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 amendment to the drawings filed 06/03/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The applicant has amended Figure 5 as follows, changing what the “vacuum system outlet section” 14c points to completely, and changing what used to be a line into an arrow, making it seem like the outlet section 14c is now a conduit branching off from a corner of the vacuum system:
Before: After:
PNG
media_image1.png
220
254
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
224
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The specification does not appear to provide support for the attribution of the ‘outlet section’ 14C to be this line/arrow, particularly given ‘zemin’ translates from Turkish to mean ‘ground’ or floor’, this line, as best understood, seeming to previously refer to the floor of the inner chamber.
Further, the movement of reference character ‘6’ in Figure 1 to point to the panel having the hardware cover 2 appears to be new matter, given the newly indicated panel does not appear to cover the motor area at all, that being the lower part of the device containing the motor 7. Should there be an issue in the description of reference character 6 in the specification, the examiner suggests correcting it. Otherwise, the examiner suggests removing the substituted 6, and replacing the newly added additional character ‘4’ with the character ‘6’ – the panel indicated by newly added additional character ‘4’ could be understood as a motor area front cover.
Support for these amendments is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported (MPEP 714.02; MPEP 2163.04).
As such, the substitute drawings filed 06/03/2025 will be placed in the file but will not be entered (see MPEP 68.02(h)).
Further, for the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner notes that the newly submitted, but not entered, substitute drawings would remain objected to for the following reasons:
A portion of the previous character ‘6’ in the amended fig 1 is still visible, this should be completely removed.
failing to comply with PCT rule 11.13(c) which requires that the scale of the drawings and the distinctness of their graphical execution shall be such that a photographic reproduction with a linear reduction in size to two-thirds would enable all details to be distinguished without difficulty. Figure 4a, in particular, is too small, it being hard to distinguish the features at the present size, however all figures would benefit from enlargement.
failing to comply with PCT rule 11.13(e) which requires that all numbers, letters and reference lines, appearing on the drawings be simple and clear, and that brackets, circles or inverted commas shall not be used in association with numbers and letters. The applicant appears to use lines as well as boxes to map reference characters to the pictured structures, however this makes the drawings unclear and very hard to understand – it is unclear which lines are a part of the drawings, and which are a part of the labeling system. This confusion is further exacerbated, as it appears the rectangles used for labeling do not even fully encompass the structure that is labeled. Particularly see reference characters 11a-11d in Figs 3a-3b; 12,13, A, 5a, and 5b? in Figs 4/4a; 14a-14b and 14d in Fig 5; 15a-15b in Fig 6; 16-18 in Fig 7a
failing to comply with PCT rule 11.13(m) which requires that the same features, when denoted by reference signs, shall, throughout the application, be denoted by the same signs. Based on the specification it appears that the reference characters 14 and 11f refer to the same structure, that being the vacuum system, potentially character 18 as well. If these reference characters refer to different structures, the applicant should explain such to the examiner, noting the differences between the structures.
The drawings are objected to because they seem to have conflicting depiction in regard to the sensor area 5. Figure 1 shows a sensor area on a far side of the device, outside of the inner chambers, however Figure 4 shows them within each chamber. If these are unique embodiments, clarification needs to be made in the specification.
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
The examiner notes that the following listing of issues may not be fully comprehensive, the
specification is replete with errors, appearing to be a poor direct translation. The examiner requests that the applicant reread their specification and correct any outstanding issues they discover.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
Pgs. 2-3, lines 21-2 amendments: “there are inner chambers have a surface that facitates their collective transfer” should read –there are inner chambers that have a surface that facilitates their collective transfer--.
There is a general lack of clarity in regard to how the vacuum system functions in the device. The disclosure seems to contemplate a vacuum system 14/11f with an inlet port 14b, the system being found at the base of a chamber, the vacuum system being raisable/lowerable by a motor 14d so as to selectively expose the inlet port to the inner chamber contents and provide vacuuming effect (Figs 3e-3f and Fig 5). The disclosure also discloses, in the same embodiment, that the inner chambers are removable/transportable, via chamber transport apparatuses 11e (which appear to act like handles), the chambers having a standard perforated outer surface 11b and a metal or plastic frame 11a (Pg. 11, lines 5-16; Pg. 10, lines 20-32). It seems as though, to facilitate the transfer of leeches using the inner chamber, the inner chambers would need to necessarily have a ground floor in addition to side walls, so as to prevent leeches from falling straight out of the chamber when the chamber is lifted and prevent any leeches from being left in the storage area when the inner chamber is removed. This being said, it is unclear how, the vacuum apparatus is able to rise and lower through the ground floor such that the inlet port is in communication with the inner chamber and the dead leeches may be removed from the system. It seems like there would need to be some sort of door or covering on a portion of the chamber floor that would rise/open to provide the vacuum system access to the inner chamber contents, and subsequently lower/close when the vacuum system is lowered, the door or covering remaining in place and preventing leeches from falling out when the inner chamber is removed from the device for leech transport. Nothing of this nature seems to be described or shown in the disclosure.
The disclosure mentions briefly a ‘vacuum system ground apparatus’ (18) that is said to allow compartments (?) of the inner chambers to adhere to the ground, and mentions that the vacuum apparatus is connected to a ground system by a magnet (11d) to ‘prevent movement of the inner chamber’. This portion of the invention is wholly unclear, particularly in what the ground system is, what is considered ‘the ground’, what the ‘vacuum system ground apparatus’ is, where the magnet is located (Fig 3d seems to show it on top of what seems to be the ground, rather than between a vacuum apparatus and a ground system?), and how the magnet serves to prevent movement of the inner chamber.
Pg. 10, line 24-26 recites “the water of the disinfection of these tanks and the water from the storage tanks is common.” The examiner believes this should read –the water in the disinfection area (B) and the water in the storage area (C) is common--.
Pg. 11, lines 18-19 recites “the leech storage function is transmitted to the inner chambers (11) by the clean water installation (10) in the water and the air motor (7), and also by way of the the water installation (9), it is transmitted to the storage area (C) that keeps the water in balance by replacing it with clean water when necessary.” This sentence is unclear, particularly in how a function can be transmitted and how the installation facilitates it. Perhaps the applicant should say that water is transmitted to the inner chambers by… though, even so the rest of the sentence needs cleaning up/clarification, and there is a duplicate ‘the’ in the sentence.
11-12, liens 25-7: the applicant introduces distinct motors, those enabling the opening and closing of the system, and the one used to vacuum the water and draw the leeches. However, they are both attributed with reference character 14d. The examiner asks that the disclosure only include reference characters in relation to the structure shown in the drawings that is labeled with the reference characters. As in the drawings, the specification should not use a single reference character to refer to multiple distinct structures, so as to not create confusion.
Pg. 12, lines 17-20 amendment: “are divided into compartments in the storage area (C) have an air system outlet…” should read –are divided into compartments in the storage area (C), each having an air system outlet…”
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendment filed 06/03/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the applicant changes “a vacuum system to adhere to the ground” to “a vacuum system to adhere to an underlying surface.” It is noted that all other recitations of ‘ground’ previously seem to refer to the ground of the inner chambers, that being 15b, so the previous phrasing seemed to indicate that the vacuum system adheres to the ground of the inner chambers in some manner. There does not appear to be support for the vacuum system adhering to an underlying surface – no discussion seems present in the originally filed specification that indicates this, nor is this shown in the drawings, as best understood.
Support for the amended limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported (MPEP 714.02; MPEP 2163.04).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 20: “a upper part” should read –an upper part--.
Claim 12, line 21: “the leeches” should read –leeches--.
Claim 12, line 25: “an the exterior” should read –an exterior--.
Claim 17, lines 1-2: examiner suggests changing “a side of said plurality of inner chambers and said upper cover having a camera and a motion sensor and a heat sensor thereon” to –said upper cover, and a side of said plurality of inner chambers each have a camera, a motion sensor, and a heat sensor thereon.--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2163.03(V): "An original claim may lack written description
support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but
the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved".
Claim 12 recites “said water and air motor adapted to renew or clean or cool or discharge water relative to the temperature values or the pH values or the oxygen ratios.” It is clear how the water and air motor may renew or discharge water, as a motor could facilitate a pressure differential which provides pumping action, however, it is unclear how a motor alone might clean or cool water, and the specification does not appear to provide sufficient written description support to attribute such functionality to the motor. It appears, rather, that the purification device 8 cleans the water, and the unshown heating-cooling device (Pg 3, line 16) would cool the water. This lack of written description also makes the scope of what may be considered ‘a motor’ unclear, as it is unclear whether the applicant is attempting to redefine the water and air motor to include these structures, thereby going against the ordinary meaning of the term ‘motor’ (see associated 112b rejection below).
Further, claim 12 recites “a magnet fixing a position of said plurality of inner chambers within the hardware cover.” The applicant does not appear to have sufficient written description support for how a disclosed magnet might perform the function of fixing a position of said plurality of inner chambers within the hardware cover. Several Magnets are mentioned in the specification and depicted in the drawings. It is clear that the applicant has support for a magnet that secures the rest bar 15 to the ground 15b of the inner chamber (Pg 4 and 12; Fig 3d). Further, Figures 3b-3c seem to support a magnet for attaching the chamber transport apparatus 11e to the frame 11a. There is mention of a magnet which prevents movement of the inner chambers, but the applicant is not clear in the disclosure where this magnet is positioned, or how it might achieve such a function. Rather, there is wholly confusing disclosure concerning this magnet and the vacuum system, which makes the examiner question whether the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. On page 10, the applicant recites that “When this vacuum system (11f) is opened, it raises the apparatus on the ground of the chamber and opens the vacuum outlets. This vacuum apparatus is connected to the ground system by the magnet (11d) and prevents the movement of the inner chamber.” There is no explanation or clarification as to what “the ground system” refers to, and as explained in the specification objection above which refers to the ‘vacuum system ground apparatus 18’, this portion of the invention is wholly unclear, particularly in what the ground system is, what is considered ‘the ground’, what the ‘vacuum system ground apparatus’ is, where the magnet is located (Fig 3d seems to show it on top of what seems to be the ground, rather than between a vacuum apparatus and a ground system? – this also seems to show simply the magnet that allows for connection of the rest bar 18), and how the magnet serves to prevent movement of the inner chamber. On pages 11-12, the applicant recites “There is a magnetic vacuum system outer surface (14a) with a metal structure on the upper surface of this system. This system is activated by the joining of the vacuum system parts on the tank and the aquarium ground with the magnet and the software detecting the dead leech,” and “the vacuum system, which has a metal surface with a magnet is connected to the vacuum system upper surface (14a).” As with the above portion of the disclosure, this section fails to provide clarity in regard to the magnet. It is unclear what structure “aquarium ground” refers to, and it is unclear which magnet the applicant refers to when they recite “the magnet”. Further, this section appears contradictory which adds to the confusion. It is also unclear how a magnet connected to the upper surface 14a of the vacuum system could possibly also join vacuum system parts to the aquarium ground, and somehow prevent movement of the inner chambers. Pg 8 recites “a magnet (11d) that prevents it from moving by fixing the inner chambers (11) to the area,” but fails to clarify what the ‘area’ is, so this does not help provide written description support.
Further, claim 12 recites “a vacuum system cooperative with said plurality of inner chambers so as to allow said plurality of inner chambers to rise and fall.” The applicant does not appear to have sufficient written description support for how the vacuum system may allow said plurality of inner chambers to rise and fall, particularly while still functioning to suction dead leeches from the inner chambers. On page 8 the applicant recites “A vacuum system (11f), which allows the inner chambers (11) to rise and fall from the area,” but fails to make clear what ‘the area’ refers to, nor explains how the chambers may rise and fall, so this does not provide support. On page 10 the specification recites “There is a vacuum system (11f) in the aquarium that can be raised and lowered in the area where the inner chamber (11) is installed. When this vacuum system (11f) is opened, it raises the apparatus on the ground of the chamber and opens the vacuum outlets.” On page 12 the applicant recites “the [vacuum] system rises and lowers with the help of the motor (14d).” These segments explain that the vacuum system itself is raisable/lowerable, but not that the vacuum system might raise/lower the inner chambers. This is supported by the drawings, particularly Figs 3d-3f, which show the vacuum system 11f rising and falling within the inner chambers, not the chambers themselves rising/falling. If the chambers were to rise and fall with the vacuum system, it is unclear how the vacuum system would serve to suck the dead leeches from the inner chambers, where the leeches are held, as claimed, and as disclosed in the specification – “vacuum system for the exit of dead leeches at the middle level of each chamber” (Pg 4). Overall, there is a general lack of clarity in regard to how the vacuum system functions as claimed in the device.
Claim 12 recites “a chamber transport device affixed to said plurality of inner chambers, said chamber transport device adapted to allow said plurality of inner chambers to be transported to or from said hardware cover;” The applicant does not appear to have sufficient written description support to explain how such a transport device may allow for the transport of the inner chambers to and from said hardware cover (removability of the inner chambers), particularly with the vacuum system as claimed which removes dead leeches from the inner chambers. The disclosure seems to describe a vacuum system 14/11f with an inlet port 14b, the system being found at the base of a chamber, the vacuum system being raisable/lowerable by a motor 14d so as to selectively expose the inlet port to the inner chamber contents and provide vacuuming effect (Figs 3e-3f and Fig 5). The disclosure also discloses that the inner chambers are removable/transportable, via chamber transport apparatuses 11e (which appear to act like handles), the chambers having a standard perforated outer surface 11b and a metal or plastic frame 11a (Pg. 11, lines 5-16; Pg. 10, lines 20-32). It seems as though, to facilitate the transfer of leeches using the inner chamber, the inner chambers would need to necessarily have a ground floor in addition to side walls, and it is portrayed as such in Fig 3, so as to prevent leeches from falling straight out of the chamber when the chamber is lifted and prevent any leeches from being left in the storage area when the inner chamber is removed. This being said, it is unclear how, the vacuum apparatus is able to rise and lower through the ground floor such that the inlet port is in communication with the inner chamber and the dead leeches may be removed from the system. It seems like there would need to be some sort of door or covering on a portion of the chamber floor that would rise/open to provide the vacuum system access to the inner chamber contents, and subsequently lower/close when the vacuum system is lowered, the door or covering remaining in place and preventing leeches from falling out when the inner chamber is removed from the device for leech transport. Nothing of this nature seems to be described or shown in the disclosure, which causes the examiner to doubt whether the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 12, line 41 recites “said water and air motor being adapted to vacuum water and to draw in leeches to said plurality of inner chambers.” There does not appear to be written description support for how the water/air motor can draw leeches to said plurality of inner chambers (add leeches to chambers). This appears to be new matter, and is also functional language not sufficiently supported by written description, as discussed in MPEP 2163.03{V). Does the applicant perhaps mean to claim what is disclosed (Pg 12, ¶1), that the motor is adapted to draw in leeches from said plurality of inner chambers?
Claim 12, lines 42-43 recites “an air system outlet section adapted to discharge air from the storage area” There does not appear to be written description support for how the air system outlet section may discharge air from the storage area (pull air from the area that holds leeches). This appears to be new matter, and is also functional language not sufficiently supported by written description, as discussed in MPEP 2163.03{V). This lack of clarity/description is exacerbated by the fact that the air system outlet section (16 in drawings) appears as if it would be underwater, given it appears to be located in the floor of the inner chambers per Fig 7/7a. Does the applicant perhaps mean to claim that the air installation 10 provides the transmission of fresh air to the leeches?
Claim 12 as amended, recites “a plurality of keys on or in said hardware cover”. This limitation appears to constitute new matter, as keys in the hardware cover does not appear to be supported through express, implicit or inherent disclosure (see MPEP 2163.04-2163.05); the disclosure only provides support for keys on the front of the device (Pg 5, line 14).
Claim 14 as amended, recites “a grip bar in or on said hardware cover”. This limitation appears to constitute new matter, as a grip bar ‘on’ the hardware cover does not appear to be supported through express, implicit or inherent disclosure (see MPEP 2163.04-2163.05); the disclosure only appears to provide support for attachment of the grip bar on a ground of the inner chambers, seemingly on top of vacuum system 11f via magnet 11d (Figs 3d-3f; Fig 6; Pg 12, ¶2). Further, if the grip bar was ON the hardware cover, how could it be used to support the rest area for the leeches in the inner chamber?
Claim 16 recites “said sensor is adapted to maintain records of a current status of the medicinal leech storage and disinfection apparatus and the water and to provide a user with the records.” It is unclear how a sensor alone may maintain records and supply a user with records, given the lack of disclosure of a memory, processor, user interface, etc. There does not appear to be disclosure supporting this functionality, nor explanation of how a sensor might perform such function. Rather, this limitation appears to be new matter, the originally filed disclosure not contemplating a sensor with such functionality, but rather discussing record storage and user receipt of the information via a smart device with an application downloaded thereon, and that the sensors are simply “used to measure the physical and chemical properties of the water” (Pg 9, lines 20-30).
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.
Claim 12-17 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “water and air motor” in claim 12 is used by the claim to encompass a structure capable of cleaning or cooling water, while the accepted meaning is “any of various power units that develop energy or impart motion” (Merriam Webster), in light of the specification/claim, “water and air motor” is particularly a power unit that may impart motion on water and air. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. See also 112(a) rejection above.
Claim 12, line 25 recites “said plurality of inner chambers having a perforated outer surface at an exterior thereof, the perforated outer surface adapted to adhere to the leeches.” It is unclear how the surface may be adapted to adhere to a leech, perhaps the applicant is attempting to claim that the surface is configured to be adhered onto by the leeches? If so – this appears to be inconsistent with the invention disclosed in the specification, thereby casting doubt on the scope of the claim, and whether it is commensurate with the applicant’s invention. Per Pg 2, lines 30-end “the inner chambers…cannot be vacuumed because they are perforated (if the leeches make a vacuum, they can escape by climbing);” and Per Pg 11, lines 12-13: “the inner chambers (11) have a perforated outer surface (11b), a vacuum cannot be made and the leeches are transferred more easily during the transfer”. Per MPEP 2173.03, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970).
Claim 16 recites the limitation "said sensor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Sensors are only previously discussed in claim 13, on which claim 16 does not depend, and even so, several sensors are mentioned.
Claim 16 recites “said sensor is adapted to maintain records of a current status of the medicinal leech storage and disinfection apparatus and the water and to provide a user with the records.” As mentioned in the 112(a) above, it is unclear how a sensor alone may maintain records and supply a user with records, given the lack of disclosure of a memory, processor, user interface, etc., nor is there disclosure to provide support for such functionality. This makes the scope of the claim unclear as it causes uncertainty as to what the applicant considers as ‘a sensor’, and whether they are attempting to expand the bounds of the term ‘sensor’ beyond its plain and ordinary meaning/understood structure.
Response to Arguments
The examiner appreciates the applicant’s attempt to bring their application into condition for allowance, but notes that significant deficiencies remain. The disclosure is incredibly unclear, particularly, in relation to the vacuum system functioning and the connection with the inner chambers and the below motor structure (see specifics in 112(a) rejections below), such aspects appearing to be important in defining the applicant’s invention. The applicant’s amendments and remarks in response to the Non-final rejection dated 04/30/2025 have not helped bridged this gap in understanding. This lack of clarity hinders the examiner’s ability to search effectively for and apply prior art. The examiner requests clarification in response to this action. Should the applicant be unable to sufficiently support the claimed invention with the specification as originally filed without introducing new matter, the examiner recommends filing a continuation in part application with a heavily revised specification which clarifies the invention and provides support for the scope of the claims as filed.
It is noted for the record that, since no prior art rejection was put forth in the last action, there are no arguments against specific references to respond to.
Conclusion
As mentioned in the previous action, and cited on the previous 892, the closest arts of record are Gong (CN 10737223) and Du (CN 110463650), Gong teaching a multi-compartment leech breeding device, and Zhang disclosing a motor driven raisable/lowerable suction cleaning device. Chen (WO 2021022787)teaches an additional raisable/lowerable suction drainage device. Li (CN 108684602), Ahn (KR 20130014153), Han (CN 107926787), and Huang (CN 110692560) also exhibit similarities to the present invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642