DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendments to the claims filed on 08 January 2026. Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16 and 19 are pending and currently being examined.
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The previously made 112 rejections are hereby withdrawn in view of suitable amendments to the claims submitted with applicant’s response.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “conduit coupling structure” in Claims 1, 4, 19 and “media coupling structure” in claims 1, 13, 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hans (Foreign Patent CH 280618 A, Machine Translation provided) in view of Niedenzu (WIPO document WO 2009083179 A1, Machine Translation provided) and further in view of Nordtmeyer (US Patent US 0472547 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Hans
In Re Claim 1, Hans discloses a cyclic flow (this recitation has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Furthermore, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)) apparatus (see annotated Figure 1 above) comprising: a housing (1) having a first variable volume (see annotated figure above), a complementary variable volume (see annotated figure above) and a first flow opening (see down arrow on top of figure) extending to the first variable volume, the housing comprising a moveable sidewall (4) defining the first variable volume, and the housing (1) comprising a first conduit coupling structure (see annotated figure above which shows a couple of flanges, one skilled in the art would appreciate that the intake and delivery conduits of the fluid source and flow circuit that uses the pumped fluid from this pump can be detachably coupled to these flanges; a flange is an equivalent structure because it performs the same function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same result – MPEP 2183) about the first flow opening, wherein the moveable sidewall (4) defines the complementary variable volume, wherein the moveable sidewall (4) is a piston that has a media opening (Page 1, Lines 3 – 4: “passages in a plate” represent a plurality of openings) defining a flow path in fluid communication between the first variable volume and the complementary variable volume when the piston is stationary within the housing (Page 1, Lines 1 – 9), and a linear actuator (the implied means that causes the shaft 3 to “be set in a reciprocating movement” – Page 1, Line 11; see double-arrow to the right of label 3) fixed to the moveable sidewall (4) via a shaft (3) (Page 1, Lines 10 – 12).
Hans does not explicitly disclose that the piston forms a fluid seal with the housing.
However, Niedenzu discloses an apparatus comprising: a housing (8) having a first variable volume (Figure 1A; in 10d to the right of 16 adjacent to incoming fluid from 2), a complimentary variable volume (Figure 1B; in 10d to the left of 17 adjacent to the outgoing fluid to 4), and a first flow opening (Figure 1B; 10b or hole inside 2) extending to the first variable volume, the housing defining a movable sidewall (16) defining the first variable volume, wherein the movable sidewall (16) defines the complimentary variable volume (in 10d to the left of 17 adjacent to the outgoing fluid to 4), wherein the movable sidewall is a piston (as would be appreciated by one skilled in the art – see paragraph [0092]) that has a media opening (18) defining a flow path in fluid communication between the first variable volume and the complimentary variable volume when the piston is stationary within the housing (paragraph [0046] discloses alternatively that the piston 16 does not have a valve 20, so fluid is free to communicate from one side of the piston to the other side of the piston at all times - even when the piston is stationary), wherein the piston (16) forms a fluid seal within the housing (via 30 in Figure 2) around the first variable volume (Figure 1A; in 10d to the right of 16 adjacent to incoming fluid from 2) (Figures 1A, 1B, 2; paragraphs [0036], [0037], [0039], [0043], [0046]).
PNG
media_image2.png
643
847
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Niedenzu and Figure 1 of Hans
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to substitute the piston/movable sidewall (4) of Hans with the piston/movable sidewall (16) of Niedenzu because there is no change in the principle of operation as a result of the substitution (see principle of operation in Hans Page 1, Lines 1 – 2: “It is known that certain profiles around which a gaseous or liquid medium flows in one direction offer greater resistance to this medium than when they are flowed around in the opposite direction” and paragraph [0046] of Niedenzu: “This is possible if the flow resistance of the flow opening during a movement of the fluidic element from the first 22 position to the second 24 position is greater than the flow resistance between the fluidic element and the fluidic device outlet”), therefore the results of the substitution are predictable – "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." KSR Intl. Co. v. Teleflex Inc. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397; The rigid requirement of a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements in order to show obviousness has been rejected. Id. At 398,419 (2007). This a rationale that can be used to support a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
Hans and Niedenzu do not disclose a media coupling structure.
PNG
media_image3.png
460
753
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 1 of Nordtmeyer
However, the Figure 1 embodiment of Nordtmeyer discloses that the piston (“F”) defines a media coupling structure (“chambered” portion of ‘f’ – stepped portion in the lower part of the piston – see shaded-black-annular-region in annotated figure above; this is an equivalent structure because it is a similar structure that performs the same function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same result – MPEP 2183) about the media opening (for “g”)(Page 2, Column 2, Lines 65 — 70).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the media coupling structure as taught by Nordtmeyer about the media opening of Hans / Niedenzu for the purpose of receiving a filter that filters the liquid (Page 1, Column 1, Lines 34 — 39 of Nordtmeyer), thus removing undesirable substances/impurities in the liquid.
In Re Claim 3, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Hans further discloses that the linear actuator (3) and the moveable sidewall (4) are configured to change a flow velocity of a liquid (since the openings are shaped in such a way that they offer greater resistance to the medium flowing through them in one direction than when the medium flows through them in the opposite direction – Page 1, Lines 4 – 5) in a liquid flow circuit (i.e. the source connected to the inlet or the destination connected to the outlet).
In Re Claim 4, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Hans further discloses that the first conduit coupling structure (see annotated figure above) is configured to sealably couple to a liquid flow circuit (in order for the apparatus to function as disclosed, a leak at the conduit coupling structure would prevent the fluid from entering the pump through the inlet and/or prevent the fluid from exiting the outlet to its destination which is being designated a liquid flow circuit; note that a liquid flow circuit has not been positively recited).
In Re Claim 9, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Hans further discloses that the first flow opening is a flow inlet (see down flow-arrow at the top of Figure 1) and the first flow opening is not a flow outlet (see up flow-arrow at the top of Figure 1 which is the outlet, so the first flow opening cannot be an outlet).
In Re Claim 11, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Hans further discloses that the housing (1) has a second flow opening (see up flow-arrow at the top of Figure 1) extending to the complementary variable volume.
In Re Claim 13, Figure 1 of Hans discloses a cyclic flow (this recitation has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Furthermore, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)) apparatus comprising: a housing (1) having a flow inlet (5), a flow outlet (6), and a cavity (between 5 and 6) extending in an axial direction (horizontal direction in Figure 1) from the flow inlet (5) to the flow outlet (6); a piston (4) disposed across the cavity, wherein the piston (4) is linearly translatable (Page 4, Line 11) in the axial direction along the cavity, the piston (4) defining an axially extending media opening (Page 1, Lines 3 – 4: “passages in a plate” represent a plurality of openings) in fluid communication with the cavity when the piston (4) is stationary within the housing (1)(Page 1, Lines 1 – 9), and a linear actuator (the implied means that causes the shaft 3 to “be set in a reciprocating movement” – Page 1, Line 11; see double-arrow to the right of label 3) fixed to the piston (4) via a shaft (3)(Page 1, Lines 10 – 12).
Hans does not explicitly disclose that the piston forms a fluid seal with the housing.
However, Niedenzu discloses an apparatus comprising: a housing (8) having a first variable volume (Figure 1A; in 10d to the right of 16 adjacent to incoming fluid from 2), a complimentary variable volume (Figure 1B; in 10d to the left of 17 adjacent to the outgoing fluid to 4), and a first flow opening (Figure 1B; 10b or hole inside 2) extending to the first variable volume, the housing defining a movable sidewall (16) defining the first variable volume, wherein the movable sidewall (16) defines the complimentary variable volume (in 10d to the left of 17 adjacent to the outgoing fluid to 4), wherein the movable sidewall is a piston (as would be appreciated by one skilled in the art – see paragraph [0092]) that has a media opening (18) defining a flow path in fluid communication between the first variable volume and the complimentary variable volume when the piston is stationary within the housing (paragraph [0046] discloses alternatively that the piston 16 does not have a valve 20, so fluid is free to communicate from one side of the piston to the other side of the piston at all times - even when the piston is stationary), wherein the piston (16) forms a fluid seal within the housing (via 30 in Figure 2) around the first variable volume (Figure 1A; in 10d to the right of 16 adjacent to incoming fluid from 2) (Figures 1A, 1B, 2; paragraphs [0036], [0037], [0039], [0043], [0046]).
PNG
media_image2.png
643
847
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Niedenzu and Figure 1 of Hans
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to substitute the piston/movable sidewall (4) of Hans with the piston/movable sidewall (16) of Niedenzu because there is no change in the principle of operation as a result of the substitution (see principle of operation in Hans Page 1, Lines 1 – 2: “It is known that certain profiles around which a gaseous or liquid medium flows in one direction offer greater resistance to this medium than when they are flowed around in the opposite direction” and paragraph [0046] of Niedenzu: “This is possible if the flow resistance of the flow opening during a movement of the fluidic element from the first 22 position to the second 24 position is greater than the flow resistance between the fluidic element and the fluidic device outlet”), therefore the results of the substitution are predictable – "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." KSR Intl. Co. v. Teleflex Inc. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397; The rigid requirement of a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements in order to show obviousness has been rejected. Id. At 398,419 (2007). This a rationale that can be used to support a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
Hans and Niedenzu do not disclose a media coupling structure.
PNG
media_image3.png
460
753
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 1 of Nordtmeyer
However, the Figure 1 embodiment of Nordtmeyer discloses that the piston (“F”) defines a media coupling structure (“chambered” portion of ‘f’ – stepped portion in the lower part of the piston – see shaded-black-annular-region in annotated figure above; this is an equivalent structure because it is a similar structure that performs the same function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same result – MPEP 2183) about the media opening (for “g”)(Page 2, Column 2, Lines 65 — 70).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the media coupling structure as taught by Nordtmeyer about the media opening of Hans / Niedenzu for the purpose of receiving a filter that filters the liquid (Page 1, Column 1, Lines 34 — 39 of Nordtmeyer), thus removing undesirable substances/impurities in the liquid.
In Re Claim 15, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 13, and Hans discloses that the linear actuator is configured to cyclically translate (see double-arrows in Figure 1) the piston (4) between a first position (beginning of reciprocating stroke) and a second position (end of reciprocating stroke) in the cavity (Page 1, Line 11).
In Re Claim 16, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 15, and Hans discloses that the first position is towards a first end (near 6) of the cavity and the second position (near 5) is towards a second end of the cavity (when the apparatus operates as disclosed on Page 1, Line 11).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hans (Foreign Patent CH 280618 A, Machine Translation provided) in view of Niedenzu (WIPO document WO 2009083179 A1, Machine Translation provided) and in view of Nordtmeyer (US Patent US 0472547 A) and further in view of Wetherill (PG Pub US 20200139276 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Hans
In Re Claim 19, annotated Figure 1 of Hans above discloses a cyclic flow (this recitation has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Furthermore, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)) system / apparatus comprising: a liquid flow circuit (at least from the entrance to 5 to an exit at 6 and beyond) having an inlet line (5), an outlet line (6), and a pump (Page 1, Line 1: “vibration pump”) that is fluidly coupled to the inlet line (5), wherein the pump is configured to elicit liquid flow around the liquid flow circuit (from 5 to 6); a housing (1) having a first variable volume (see annotated figure above) defining a first flow opening (see down arrow on top of figure) and a conduit coupling structure (see annotated figure above) about the first flow opening, wherein the conduit coupling structure is configured to detachably couple to the liquid flow circuit (see annotated figure above which shows a couple of flanges, one skilled in the art would appreciate that the intake and delivery conduits of the fluid source and flow circuit that uses the pumped fluid from this pump can be detachably coupled to these flanges; a flange is an equivalent structure because it performs the same function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same result – MPEP 2183), wherein the housing is a cylinder (because contains piston 4); a piston (4) translatably disposed in the cylinder, wherein the first variable volume (see annotated figure above) is defined by the cylinder, wherein the piston has a media opening (Page 1, Lines 3 – 4: “passages in a plate” represent a plurality of openings) defining a flow path in fluid communication with the first variable volume, and an actuator (the implied means that causes the shaft 3 to “be set in a reciprocating movement” – Page 1, Line 11; see double-arrow to the right of label 3) in operative communication with the housing (1), wherein the actuator is configured to cause the housing (1) to cyclically accumulate (when the liquid enters 5) liquid from the liquid flow circuit in the first variable volume (see annotated figure above) and release (when the liquid exits 6) liquid from the first variable volume (see annotated figure above) to the liquid flow circuit, wherein the actuator is fixed to the piston (4) via a shaft (3).
Hans does not explicitly disclose that the piston forms a fluid seal with an inner surface of the housing.
However, Niedenzu discloses an apparatus comprising: a housing (8) having a first variable volume (Figure 1A; in 10d to the right of 16 adjacent to incoming fluid from 2), a complimentary variable volume (Figure 1B; in 10d to the left of 17 adjacent to the outgoing fluid to 4), and a first flow opening (Figure 1B; 10b or hole inside 2) extending to the first variable volume, the housing defining a movable sidewall (16) defining the first variable volume, wherein the movable sidewall (16) defines the complimentary variable volume (in 10d to the left of 17 adjacent to the outgoing fluid to 4), wherein the movable sidewall is a piston (as would be appreciated by one skilled in the art – see paragraph [0092]) that has a media opening (18) defining a flow path in fluid communication between the first variable volume and the complimentary variable volume when the piston is stationary within the housing (paragraph [0046] discloses alternatively that the piston 16 does not have a valve 20, so fluid is free to communicate from one side of the piston to the other side of the piston at all times - even when the piston is stationary), wherein the piston (16) forms a fluid seal with an inner surface of the housing (via 30 in Figure 2) around the first variable volume (Figure 1A; in 10d to the right of 16 adjacent to incoming fluid from 2) (Figures 1A, 1B, 2; paragraphs [0036], [0037], [0039], [0043], [0046]).
PNG
media_image2.png
643
847
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Niedenzu and Figure 1 of Hans
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to substitute the piston/movable sidewall (4) of Hans with the piston/movable sidewall (16) of Niedenzu because there is no change in the principle of operation as a result of the substitution (see principle of operation in Hans Page 1, Lines 1 – 2: “It is known that certain profiles around which a gaseous or liquid medium flows in one direction offer greater resistance to this medium than when they are flowed around in the opposite direction” and paragraph [0046] of Niedenzu: “This is possible if the flow resistance of the flow opening during a movement of the fluidic element from the first 22 position to the second 24 position is greater than the flow resistance between the fluidic element and the fluidic device outlet”), therefore the results of the substitution are predictable – "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." KSR Intl. Co. v. Teleflex Inc. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397; The rigid requirement of a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements in order to show obviousness has been rejected. Id. At 398,419 (2007). This a rationale that can be used to support a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
Hans and Niedenzu do not disclose a media coupling structure.
PNG
media_image4.png
462
753
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 1 of Nordtmeyer
However, the Figure 1 embodiment of Nordtmeyer discloses that the piston (“F”) comprises a media coupling structure (“chambered” portion of ‘f’ – stepped portion in the lower part of the piston – see shaded-black-annular-region in annotated figure above; this is an equivalent structure because it is a similar structure that performs the same function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same result – MPEP 2183) about the media opening (for “g’)(Page 2, Column 2, Lines 65 — 70), wherein the media coupling structure (annotated black shaded area) is configured to create a seal around edges (see annotated figure above) of a filter media (“h”) to direct fluid flow through the filter media (see flow arrows).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the media coupling structure and filter media as taught by Nordtmeyer about the media opening of Hans / Niedenzu for the purpose of filtering the liquid (Page 1, Column 1, Lines 34 — 39 of Nordtmeyer), thus removing undesirable substances/impurities in the liquid.
Hans, Niedenzu and Nordtmeyer do not disclose a fluid reservoir in the liquid flow circuit.
However, Wetheril discloses a cyclic flow system (10; between reservoir 20 and machine 22) comprising: a liquid flow circuit having a fluid reservoir (20), an inlet line (110, 118), an outlet line (24), and a pump (12) that is fluidly coupled to the inlet line (110, 118), wherein the pump (12) is configured to elicit liquid flow around the liquid flow circuit (from reservoir 20 to machine 22); and a cyclic flow apparatus (paragraph [0020] states that the fluid is circulated through the machine)(Figure 2; paragraphs [0019],[0020]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to connect the inlet of the pump of Hans / Niedenzu / Nordtmeyer to a reservoir in a liquid flow circuit as taught by Wetheril for the purpose of delivering/circulating needed fluid to a machine (22) via outlet line (24) (paragraph [0020] of Wetheril).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 13 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746