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 .
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.
As to claim 1, what does the “if” (line 4) mean in the context of lines 2-4? Is “a reference testing unit” a limitation in all of step a), or isn’t it? The term “if” expressly adds an uncertainty in a method claim, and steps need to be clearly expressed as definite actions that take place. Is it possible that the term “if” needs be read as - - after having been - - , which would effectively mean that “when” (line 3) and “if” (line 4) alternatives are actually identical, which does not read as alternatives? Is there any difference between the “when” (line 3) and “if” (line 4) alternative that is associated with an “or”? If so, what might that be? Alternatives inherently demand a difference, but none can be discerned in light of the specification.
As to claim 3,the “or if” (line 2) is confusing for the same reason provide in claim 1.
As to claim 9, this claim does not provide a step. The claim is a combination of steps and structure. As such, the body of the claim is not consistent with the preamble (method).
As to claim 12, is this claim a “method” or apparatus? A claim may be a combination of steps that employ structure (i.e. method) or an apparatus that is configure to perform steps; but a mixture of steps per se and structure per se is confusing.
Claims 12-14 are 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. Claims 12-14 effectively removes every step of claim 1. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chil 11226277 (listed 1449) teaches a method of backpressure testing manufactured parts, the method comprising:
a) obtaining one or more reference parts 136 (Figure 4; lines 34-37, col. 10, with such being in position per Figure 1) and determining a reference backpressure measurement for each reference part indicative of the backpressure of that reference part when or if tested on a reference testing unit;
b) calibrating one or more testing positions of a backpressure testing unit using the one or more reference parts (Figure 1 shows system with one position with part 136; steps 616 of Figure 6; lines 34-36, col. 10; lines 51-59, col. 14; lines 15-20, col. 15);
c) setting an upper backpressure limit and a lower backpressure limit for each of the one or more testing positions (steps 516,526 of Figure 5); and
d) thereafter using the one or more testing positions to assess the backpressure of one or more manufactured parts (steps 530 to 542, Figure 5);
wherein, calibrating the one or more testing positions of the backpressure testing unit in step b) comprises:
b) i) installing one of the reference parts (orifice plate 136 is in calibration configuration, lines 34-37, col. 1) in a or each testing position of the backpressure testing unit plate;
b) ii) creating a flow through the or each testing position (step 602 has compressor running, Figure 6);
b) iii) establishing a calibrated flow for the or each testing position by adjusting the flow through the or each testing position until a backpressure measurement of the reference part in the or each testing position corresponds to the reference backpressure measurement of the respective reference part (steps 610,614 of Figure 6);
b) iv) thereafter using the calibrated flow for the or each testing position during step d) (Step 614);
wherein, using the one or more testing positions to assess the backpressure of one or more manufactured parts in step d) comprises:
d) i) installing a manufactured part in a or each testing position of the backpressure testing unit (Figure 5; lines 38-43 describes the testing position);
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 Mon to Fri 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
Prosecution Insights