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 .
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 11-19 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 11 recites the limitation “suitable” in line 1. Suitability is undefined by the claim. What may be considered “suitable” to one or ordinary skill in the art may not be considered “suitable” to another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "fluid product" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the diameter" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "actuation" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "pressure" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “said fluid product flowing under pressure” in lines 9-10. The claim fails to recite structure that performs the function of flowing the fluid product under pressure. The structure recited by the claim is not commensurate in scope with the function recited by the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the diameter of said expulsion channel" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the maximum external diameter" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “similar” in line 14. The degree of similarity is undefined by the claim. It is uncertain what constitutes “similar.” What may be considered “similar” to one or ordinary skill in the art may not be considered “similar” to another of ordinary skill in the art.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “similar,” and the claim also recites “in particular identical” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the external diameter of said cannula" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “so that the spray tip (25) does not increase the external diameter of the cannula (21)” in lines 15-16. It is uncertain how the spray tip can increase the external diameter of the cannula. The spray tip does not change the external diameter of the cannula.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “said head part (26) is conical…such that said impact surface (27) is flat and forms a cone flaring outwards.” It is uncertain how a conical surface is flat. A conical surface is constantly curved.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “said dispensing head (2) is removably connected to said reservoir (10).” The claim fails to recite structure that enable the dispensing head to be removably connected to the reservoir. The structure recited by the claim is not commensurate in scope with the function recited by the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “suitable” in line 2. Suitability is undefined by the claim. What may be considered “suitable” to one or ordinary skill in the art may not be considered “suitable” to another of ordinary skill in the art.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “suitable,” and the claim also recites “in particular via a Luer-type attachment” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claim 15, the recitation “type” renders the claim indefinite.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “attached,” and the claim also recites “in particular welded” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation “less than 1mm,” and the claim also recites “less than 0.8mm, preferably around 0.7mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation “0.8mm,” and the claim also recites “preferably around 0.7mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “advantageously” in line 2. It is uncertain what constitutes “advantageously.”
Claim 16 recites the limitation “preferably around 0.7mm” in line 2. It is uncertain whether “preferably around 0.7mm” is a positively recited limitation.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “around 0.7mm” in line 2. It is uncertain what degree/range is limited by the recitation “around.”
Claim 18 recites the limitation “actuation” in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “actuation” recited in claim 11.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a spray” in line 1. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “spray” recited in claim 11.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 19 recites the broad recitation “less than 40µm,” and the claim also recites “in particular around 30µm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “around 030µm” in line 2. It is uncertain what degree/range is limited by the recitation “around.”
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 indefiniteness.
Applicant is required to review and amend all of the claims in their entirety to ensure full compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK
Prosecution Insights