DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on June 21, 2024, and any subsequent filings.
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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference character “20” has been used to designate both a first and a second filter head;
Reference charact “30” has been used to designate different structures in Figures 1 and 3; and,
Reference character “41” has been used to designate different structures in the middle portion of Figure 3 and a different structure again in Figure 4.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "30" and "40" have both been used to designate the same square structure in Figures 1-4. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the collet in contact with the fixing part as recited in Claim 1 and each of the gaskets recited in Claim 9 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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.
Moreover, the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of numerous grammatical errors contained therein. 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).
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.
Claims 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "filer accommodation part" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites a “connection part” yet what constitutes the connection part is unclear given reference characters 30 and 40 have been used to designate the same and different structure parts in the drawings.
The term “close” in Claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the term “close” renders “contact” indefinite.
The limitation “the collet is in close contact with a fixing part” as recited in Claim 1 renders the claim indefinite as what constitutes “close contact” is not clear given the drawings do not show any such contact with any part that may be a fixing part.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “fixing part” which the specification states as having reference character “45” (Paragraph 14). The drawings, however, indicate that reference character 45 refers to an edge of a structure in the middle portion of Figure 3 and a flat surface in the bottom portion of Figure 3 and again in Figure 4.
Claim 3 recites “the filter head” yet does not indicate which filter head in the plurality of filter heads recited in Claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "inlet part" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "outlet part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “fastening parts” which the specification states as having reference character “26” (Paragraph 14) yet what structure is meant by “26” in Figure 4 is not clear and the specification offers no further definition and just repeats the term “fastening parts” without more.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “projection part” and “depression part” which the specification states as having reference characters “27” and “28,” respectively (Paragraph 14), yet what structures are meant by “27” and “28,” in Figure 4 is not clear and the specification offers no further definition and just repeats the terms without more.
Claim 7 recites a “connection body” as being part of the “connection part” yet because what constitutes a connection part is not clear as discussed supra, what constitutes a connection body is also not clear. Moreover, as discussed with respect to the drawings, the specification indicates reference character “41” refers to the connection body but “41” does not refer to a single structure in the drawings.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "sies of the connection body" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites caps inserted into fastening parts yet how a cap may be inserted is not clear given the structure constitutes the fastening part is indefinite as stated supra.
Claim 9 recites “the filter head” multiple times yet does not indicate which filter head in the plurality of filter heads recited in Claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Prior Art Rejections
Although an attempt has been made to determine the scope and meaning of the claimed invention, the indefinite limitations are fundamental to understanding the claims and prevent a thorough search of the prior art based upon any cognizable technical features and limitations in the art. Further, "where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art," MPEP 2173.06(II).
Although no rejections based upon the prior art have been made, this does not mean that the prior art does not disclose the intended definite claims. From the limited understanding of the claimed invention, which may or may not be correct, Burrows, U.S. Publication No. 2005/0167352 appears to disclose the claims of the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK ORME whose telephone number is (408)918-7585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 am - 6:00 pm Pacific Time.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240.
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.
/PATRICK ORME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights