美国OA请教

最近收到美国OA中最后一部分的“Response to Arguments”
中审委提到以下意见，请哪位大侠解释一下什么意思呀？

  In response to applicant’s arguments applicant has still not corrected, in the previous amendment, the intended use language, Examples of the current intended use recitations are limitations such as “…for receiving a first …,” “…for buffering the…,” A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention form the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Then it meets the claim. Examples of the current intended use recitation are limitation such as “…for receiving a first…”

我们的claim 都是以这样的形式撰写的： a register for receiving a first.....
这个for 用错了么？为什么？感谢~

没有看到具体的权利项，
for表示元件的功能，不能只通过功能来描述发明。
审查员说了，为了区别习之技术，必须通过structural difference，也就是说，必须要通过元件，元件之间的关系，还有元件的特征等来描述发明，功能只不过是limitations。

具体权项都是类似这样的：
a first converter [[for]] receiving a first floating-point...
a register connected to the first converter [[for]]...
我觉得是不是审委看for用的不对，我把for 都删除了....不知道对不对？

每个特征的前面都有提到“...connected to ...”的，我在remarks中又把这些connected价中标注了

删除ok的，不可以每个元件后面都用for，让人以为只介绍的功能。
不影响专利范围的前提下，关系可以描述的啰嗦一点，字数多一点，这样显的不太单薄，审查员喜欢这样，虽然他们知道都是些废话。

在权利要求的解释中，for doing something可以理解为这个功能是存在的，但不一定必须要做（即intended use），要保证这个功能是必须的（以区别于prior art）就要写成configured to do something。

如仅仅把 for doing something改成configured to do something恐不能解决问题. 比如:
审查员会问如何\"configured to\" 的.

还是应通过structural difference, 即元件或元件之间关系的具体特征(那怕只有一个)来区分现有技术.  这里, 不清楚与现有技术的实际区别, 如果现有技术没有\" ... connected to ...\" 的特征, 则可改成  a register/xxx connected to the first converter/xxx. 如果现有技术没有 \"first converter that receives a first floating-point ...\" 的特征, 则可改成 a first converter that receives a first floating-point...

An element for doing something 本身的写法是常见的, 问题是仅仅靠这种功能性的语言来区分现有技术是不够的.

按照MPEP2114, \"While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function ... (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board\'s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference).