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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the reference numbers in Figures 1-2 are not clear and easily reproducible.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract as filed is longer that 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 25 “the attraction magnetic core set 11” should likely read “the attraction magnetic core set 13”.
In ¶ 25 “the repulsion core set 13” should likely read “the repulsion core set 11”.
In ¶ 26 “the magnetic core set 11” should likely read “the repulsion core set 11”.
In ¶ 34 “Open-close valve plate 15. force” should likely read “Open-close valve plate 15 force”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the Claims are replete with errors and therefore only a representative list of informalities is provided below. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the Claims.
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 2 “the lower end” should likely read “a lower end”.
In Claim 1, line 2 “an Open-close valve plate” should likely read “an open-close valve plate”.
In Claim 1, line 3 “the side” should likely read “a side”.
In Claim 1, line 4 “a multi-functional cover” should likely read “a multifunctional cover” to better correspond with the spelling in the remainder of the Claims.
In Claim 1, line 5 “the inner side” should likely read “an inner side”.
In Claims 2-10, line 1 “The sealing device … comprising” should likely read “The sealing device … further comprising” or “The sealing device … wherein” for clarity.
In Claim 2, line 3 “the inner side” should likely read “an inner side”.
In Claim 5, line 2 “the surface” should likely read “a surface”.
In Claim 5, line 3 “the upper end” should likely read “an upper end”.
In Claim 5, line 4 “the lower end” should likely read “a lower end”.
In Claim 5, line 5 “the area” should likely read “an area”.
In Claim 6, line 2 “the lower end surface” should likely read “a lower end surface”
In Claim 6, line 3 “the upper surface” should likely read “an upper surface”.
In Claim 7, line 3 “the bottom” should likely read “a bottom”.
In Claim 7, line 4 “the open position” should likely read “an open position”.
In Claim 7, line 5 “repulsive force” should likely read “a repulsive force”.
In Claim 7, line 6, “the closed position” should likely read “a closed position”.
In Claim 8, line 3, “the side” should likely read “a side”.
In Claim 8, line 4 “the magnetic core set” should likely read “the repulsion core set”.
In Claim 8, line 4 “the side” should likely read “an other side”.
In Claim 9, line 1 “a locking mechanism” should likely read “the locking mechanism”.
In Claim 9, line 2 “the upper end” should likely read “an upper end”.
In Claim 9, line 4 “the end” should likely read “an end”.
In Claim 10, line 7 “the lower end” should likely read “a lower end”.
In Claim 10, line 8 “the end” should likely read “an end”.
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 1-10 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.
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 errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the structure" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “bevel” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, Claim 9 recites the limitation “the bevel” in line 4, therefore for Claim 1 “bevel” will be interpreted as being “a bevel”, such that the groove comprises a bevel shaped structure.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inclined surface" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the push rod" in lines 7 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the drain line" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the internal space" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “mutually repelling magnets” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “magnetic points” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the magnetic forces” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the magnetic point” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the magnetic point” will be interpreted as referring to “magnetic points” from Claim 4, line 3 which also lack antecedent basis as discussed above.
Claim 4 recites a limitation in two sentences. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Therefore Claim 4 is indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the opening of the groove” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the upper port edge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the lower port" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the upper port" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the drain outlet" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the shaft" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the arc surface" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "guide blocks" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the vertical movement rod" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the drain" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "rotating shafts" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the rotating shaft" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 is indicated as allowed for claiming, along with the entirety of the claim limitations, “a negative pressure valve is provided on the side of the sleeve; the negative pressure valve including a groove and a multi-functional cover; the structure of the groove is bevel; a pressure conducting membrane is provided on the inclined surface of the groove, facing the inner side of the groove; the groove is provided with a pressure conductor corresponding to the pressure conducting membrane; the push rod of the pressure conductor passes through the multifunctional cover which is matched with the groove; the push rod cooperates with the open-close valve plate through a locking mechanism; the multifunctional cover is provided with a pressure hole connected to the drain line”. This limitation is neither anticipated by, nor rendered obvious over, the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM EST.
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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights