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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “7” has been used to designate both the “stepped structure” (see figures 1 and 2) and the “support plate” (see figure 3). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the permeable membrane is abutted against the diffusion sheet” in line 11. Figures 1-3 show a cover body 3 between a permeable membrane 6 and a diffusion sheet 5. Yet, figures 5, 7 and 9 show the permeable membrane 6 between the cover body 3 and the diffusion sheet 5. The specification fails to resolve this contradiction or provide an explanation for this inconsistency.
Claims 1-3, 10 and 11 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 “wherein the comprise a base body…” in line 4. The recitation is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “when the opening is located in the base, a peripheral edge of a surface of the stepped structure is movably connect to that of a top inner surface of the base” in lines 2-4. It is uncertain whether the recitation is a positively recited limitation. The recitation appears to be a conditional limitation. When the opening is not located in the base, the limitation appears to be moot. It is uncertain whether the claim requires the opening to be located in the base.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the peripheral edge of the top inner surface of the base" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “when the opening is located in the base, a peripheral edge of a bottom of the support plate is abutted against that of a top surface of the base” in lines 2-3. It is uncertain whether the recitation is a positively recited limitation. The recitation appears to be a conditional limitation. When the opening is not located in the base, the limitation appears to be moot. It is uncertain whether the claim requires the opening to be located in the base.
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.
Applicant should not misconstrue any lack of art rejection as an indication of allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached on (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK
Prosecution Insights