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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l)/1.84(m) and/or PCT Rules 11(b)/11(c). The shading in each of the drawings makes it difficult to determine the structural characteristics of the claimed invention, and prevent satisfactory reproduction.
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.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: the specification is generally narrative, failing to conform with current U.S. practice; appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document; and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. See MPEP 702.01.
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 1-14 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only.
Some examples of indefinite language in the claims are discussed below. It should be noted due to the extent of indefinite language in the claims, this is not an exhaustive list, and Applicant should be careful to address all indefinite language in any amended claims.
As to Claim 1, the following indefinite language precludes examination of the claims:
The preamble should read –A high
The phrase “of the type", in Line 2, renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP §2173.05(d). This rejection may be overcome by deleting the phrase “of the type”.
The term “said shaft”, in Line 3, lacks antecedent basis.
The limitation “having at least two crankpins, a first crankpin and a second crankpin”, in Lines 3-4, is indefinite. It is not clear if the first and second crankpins are part of the at least two crankpins, or if the first and second crankpins are part of the at least two crankpins.
The phrase “which connecting rods are mutually outphased”, in Lines 5-6, is grammatically confusing, since it is not clear what the term “which” is referring to in the limitation.
The term “a first connecting rod”, in Line 7, is indefinite. It is not clear if the first connecting rod is part of the connecting rods defined in Line 5, or separate from the connecting rods defined in Line 5.
The phrase “which is attached to a first pin connected to a first piston which defines a first conduit inside”, in Lines 7-9, is indefinite. It is not clear if the pin and piston define the conduit, or just the piston defines the conduit. Additionally, it is not clear which structure is defines “inside”.
The term “a first housing”, in Line 10, is indefinite in light of the specification. When referencing instant application Figure 3, it appears Element 27 is a volume, not a housing. As such, it is not clear how the volume is interpreted as a housing by Applicant.
The term “a second connecting rod”, in Line 7, is indefinite. It is not clear if the second connecting rod is part of the connecting rods defined in Line 5, or separate from the connecting rods defined in Line 5.
The phrase “in turn connected to:”, in Line 12, is indefinite. It is not clear what structure is connected to the structure following the phrase, since multiple structures are claimed.
The term “the fluid”, in Line 19, lacks antecedent basis.
The term “it”, in Line 20, is indefinite. It is not clear what structure constitutes the term “it”.
The phrase “when the shaft driven by the motor”, in Line 24, is grammatically incomplete.
The term “it”, in Line 25, is indefinite. It is not clear what structure constitutes the term “it”.
The phrase “which drags the second connecting rod towards the shaft”, in Lines 25-26, is indefinite. It is not clear what is meant by the term “drags”. The website thefreedictionary.com/drag defines the term “drag” as “To pull along with difficulty or effort; haul” or “To cause to trail along a surface, especially the ground”. It is not clear what structure is casing the “difficulty” or is considered to be the surface which the second connecting rod is trailing along, rendering the claim indefinite.
The phrase “the inlet of the fluid”, in Line 28, is indefinite. It is not clear if the term “the inlet of the fluid”, in Line 28 is the “fluid inlet” in Line 22, or if the respective inlets are separate from each other. If they are the same structure, it is not clear why the structure nomenclature was changed.
Similar to above, it is not clear how to interpret the term “drags”, in Line 29.
The term “the same forward direction”, in Line 29, is indefinite. A “forward direction” has not been previously defined, so it is not clear which direction the term is referring to.
The rest of Claim 1, and each of the dependent claims, has similar issues as described above. Applicant should review each of the claims to address all indefinite language. See MPEP 702.01.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Herzmark (2,382,716), Newton (2,361,316), and Lim (KR20040018103A – see attached translation) teach structure similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746