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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 72-74 are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 55-71 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 55, REMARKS focus on 1A to 1C; thus, Undersigned will do the same immediately below.
Claim 55 calls for 3 different components; layer 104, chassis 110 and applicator 120; but such is not consistent with Figure 1.
As to claim 55, claim distinguishes between “a chassis” (line 3) 110 (which comprises fluid chamber 112) and “an applicator” 120 (line 5 from last); but it appears that (1) the applicator 120 (Figure 1C) defines the boundary of the fluid chamber (shown in figure 1B), and (2) that the actuator 120 supports the transducer 120 (shown Figure 1B); as such, the chassis (of Figure 1) must include both the chamber 112 and applicator 120; and yet, claim 55 is written such that the chassis 110 and applicator 120 are entirely separate. As such, there is an inconsistency between claim 55 and both the specification/drawings.
Applicant in invited to overcome the 112b rejection by:
Replacing “specimen;” (line 2, claim 1) with - - specimen; and - -,
Replacing “; and “ (line 10) with - - , and the chassis further comprising - - .
Such would make it clear that the claim is a combination of layer 104 and chassis 110, where the chassis 110 is configured to support transducer 102, the chassis 110 comprises both the couplant fluid chamber 112 and the applicator 120 … all as shown in Figure 1. After all, as the chassis 110 comprises couplant fluid chamber (lines 3-4, claim 55), it must also comprises the applicator 120 (that surrounds and defines that same fluid chamber 112).
PNG
media_image1.png
262
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 69, the “a chassis” (line 5) is claimed as being separate from “an applicator” (line 11). This is not consistent with Figure 1 in the same manner as claim 55 is inconsistent for the reasons above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 67,68 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The phrase “the chassis includes the applicator” (line 1-2) removes claim 1’s limitation that “a chassis” (line 3) and “an applicator” (line 10) are entirely separate structural components. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
As to REMARKS: as to bottom of page 10, base claim distinguishes between “a chassis” 110 and “an applicator” 120, by stating separateness. Claim 67 removes such separateness.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 Monday to Friday 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
PNG
media_image2.png
270
254
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prosecution Insights