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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (see paragraph [0027]) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0001] fails to provide a statement that the instant application is a Continuation of a US Patent.
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 1-19 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 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to supply”. This phrase is generally narrative (see section 6 below) and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that the first instance of the term “fluid” in line 13 is a double recitation. Furthermore, the second instance of the term “fluid” in line 13 is a triple recitation. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “fluid(s)” set forth in line 13 are the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or are additional elements of the invention.
Claim 2 is indefinite due to the fact that the term “fluid” in line 2 is a quadruple recitation. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “fluid” set forth in line 2 is the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or is an additional element of the invention.
Claims 3-6 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear which of the possible previously cited four “fluids” is being referred to therein.
Claim 3 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to maintain”. This phrase is generally narrative (see section 6 below) and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 4 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to prevent”. This phrase is generally narrative (see section 6 below) and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 7 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to provide”. This phrase is generally narrative (see section 6 below) and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 7 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to draw”. This phrase is generally narrative (see section 6 below) and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 7 is indefinite due to the fact that the term “fluid” in line 3 is a quintuple recitation. Furthermore, the term “fluid” in line 5 is a sextuple recitation. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “fluid(s)” set forth in lines 3 and 5 are the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or are additional elements of the invention.
Claim 8 is indefinite due to the fact that the term “fluid” in line 2 is a septuple recitation. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “fluid” set forth in line 2 is the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or is an additional element of the invention.
Claim 12 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to connect”. This phrase is generally narrative (see section 6 below) and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 12 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to manipulate”. This phrase is generally narrative (see section 6 below) and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1+2+4; 7, 9-10, 12+15, 13-14, and 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1; 4, 8-11, 12; 13-14, and 16-17, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,221,180. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the pending claims are present in the patented claims. Therefore, it is obvious that the Applicant is claiming the same invention in different and/or broader terms.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference shows the US Publication of a related application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-6684. 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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
