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 .
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 1-11 and 16 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 element of claim 1, “a greatest height connecting a lowermost end and an uppermost end of an opening surface of the outlet is greater than a depth of the vertical cavity between the opening of the vertical cavity and a deeper wall at a height position of an upper end of a boundary between the outlet and the vertical cavity” is unclear and difficult to decipher, rendering it indefinite. The “greatest height” appears to be “h1” in applicant’s fig. 6. The rest is unclear.
Claim 4 is unclear. The “both side ends of the opening” is unclear. The “compared to when parallel” sounds as if the said line is not parallel always. Examiner assumes support for this claim is fig. 4, but what is being compared is unclear.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is 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. Claim 1 recites, “the inflow port has a liquid guide pipe section projecting downward from the top plate section,” which means the inflow port is fitted inside the body part. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over, Kawamura et al (US 12,059,521.)
PNG
media_image1.png
691
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 16: Kawamura’s fig. 3 of an air trap chamber with annotations is copied herein for reference. The claimed parts are annotated.
The ‘greatest height’ appears to be the height of the outlet opening on the sidewall of the liquid guide pipe. However, since it is unclear to what it is being compared, this element is ignored for an anticipation rejection until applicant clarifies the claim element. However, this element is only comparing a relative dimension, which is prima-facie obvious:
MPEP 2144.04: In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claims 2 and 12: the incline or taper to a wall does not appear to be explicitly taught in Kawamura. However, it is only a prima facie obvious change of shape.
MPEP 2144.04: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)
Claim 3: the liquid guide bottom surface is as claimed – see the figures.
Claim 4 appears to be claiming a tilt in the outlet opening with respect to the radius. See fig. 4 of Kawamura, which has the same tilt as in applicant’s figures 3 and 4.
Claim 5: the shape of the outlet is the same in Kawamura – see fig. 4.
Claims 6, 7: only minor change in shape, if any. MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 8, 9, 13: the molding pin mark is only a remnant of the molding process, not patentable in the product claim:
MPEP 2133: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Claim 10: the cone section demarcation 35A is, or can be, a position indicator.
Claim 11: the stagnation reduction means structure recited is same as or similar to Kawamura’s – see fig. 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 5712720579. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
