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.
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 1-3 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 "cooling fin oil (1)". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear if (1) is referring to the “cooling fin” or the “cooling fin oil”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "correspondingly opposed". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear what is meant by “correspondingly opposed”.
The term “satisfying” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “satisfying” 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.
The term “firm” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “firm” 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.
The term “suitable” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable” 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "welding material droplet welding seams". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear what is meant by “welding material droplet welding seams”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "welding material fusion welding connecting lintel region". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear what is meant by “welding material fusion welding connecting lintel region”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "welding material fusion welding connecting lintel region". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear what is meant by “welding material fusion welding connecting lintel region”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the welding material". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear to which of “welding material” is applicant referring to.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the welding material". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear to which of “welding material” is applicant referring to.
Claim 2-3 recites the limitation "a gap". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear how they relate to the previous mentioned “gaps”.
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 grammatical and idiomatic errors. The above is an indicative, but not necessarily an exhaustive, list of 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraph, problems. Applicant is therefore advised to carefully review all the claims for additional problems. Correction is required of all the 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraph problems, whether or not these were particularly pointed out above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 06/27/2026
Prosecution Insights