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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/26/25, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2-6, 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 7-10: Applicant argues that independent claims 19 and 21 are not obvious over Aljohani in view of Anderson Jr. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Claims 19 and 21 are dependent claims and are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Page 10-13: Applicant argues that Aljohani nor Anderson Jr teaches wherein the inner surface of the bottom includes a curved surface. Further, that Anderson Jr is not concerned with draining multiple fluids or sediment. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Aljohani was not relied upon to teach a curved bottom surface. Anderson Jr. teaches a sight glass/chamber 50 (transparent vessel 44) including the inner surface 57 of the bottom 56 includes a curved surface (beveled surface toward the bore 58; col. 6, lines 30-35). There are no claim limitations regarding contamination, a collection surface, or settling bowl. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Pages 13-16: Applicant argues that Aljohani nor Anderson Jr teaches the limitations of claim 12. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Claim 12 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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, 3-6, 8-9, 12-18, 21 and 23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,451,466 in view of Aljohani (US2014/0238156).
Claim 1 (‘466 claim 14): A sight glass comprising: a top; a bottom; a sidewall spanning from the top to the bottom; a chamber defined by an inner surface of the top, an inner surface of the bottom, and an inner surface of the sidewall; and wherein the top includes a first opening defined therein, the bottom includes a second opening defined therein (A sight glass comprising: a sight body; a chamber defined in the sight body, the chamber including a top, a bottom, and a sidewall spanning from the top to the bottom, wherein the top includes a first opening defined therein, the bottom includes a second opening defined therein), and the inner surface of the bottom includes a curved surface (the chamber bottom includes an angled chamber bottom).
‘466 fails to teach the chamber having a generally cylindrical shape; the first opening having threads and operable to connect and maintain an open passageway; the chamber operable to be located at an exterior of a liquid reservoir.
However, Aljohani teaches a chamber having a generally cylindrical shape (Fig. 10) and a first opening having threads (threaded receptacle at the top of Fig. 10) and operable to connect and maintain an open passageway (the housing 10 including drain port 12 connects to the top opening threads); the chamber operable to be located at an exterior of a liquid reservoir (pump housing 10, Fig. 2, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the cylindrical shape and threaded opening at an exterior of a liquid reservoir as taught by Aljohani, with the device of claim 1 in order to drain water from the sight glass and thereby drain water from any machinery housing to which the sight glass is connected (Aljohani [0003]).
Claim 3: ‘466 teaches the sight glass of claim 1 but fails to teach a magnet integrated into the bottom.
However, Aljohani teaches a sight glass including a magnetic coating (magnetic coating is the magnet) on the lower valve 106.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to integrate a magnet, as taught by Aljohani, into the bottom of the device of ‘466 in order to attract metallic particles in oil when oil is disposed in the sight glass housing.
Claim 4: ‘466 teaches the sight glass of claim 1, but fails to teach a drain valve integrated with the second opening.
However, Aljohani teaches a drain valve (lower valve 106) in the second opening (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a drain valve, as taught by Aljohani, with the device of ‘466 in order to control emptying of the chamber.
Claim 5: ’466 in view of Aljohani teaches the device of claim 4.
Aljohani teaches wherein the drain valve is made of metal ([0009, 0058] In some embodiments, the lower valve portion can be a spring valve and formed from a metal selected from the group of brass, copper, aluminum and steel.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a drain valve made of metal, as taught by Aljohani, with the device of ‘466in order to in order to control emptying of the chamber using a corrosion-resistant metal.
Claim 6: ’466 in view of Aljohani teaches the device of claim 4.
Aljohani teaches wherein the drain valve includes a magnet (magnetic coating is a magnet) on the lower valve 106.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to integrate a magnet, as taught by Aljohani, into the bottom of the device of ‘466 in order to attract metallic particles in oil when oil is disposed in the sight glass chamber.
Claim 8: ‘466 in view of Aljohani teaches the device of claim 1.
Aljohani, Fig. 10, teaches a sight glass having cylindrical sidewalls.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the invention of Aljohani with the device of ‘466 in order to be able to visualize the interior of the sidewall without any corners impeding the view.
Claim 12 (claim 1 of ‘466 in view of Aljohani): A sight glass comprising: a top; a bottom; a sidewall spanning from the top to the bottom; a chamber defined by an inner surface of the top, an inner surface of the bottom, and an inner surface of the sidewall; wherein the top includes a first opening defined therein, the bottom includes a second opening defined therein, and the first opening and second opening are offset in relation to one another; and wherein the sight glass is operable in a vertical and a horizontal orientation.
‘466 fails to teach the sidewall being cylindrical.
However, Aljohani, Fig. 10, teaches a sight glass having cylindrical sidewalls.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the invention of Aljohani with the device of ‘466 in order to be able to visualize the interior of the sidewall without any corners impeding the view.
Claim 13 (‘466 claim 13 in view of Aljohani) The sight glass of claim 12, wherein the inner surface of the bottom includes an angled surface to drain a fluid (The sight glass of claim 1, wherein: the chamber bottom includes an angled chamber bottom to drain at least one of the first fluid and the second fluid.)
Claim 14: (‘466 claim 13 in view of Aljohani): The sight glass of claim 13, wherein the inner surface of the bottom includes a curved surface to drain a fluid (The sight glass of claim 1, wherein: the chamber bottom includes an angled chamber bottom to drain at least one of the first fluid and the second fluid.).
Claim 15 (‘466 claim 14 in view of Aljohani). The sight glass of claim 13, wherein the angled bottom includes a bottom elevation difference of 0.05 inches ( The sight glass of claim 13, wherein: the angled chamber bottom includes a bottom elevation difference of 0.05 inches.).
Claim 16: ’466 teaches the device of claim 12 but fails to teach a magnet integrated into the bottom.
However, Aljohani teaches a sight glass including a magnetic coating (magnetic coating is the magnet) on the lower valve 106.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to integrate a magnet, as taught by Aljohani, into the bottom of the device of ‘466 in order to attract metallic particles in oil when oil is disposed in the sight glass housing.
Claim 17. ’466 teaches the device of claim 12 but fails to teach a drain valve integrated with the second opening.
However, Aljohani teaches a drain valve (lower valve 106) in the second opening (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a drain valve, as taught by Aljohani, with the device of ‘466 in order to control emptying of the chamber.
Claim 18. ‘466 in view of Aljohani teaches the sight glass of claim 17.
Aljohani teaches wherein the drain valve is made of metal ([0009, 0058] In some embodiments, the lower valve portion can be a spring valve and formed from a metal selected from the group of brass, copper, aluminum and steel.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a drain valve made of metal, as taught by Aljohani, with the device of ‘466in order to in order to control emptying of the chamber using a corrosion-resistant metal.
Claim 19: ‘466 in view of Aljohani teaches the device of claim 1. ‘466 teaches further comprising a separator received within the chamber, the separator configured to indicate an interface between a first fluid and a second fluid (‘466 claim 1: a separator located in the chamber, the separator configured to float in a first fluid and sink in a second fluid such that the separator rests at an interface between the first fluid and the second fluid in the chamber).
Claim 21: ‘466 in view of Aljohani teaches the sight glass of claim 1, further comprising a separator (‘466 claim 1) configured to move independent of the top, bottom, and sidewall (the operability of the sight glass in vertical and horizontal orientations requires that the separator is moving independently and not connected).
Claim 23: ‘466 in view of Aljohani teaches the sight glass of claim 21. ‘466 teaches wherein the separator is configured to maintain an appropriate orientation regardless of an orientation of the sight glass (‘466 claim 1, the separator is configured such that the separator rests at an interface between the first fluid and the second fluid in the chamber; and wherein the sight glass is operable in a vertical and a horizontal orientation. Therefore, the “appropriate orientation” is achieved via vertical and horizontal operation.)
Claims 22, 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,451,466 in view of Aljohani further in view of Mills et al. (US20160121238).
Claim 22: ‘466 in view of Aljohani teaches the device of claim 21, but fails to teach wherein the separator has a density in a range of from 800 to 1000 kilograms.
However, Mills teaches a float 132 that is configured to rest at an interface 110 of two fluids (104, 106). In order for the float 132 to rest at an interface, the density of the float must be specifically chosen based on the density of the two liquids [0038]. Therefore, the density of the float is known to be a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a separator with a density in a range from 800-1000kg in order to float at an interface of two fluids having a first density on a first side of the range of 800-1000kg and second density on a second side of the range of 800-1000kg.
Claim 24: ‘466 in view of Aljohani teaches the device of claim 21, but fails to teach wherein the separator is configured to resist entering the first opening.
However, Mills teaches a float 132 that is configured to rest at an interface 110 of two fluids (104, 106). The size of the float 132 is such that it can occlude an outlet aperture [0038].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to size the float such that is resists entering a first opening (aperture) in order to interrupt fluid communication and prevent fluid flow through the aperture using the float.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,451,466 in view of Aljohani in further view of Gruett.
Claim 7: ‘466 in view of Aljohani teaches the sight glass of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the sidewall is made of a polymer.
However, Gruett teaches a fluid level detection apparatus including a transparent tube 350 which can be made from glass, polymers, or other suitable materials (col. 11, lines 26-27). Therefore, glass, plastics, and polymers are known to be used for a transparent sight glass.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a polymer for a sidewall of a sight glass, as taught by Gruett, with the device of ‘466 in view of Aljohani in order to view the fluid within the sidewall while ensuring that the fluid is compatible with the material of the sidewall.
Claim 9 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, 14 of US Patent No. 10,451,466 in view of Aljohani further in view of Anderson.
Claim 9: ‘466 in view of Aljohani teaches the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the second opening is located at an apex of the curved surface of the bottom.
Anderson teaches wherein the second opening (bore 58) is located at an apex of the curved surface of the bottom (the downstream face 57 of the seat portion 56 is beveled inwardly toward the bore 58, see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to locate the opening at the apex of the curved surface in order to promote drainage of substantially all of the fluid from the chamber (col. 6, lines 30-35).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aljohani (US2014/0238156) in view of Anderson Jr. (US4580703).
Claim 1: Aljohani teaches a sight glass (Fig. 10) comprising: a top (the flat top of the cylinder of Fig. 10); a bottom (the flat bottom of Fig. 10); a sidewall spanning from the top to the bottom (the cylindrical sidewall spanning from the top to the bottom, see Fig. 10); a chamber defined by an inner surface of the top, an inner surface of the bottom, and an inner surface of the sidewall the chamber having a generally cylindrical shape (the chamber is indicated with a dashed line in Fig. 10), the chamber operable to be located at an exterior of a liquid reservoir (pump housing 10, Fig. 2, [0047]); and wherein the top includes a first opening (threaded receptacle on the top) defined therein the first opening having threads and operable to connect and maintain an open passageway (the sight glass of Fig. 10 is used in the same manner as the sight glass of Figs. 2, 3, wherein the threaded connection on the top is fluidly connected to the housing 10 via drain port 12), the bottom includes a second opening defined therein (Fig. 10 shows an opening in the bottom of the sight glass).
Aljohani fails to teach wherein the inner surface of the bottom includes a curved surface.
However, Anderson teaches a sightglass/chamber 50 including the inner surface 57 of the bottom 56 includes a curved surface (beveled surface toward the bore 58; col. 6, lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an angled/sloped bottom surface in order to angle the surface toward the drain/opening and promote drainage.
Claim 3: Aljohani in view of Anderson teaches the sight glass of claim 1. The embodiment of Fig. 10, Aljohani, fails to teach a magnet integrated into the bottom.
However, Aljohani teaches a magnetic coating (magnetic coating is the magnet in the lower valve 106 [0009]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the magnet as taught by Aljohani with the device of claim 1 in order to attract metallic particles in oil when oil is disposed in the sight glass housing.
Claim 4: Aljohani in view of Anderson teaches the sight glass of claim 1. Aljohani teaches a drain valve (lower valve 106) integrated with the second opening (in the bottom).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the drain valve of Aljohani with the device of claim 1 in order to control emptying of the reservoir.
Claim 5: Aljohani in view of Anderson teaches the sight glass of claim 4. Aljohani further teaches wherein the drain valve is made of metal ([0009, 0058] In some embodiments, the lower valve portion can be a spring valve and formed from a metal selected from the group of brass, copper, aluminum and steel.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a drain valve made of metal with the device of claim 4 in order to control emptying of the reservoir using a corrosion resistant metal.
Claim 6: Aljohani in view of Anderson teaches the sight glass of claim 4. The embodiment of Fig. 10, Aljohani, fails to teach wherein the drain valve includes a magnet.
However, Aljohani further teaches wherein the drain valve (106) includes a magnet (a magnetic coating (magnetic coating is the magnet) in the lower valve 106 [0009])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the magnet as taught by Aljohani with the device of claim 1 in order to attract metallic particles in oil when oil is disposed in the sight glass housing.
Claim 8: Aljohani in view of Anderson teaches the sight glass of claim 1. Aljohani teaches wherein the sidewall is cylindrical (see Fig. 10).
Claim 9: Aljohani in view of Anderson teaches the sight glass of claim 1. Anderson teaches wherein the second opening (bore 58) is located at an apex of the curved surface of the bottom (the downstream face 57 of the seat portion 56 is beveled inwardly toward the bore 58, see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to locate the opening at the apex of the curved surface in order to promote drainage of substantially all of the fluid from the chamber (col. 6, lines 30-35).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aljohani in view of Kearney further in view of Gruett (US5323653).
Claim 7: Aljohani in view of Anderson teaches the sight glass of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the sidewall is made of polymer.
However, Gruett teaches a fluid level detection apparatus including a transparent tube 350 which can be made from glass, polymers, or other suitable materials (col. 11, lines 26-27). Therefore, glass, plastics, and polymers are known to be used for a transparent sight glass.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use polymer for a sidewall of a sight glass, as taught by Gruett, with the device of claim 1 in order to view the fluid within the sidewall while ensuring that the fluid is compatible with the material of the sidewall (Gruett, col. 1, lines 35-45).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. 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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 11/3/25
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855