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 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 1-4 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 "hollow interior" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "open end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "side opening" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the opening" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “side opening (22)” in line 4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “opening” recited in line 3.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a ferrule (3) in line 5. The term “ferrule” is defined as: a ring or cap, usually of metal, put around the end of a post, cane, or the like, to prevent splitting. It is uncertain how element 3 constitutes a ferrule.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the contact face" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "their profile" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the openings…have reliefs and recesses” in lines 7-8. It is uncertain whether the openings, collectively, have reliefs and recesses or each opening has reliefs and recesses.
The term “next to” in claim 1, line 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “next to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The location limited by the claim is uncertain.
In claim 1, line 10, the recitation “a orifice” is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the chamber" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said body (2) receives a spigot (8) fixed next to a orifice, connecting directly to the chamber (63)” in lines 9-10. It is uncertain whether the spigot is connected directly to the chamber or the orifice is connected directly to the chamber.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “ferrule” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. An article is missing preceding the term. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “ferrule” recited in line 5.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “open ends” in line 14. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “open ends” recited in line 11.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “involve” in line 15. It is uncertain what constitutes “involve.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an internal base” in line 16. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “internal base” recited in line 5.
The term “smooth” in claim 1, line 16, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smooth” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The texture limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a chamber (63)” in line 18. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “chamber (63)” recited in line 10.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the injection" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "insecticide" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the central orifice" in lines 20-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the central orifice (622)…angled orifices (621) and central orifice (622)” in lines 20-22. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “orifices” recited in line 16.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "central orifice" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “central orifice” recited in lines 20-21.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the same arrangement" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recite the limitation “empty interior” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “hollow interior” recited in claim 1, lines 1-2 and/or the “hollow interior” recited in claim 1, lines 3-4.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a recess” in line 3. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “recesses” recited in claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "its central part" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the orifices" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is uncertain which of the orifices recited in claim 1 are being referenced.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “an angle between 40[Symbol font/0xB0] and 60[Symbol font/0xB0]” in lines 2-3. The claim fails to provide a reference to determine the angle
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the transversal direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “between 30[Symbol font/0xB0] and 50[Symbol font/0xB0]” in line 3. The claim fails to provide a reference to determine the angle. Additionally, the recitation is grammatically incorrect. The claim is missing “an angle” preceding the limitation.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the longitudinal direction" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the gas" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the nebulizer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the inside" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “an inlet end…an outlet end” in lines 3-4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “ends” recited in line 3.
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.
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 at (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
