the claim language regarding “wherein the multiple-means-based attachment mechanism allows users to easily attach and detach the integrated storage component and the lower-level ultrasonic cleaner” is regarded as intended use as Examiner has no reasonable manner of ascertaining the understanding of the claim language due to the Specification failing to define/quantify/qualify said limitation as rejected above in the 35 USC 112 rejection. Therefore, the limitations of the claim are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 4, Sun discloses wherein the integrated buttons and associated wiring on the ultrasonic cleaner enable users to control the start, stop, and power of the ultrasonic sensor (machine translation, paragraphs 6 and 15). The claim language regarding “thereby providing user-friendly operation” is regarded as intended use, does not add further structural limitations to the claim, and because the apparatus of Sun is capable of performing said intended use, the limitations of the claim are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 5, the claim language regarding “wherein the Clarity Case is designed to clean and store accessories such as jewelry, glasses, orthodontic products, and similar items” is regarded as intended use as Applicant is claiming the device itself and not the item to be cleaned/stored, does not add further structural limitations to the claim, and because the apparatus of Sun is capable of performing said intended use, the limitations of the claim are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 6, Sun discloses that the device uses ultrasonic technology, specifically a transducer, to clean (machine translation, paragraph 3). The claim language regarding “to efficiently clean accessories submerged in water” is regarded as intended use as Applicant is claiming the device itself and not the item to be cleaned/stored, does not add further structural limitations to the claim, and because the apparatus of Sun is capable of performing said intended use, the limitations of the claim are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 7, the claim language regarding “wherein the combination of the integrated storage component and the lower-level ultrasonic cleaner provides a compact and portable cleaning and storage solution for accessories” is regarded as intended use, does not add further structural limitations to the claim, and because the apparatus of Sun is capable of performing said intended use, the limitations of the claim are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 8, the claim language regarding “wherein the multiple size options for the integrated storage component cater to a wide range of accessory sizes, ensuring versatility and convenience for users” is regarded as intended use, does not add further structural limitations to the claim, and because the apparatus of Sun is capable of performing said intended use, the limitations of the claim are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 9, the claim language regarding “wherein the multiple-means-based attachment mechanism facilitates easy attachment and detachment of the integrated storage component and the lower-level ultrasonic cleaner, offering user-friendly functionality” is regarded as intended use, does not add further structural limitations to the claim, and because the apparatus of Sun is capable of performing said intended use, the limitations of the claim are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 10, the claim language regarding “wherein the integrated buttons for controlling the ultrasonic sensor provide users with the ability to initiate and terminate the cleaning process as needed” is regarded as intended use, does not add further structural limitations to the claim, and because the apparatus of Sun is capable of performing said intended use, the limitations of the claim are considered to be met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN LEE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (571)270-7379. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
BENJAMIN LEE OSTERHOUT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/BENJAMIN L OSTERHOUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711