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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants election of claims 1-6 without traverse has been received.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As to claim 2, the specification does not define what a “programmed magnetization profile” is that permits for tumbling. Specification certainly states that a magnetic field will cause an element to tumble over, so that suggests that the magnetic spinner is either metal or a magnet. However, nothing in the specification appears to provide for how such spinner has a “programmed magnetization profile”. Does the adjective “programmed” suggest a mere individual’s conception, or does the term define a structural feature/limitation? All that is apparent is that that spinner tumbles in response to a magnetic field, but what “programmed” means, and how “programmed” might provide for tumbling is undefined. In addition, that term “profile” is problematic because it’s not apparent in what manner the “magnetic” feature has a “profile” at all. There are no examples, no reference provides for such, no manner of experimentation to account for such is apparent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-6 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 term “microspikes” (italics added, last line) mean? The term “micro” means 1 millionth; so in what way does micro defines spikes? What is Applicant’s intent regarding the problematic term “microspikes”?1
As to claim 1, what structure is to be attributed to “foot”? It is certainly an element “at the second end of the shaft” (claim 1), but the tag “foot” term is more specific than any element. What is Applicant’s specific intent in regard to the meaning of “foot”?
As to claims 2,10, it’s not clear what it means for the spinner to have a “programmed magnetization profile”. Para 38 (Publication) suggests that when a magnetic field is applied, that the spinner begins to rotate. As such, what how does “programmed” limited the spinner in any manner? Does the term “programmed” suggest a structure/functional element that allows for the spinner to function in some manner? The term “program” does not yet have a defined meaning in this application? In what matter does a spinner have a “profile”? Is the profile related to a shape, or maybe a contour, or magnetic elements on the spinner, or something else? What is Applicant’s intent?
As to claim 5, “form” (line 1) to - - from - - ?
As to claim 8, how many footpads are in this claim? There appear to be a total of 4. Aren’t the “a first footpad” and “a second footpad” the same as “the plurality of footpads” (line 3, claim 7), and thus inadvertently twice claimed? What is Applicant’s intent?
As to claim 15 “delivery member further comprises a connector rod” (lines 1-2) is not consistent with “rod extending from the second end of the delivery member”. The claim is internally inconsistent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1,2,6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cletis et al 3162038.
Reference Cletis et al 3162038 teaches (Figure 3) a sensor, comprising:
a rotating magnetic spinner (motor 31,42,43) disposed at a first end of a shaft and configured to
rotate about the shaft 45,58,60;
a foot 116 disposed at a second end of the shaft; and
a plurality of microspike
PNG
media_image1.png
242
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, spinner rotates relative to the shaft, all about the inner portion thereof; the shaft is as much a shaft as claimed; the element 116 is as much a foot as claimed; the spikes are as much “micro” as claimed. Either the motor is electric, or in the alternative, one of ordinary skill would recognize that electrical motors are both effective and dependable in viscometer usage.
As to claim 2, internal elements (magnets) of motor spin, has a profile by design/program.
As to claim 6,
PNG
media_image2.png
248
714
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1,2,6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated Evan et al CN 2692769.
As to claim 1, Evan teaches (Figure 7): a device, comprising:
a rotating magnetic spinner 57,62 disposed at a first end of a shaft 56 and configured to
rotate about the shaft 56
“of the spindle 53 then 56 of the shuttle 67 through the coupling 54.
The shuttle 67 is sealed by a seal 57 as well as a seal 58 so as to protect
shuttle magnetic
array formulations 59 and 61 which co-act with those magnetic array formations
60 and 62 that
do not rotate with the spindle.” ;
a foot 66 disposed at a second end of the shaft; and
a plurality of microspikes 65 disposed on a distal surface of the foot.
PNG
media_image3.png
502
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
No weight could be given to intended use.
As to claim 2, the magnet and seal 57 are as much programmed and have a profile as claimed.
As to claim 7, element 49 covers all, and is as much a cap as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reference Hideyuki ES 2666180 teaches (Figure 3) a sensor, comprising:
a rotating magnetic spinner (motor 103) disposed at a first end of a shaft and configured to
rotate
a foot 109 disposed at a second end of the shaft; and
Reference Ostroot 3285058 teaches (Figure 21) a sensor, comprising:
a rotating magnetic spinner (inherent driving motor) disposed at a first end of a shaft and configured to
rotate
a foot 50 disposed at a second end of the shaft; and
a plurality of microspikes 51 disposed on a distal surface of the foot.
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 Monday to Friday 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
1 There is nothing in the specification that provide units in relation to any one of microspikes, microparticles and microstructures. The only thing known about dimensions is that the capsule is small enough to be ingested per Paragraph 37 (Publication).
Prosecution Insights