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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of implied phraseology (i.e., “Provided is a device…”). 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 Objections
Claims 2-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a vulcanizer PCI chuck” in line 1 of each respective claim should be written as –[[a]]the vulcanizer PCI chuck— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the chuck seat is mating with the pinhole” in line 2 should be written as –the chuck seat is in mating configuration with the pinhole— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the T-shaped protrusion mates with T-shaped groove” in lines 2-3 should be written as –the T-shaped protrusion [[mates]]is in mating configuration with the T-shaped groove— for grammatical clarity and consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 8-9 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.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “when the compression plate is rotated to enable the second protrusion on the compression plate corresponding to the first protrusion on the chuck” in lines 3-4 is unclear. It is unclear what is being “enabled” to happen. Is the compression plate rotated to enable the second protrusion on the compression plate to correspond to the first protrusion on the chuck? Or is there a step missing for what is being enabled. Moreover, if intended to “correspond to” the protrusion, is this in alignment with the protrusion or to just move in correspondence with any movement of the protrusion? For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes when the compression plate is rotated to enable the second protrusion on the compression plate to align with and correspond to the first protrusion on the chuck. Similarly, the phrase “when the compression plate is rotated to enable the second protrusion on the compression plate corresponding to the groove on the chuck” in lines 5-7 is unclear for the same reasons. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes when the compression plate is rotated to enable the second protrusion on the compression plate to align with and correspond to the groove on the chuck.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “the top end” in lines 2-3 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claim 1. In particular, the limitations “a compression assembly comprising a rotary shaft disposed in the chuck seat and a compression plate connected to an end of the rotary shaft, wherein the compression plate is provided with a second protrusion, and the chuck is disposed between the chuck seat and the compression plate.”
Claims 2-12 are would be allowable by dependence on claim 1, but are objected to and/or rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as discussed in the detailed rejection above and require correction before being indicated as allowable.
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Zhang et al. (CN 202241732, see updated machine translation provided) (of record).
Zhang discloses a device, mounted on a vulcanizer PCI bracket (Fig. 2), the device comprising: a chuck seat (Fig. 2: 2); a chuck (Figs. 2-6: 1) provided with a groove and a first protrusion and detachably disposed on the chuck seat. However, Zhang does not disclose a compression assembly comprising a rotary shaft disposed in the chuck seat and a compression plate connected to an end of the rotary shaft, wherein the compression plate is provided with a second protrusion, and the chuck is disposed between the chuck seat and the compression plate. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have found it obvious to modify Zhang contrary to its express disclosure of a specific structure, especially without a motivation or teaching to do so.
The examiner notes that Zhang is merely an exemplary teaching of known devices in the art comprising a chuck and chuck seat as claimed, including prior art of record as cited by Applicant (e.g., Wang et al. (CN 113119362), Chen et al. (CN 205889670), Bao et al. (CN 216230851), Ichikawa et al. (JP 05104545), Nagabuchi et al. (JP H08300357), etc.). However, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the specifically claimed compression assembly, and further one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified the prior art of record to obtain such a specific structure without any teaching or motivation to do so.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
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, KATELYN SMITH can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights