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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should read “with a[[n]] universal adapter” for grammatical purposes.
Claim 1 should read “a[[n]] ultrasonic atomizer” for grammatical purposes.
Claim 1 should read “atomizer provided at [[the]] a bottom of the misting oil tank” for the best antecedent basis.
Claim 1 should read “electrically controlling [[the]] a conduction operation of the control oil pump” for the best antecedent basis.
Claim 1 should read “with spray released to [[the]] an outside through an obliquely” for the best antecedent basis.
Claim 1 should read “neodymium magnets fixed in [[the]] a middle[[.]], [[The]] the bottle cap lower shell” for the best antecedent basis and also because a claim should be a single sentence and not multiple sentences.
Claim 1 should read “multiple neodymium magnets” and it is recommended this limitation read “a second plurality of neodymium magnets” or something equivalent to better distinguish these magnets from the ones earlier in the claim.
Claim 1 should read “removal of the universal adapter , and;” so that every word has a space between it in the claim.
Claim 1 should read “inlet sealing ring provided at [[the]] an upper inlet end” for the best antecedent basis.
Claim 3 should read “a mutually stacked [[an]] upper shell, [[a]] middle shell, and [[a]] lower shell.”
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.
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 1-5 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.
Claim 1 is rejected for reciting “an improved structure” however the claim does not clearly establish what the improvement in the claim is. See MPEP 1.75: Where the nature of the case admits, as in the case of an improvement, any independent claim should contain in the following order:
(1) A preamble comprising a general description of all the elements or steps of the claimed combination which are conventional or known,
(2) A phrase such as "wherein the improvement comprises," and
(3) Those elements, steps and/or relationships which constitute that portion of the claimed combination which the applicant considers as the new or improved portion.
If the claimed invention is not intended to be directed towards an improvement but rather towards an oil control pump aroma device, the term “improved” should be omitted in the preambles of claims 1-5.
Claim 1 is rejected for reciting the transitional phrase “mainly comprising” is it cannot be determined what is necessarily part of the claimed invention because the term “mainly comprising” does not establish clear bounds as to what is included and excluded by the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected for reciting “the outer shell main body is provided with a magnetic oil supply interface above,” and it is not clear what the supply interface is provided above or what is provided above it as claimed. The scope of this claim limitation cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
The term “easy separation and removal” in claim 1 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. It cannot be determined how easy or hard the removal must be in order to necessarily satisfy the claimed limitation of “easy”.
Claim is rejected for reciting “the control oil pump is controlled by an electromagnetic switch” and it cannot be determined if this switch is the same switch or a different one from the switch that is recited earlier in the claim. The scope of this claim limitation cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on one of the claims above for at least the reasons above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest each and every limitation in claim 1. The prior art considered to be the closest prior art is Chang (US 2023/0264221).
Chang teaches an atomizer (title, abstract) that includes an adapter (Fig. 5 end cover 175) with a magnet (magnetic members 191A) that are attracted to another magnet (119A) inside a magnetic oil supply interface (fig. 5 the magnet 119A attracts the other magnet 191A, par. 92). Chang is silent with regards to a bottle cap upper shell and a bottle cap lower shell with a plurality of neodymium magnets fixed in the middle, the lower shell being annular with spaced holes. Therefore claim 1 is allowable.
The remaining claims are allowable for being dependent on claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights