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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “as defined in any one of claims 1” should read “as defined in claim 1”. 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 1-6 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.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bottom thread" in line 3 and line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim also recites “the central portion” and “the head” which do not have antecedent basis. Claims 2-6 are also rejected at least by their dependence upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Claim 3 recites the limitation "the middle segment" and “the rigid short tube” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As there are “several” rigid short tubes, it is not clear which is referred to by “the rigid short tube.”
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). This also applies to the language “etc.” as in claim 6 as it would not be clear what is included with the term “etc.” – this creates a situation where the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the so-called semi-flexible" in the 4th to last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Also, Claim 6 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 112659551 A), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a self-centering and self-mixing semi-flexible coaxial nozzle, comprising (see Fig. 1 and “contents of the invention” in the translation):
an upper cover (101), a semi-flexible inner needle (102), a three-way casing (“three-way” or “tee” 103), a three-way convex platform (“tee lug boss” 104), and an outer needle (105), characterized in that a bottom thread of the upper cover (101) (“screw thread”) is installed on casing (see “Contents of the Invention” in the translation), the central portion of the three-way casing houses the semi-flexible inner needle (Fig. 1),
and the bottom thread of the three-way casing (103) is installed with the outer needle (105) (“the lower end of the tee joint is also connected with the outer needle head through screw thread”); the semi-flexible inner needle (102) extends through the head of the three-way casing (Fig. 1), and the inner wall of the upper cover is provided with a cavity (as shown in Fig. 1).
Li does not explicitly disclose that there are 2 different “three-way convex platforms” on both the left and right side of the casing. However, it has been held that a duplication of parts supports a case of prima facie obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success from having duplicated the parts. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have specified that there is a second attachment to the casing on either the right or left side, whichever is not present when viewing the prior art, as to have provided for another material to flow into the nozzle.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Li discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the semi-flexible inner needle (102) (see Fig. 2 and corresponding description in the translation) comprises a needle rigid component (201), a flexible hose (203), several rigid short tubes (202), and a mixing component, and the middle segment of the flexible hose (203) is equipped with a short rigid tube (202) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 3-4, Li discloses the subject matter of claim 2, and further discloses that the bottom of the needle rigid component (201) is encased in the flexible hose (203), and the rigid short tube. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have specified that the “special device to mix” is included within the system as to mix the material together.
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses (“manufacturing method of the nozzle”) cutting wire to divide a rigid needle into a needle rigid component (201) and rigid short tubes (202) (Fig. 2); inserting thin copper wires (301) into the needle rigid component (201) and connecting the mixing component and the needle rigid component together by an adhesive (“glue”) and embedding them. Li further discloses cutting a piece of film material (“cutting a section of polyethylene material”), and winding 1-2 turns, and then slowly drawing out the copper wires one by one (see p. 2-3 of translation).
The subject matter included with the “on one hand” and “on the other hand” is considered descriptive and not limiting to the claim. The assembled device is shown/disclosed in Li, Fig. 1 meets the limitations of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights