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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “6” has been used to designate both motor and compactor piston in pages 4-5.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the suction control must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the suction control 18 as described in the specification page 5.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, claim should be re-written as following:
A compactor adapted for compacting waste material, the compactor comprising a compactor tube with a tube wall extending along a longitudinal axis,
a compactor piston and a drive mechanism is arranged at one end of the compactor tube, the drive mechanism being adapted for repetitively moving the compactor piston along the longitudinal axis between a retracted position and an extended position in the compactor tube,
and wherein the compactor further comprising a feeding pipe with pipe walls and an outlet end being connected to a feed opening arranged in the tube wall between the retracted and the extended position, and
a first suction conduit having a first end that is connected to the feeding pipe via a first suction opening arranged near the feed opening and a second end that is connected to a suction source, and
a suction control is adapted for applying suction to the feeding pipe via the first end of the first suction conduit at least when the compactor piston is in the extended position and to shut off the suction at the first end of the first suction conduit at least when the compactor piston is in the retracted position.
Regarding claim 2, the claim the phrase should be re-written as following:
The compactor according to claim 1, further comprising a grid is arranged in the first suction opening.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “its retracted position” should be changed to “the retracted position”.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “its extended position” should be changed to “the extended position”.
Regarding claim 4, the claim the phrase should be re-written as following:
The compactor according to claim 3, further comprising a grid is arranged in the first suction opening.
Regarding claim 7, the claim the phrase should be re-written as following:
The compactor according to claim 6, further comprising a single actuator or motor, and the single actuator or motor is configured to actuate actuating both the valve arrangement and the compactor piston via a gear or a link mechanism.
Regarding claim 8, the claim the phrase should be re-written as following:
The piston compactor according to claim 1, the compactor tube has a second end and a constriction arranged between the second end of the compactor tube and the compactor piston in the extended position.
Regarding claim 10, the claim the phrase should be re-written as following:
The compactor according to claim 1, further comprising a housing containing the suction source, the compactor piston, the drive mechanism and the suction conduits, and wherein an outlet end of the compactor tube and an inlet end of the feed pipe opposite the outlet end of the compactor tube are both extend out of the housing.
Regarding claims 3, 5 and 9 the phrase “A piston compactor according to claim” should be changed to “The compactor according to claim”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a drive mechanism and a suction control in claim 1.
a control mechanism in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-10 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 1, the phrase “A piston compactor adapted for compacting waste material and comprising a compactor tube with a tube wall extending along a longitudinal axis and where a compactor piston” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “a piston compactor”, and it is unclear what is meant by “A piston compactor comprising a compactor piston”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “being adapted for repetitively moving the piston” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the piston” is the same as or different from “a piston compactor”; and it is unclear if “the piston” is the same as or different from “a compactor piston”.
Claims 2-10 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 8 and 10; the phrase “its” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which element “its” refers to.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “the suction source” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the suction source” is the same as or different from “a suction source” that recited in claim 3 which claim 5 depends from; and
it is unclear if “the suction source” is the same as or different from “a suction source” that recited in claim 1 which claim 5 depends from.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation of the claim indefinite, it appears claim 7 should be depends from claim 6.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the level" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the size" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “a suction source” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, claim limitation “a control mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closet prior art is Sundholm (US20170225910A1), however in the opinion of the a suction control that is adapted for applying suction to the feeding pipe via the first end of the first suction conduit at least when the compactor piston is in its extended position and to shut off the suction at the first end of the first suction conduit at least when the compactor piston is in its retracted position” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 2-10 are depended from claim 1.
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights