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 information disclosure statement filed 10/31/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 limitation “wherein in the communicating state, the first inspecting component or the second inspecting component is adapted for communication with the sealing cavity and a gas extracting device” is indefinite. First, it is unclear whether “the communication state” is referring to a communicating state of the first inspecting component or a communicating state of the second inspecting component. Second, if “the communication state” is referring to a communicating state of the first inspecting component, how could a communicating state of the first inspecting component make the second inspecting component adapted for communication with the sealing cavity and a gas extracting device? Third, if “the communication state” is referring to a communicating state of the second inspecting component, how could a communicating state of the second inspecting component make the first inspecting component adapted for communication with the sealing cavity and a gas extracting device?
The limitation “wherein in the inspecting state, the first inspecting component or the second inspecting component is adapted for communication with the sealing cavity and separated from the gas extracting device” is indefinite. First, it is unclear whether “the inspecting state” is referring to an inspecting state of the first inspecting component or an inspecting state of the second inspecting component. Second, if “the inspecting state” is referring to an inspecting state of the first inspecting component, how could an inspecting state of the first inspecting component make the second inspecting component adapted for communication with the sealing cavity and separated from the gas extracting device? Third, if “the inspecting state” is referring to an inspecting state of the second inspecting component, how could a inspecting state of the second inspecting component make the first inspecting component adapted for communication with the sealing cavity and separated from the gas extracting device?
The limitation “wherein in the discharging state, the first inspecting component or the second inspecting component is separated from the sealing cavity” is indefinite. First, it is unclear whether “the discharging state” is referring to a discharging state of the first inspecting component or a discharging state of the second inspecting component. Second, if “the discharging state” is referring to a discharging state of the first inspecting component, how could a discharging state of the first inspecting component make the second inspecting component separated from the sealing cavity? Third, if “the discharging state” is referring to a discharging state of the second inspecting component, how could a discharging state of the second inspecting component make the first inspecting component separated from the sealing cavity?
The remaining claims are rejected due to their dependence.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood by the Examiner, Zhang et al. (CN110132507) teaches a leakage inspection device, comprising: a sealing box with a sealing cavity for accommodating a workpiece; a first inspecting component connected to the sealing box and configured, for inspecting volatile gases from the workpiece; and a second inspecting component connected to the sealing box, and configured for inspecting the volatile gases from the workpiece.
However, Zhang et al. (CN110132507) differs from claim 1 in that Zhang does not disclose or suggest “wherein, both the first inspecting component and the second inspecting component are adapted for a communicating state, an inspecting state, and a discharging state; wherein in the communicating state, the first inspecting component or the second inspecting component is adapted for communication with the sealing cavity and a gas extracting device; wherein in the inspecting state, the first inspecting component or the second inspecting component is adapted for communication with the sealing cavity and separated from the gas extracting device; and wherein in the discharging state, the first inspecting component or the second inspecting component is separated from the sealing cavity”, in combination of with all other recited associated elements in a leakage inspection device.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIN Y ZHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3798. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 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 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.
/XIN Y ZHONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855