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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/05/2024 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the amendment. The previous objections regarding the reference characters for the “upper cover”, the “middle cylinder”, and the “lower cover” have not been addressed and the reference characters added to the drawings are not recited in the specification (see drawing objection). The reference characters 31 and 43 are described in the Remarks as the extension section and entity area respectively, but they are not recited in the specification. Regarding the drawing objections for “a bottom of the output pipe passes through the reinforcing plate”, and “a compression system, wherein the compression system comprises a compressor and the gas-liquid separator and an outlet of the gas-liquid separator communicates with an inlet of the compressor”, the claimed features remain present in the claims and are not shown in the drawings, therefore the drawing objections are maintained. Please see below for new drawing objections necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth specification objections have been withdrawn. However, please see below for new specification objection.
Applicant’s argument filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant has not addressed the new matter issues and the rejections are presented again below. Please see below for new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s argument filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered, but they are only partially persuasive. Arguments pertaining to claims 1, 11-13, 15 are found persuasive in view of the amendment. Regarding claims 5 and 14, the amendment is not persuasive as it is still unclear what exactly is being “limited” with respect to the outer wall. Please see below for new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) necessitated by amendment.
Applicant's arguments, filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to present a new combination(s) of limitations for examination, necessitating the new grounds of rejection presented below. However, to the extent that Applicant’s arguments appear relevant to the current rejection they are addressed below:
The arguments pertaining to distinguishing technical features I and II were responded to in the previous final action. The arguments pertaining to distinguishing feature III are not persuasive as the claim is examined under the broadest reasonable interpretation, and the U-tube 32 of Manning goes past or lies across the reinforcing plate, thereby meeting the limitation of “bottom of the output pipe passes through the reinforcing plate”.
It is noted that Applicant has not addressed the issue(s) with the Information Disclosure Statement. Please see below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 04/10/2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Only references indicated with line-through in the information disclosure statement have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the output pipe comprises two extension sections extending along a side wall of the outer cylinder (Applicant has explained in the Remarks that 31 corresponds to “the extension section” and not ‘two extension sections’ as recited in the claim. It is also noted that there is no description of the new drawing number recited in the specification.); a bottom of the output pipe passes through the reinforcing plate; a compression system, wherein the compression system comprises a compressor and the gas-liquid separator and an outlet of the gas-liquid separator communicates with an inlet of the compressor must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 11, 12, and 13, 31, 43. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the “two extension sections”, “blocking structure”, “entity area”, “an outer wall of the output pipe” (claim 5), are not recited in the specification.
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.
Limitations “extension sections” are NOT being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C 112(f) since inspection of both the claim(s) and specification show that the generic placeholder(s) are not accompanied by functional language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-10, 14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “the output pipe comprises two extension sections extending along a side wall of the outer cylinder, the vertical segment is parallel to the two extension sections, and the horizontal segment is formed to pass through the two extension sections”. The specification does not recite “two extension sections” nor the relationship of other components to those “extension sections”. Claim 1 recites “blocking structure”, “entity area” but the specification does not recite “blocking structure”, “entity area”. Claim 5 recites “the output pipe passes through the limiting hole to limit an outer wall of the output pipe”. The specification only recites that “the blocking part 40 can also realize an effect of fixing and limiting the output pipe 30” (page 5), there is no support for an outer wall of the output pipe being limited. Claims 1 and 5 are therefore considered to add new matter.
Claims 7, 9-10, 14, 16-18 are rejected as being dependent upon, or incorporating, the rejected claim.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
The limitation “the output pipe passes through the limiting hole to limit an outer wall of the output pipe by an inner wall of the limiting hole” is unclear since it is still not understood what exactly is being limited. The disclosure states that “In this way, the blocking part 40 can also realize an effect of fixing and limiting the output pipe 30” (page 5). To expedite prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted such that an output pipe that is fastened securely in a place or position by an inner wall of a limiting hole in the prior art will be considered to meet the limitation.
Claim 14 is 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.
The limitation “the output pipe passes through the limiting hole to limit an outer wall of the output pipe by an inner wall of the limiting hole” is unclear since it is still not understood what exactly is being limited. The disclosure states that “In this way, the blocking part 40 can also realize an effect of fixing and limiting the output pipe 30” (page 5). To expedite prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted such that an output pipe that is fastened securely in place or position by an inner wall of a limiting hole in the prior art will be considered to meet the limitation.
Claim 17 is 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 17, it is unclear if “a reinforcing plate” and “a bottom of the output pipe” in claim 17 are the same or different from “a reinforcing plate” and “a bottom of the output pipe” recited in claim 1, which is incorporated into claim 10, upon which claim 17 depends. See also under 112d below. To expedite prosecution, the limitations are being treated as duplicates of the limitations recited in claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 recites the same limitations that have been amended into claim 1, and which are incorporated into claim 10, upon which claim 17 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 5, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manning (US-5233842-A: previously cited) in view of Li (CN-206709456-U: cited by Applicant, translation provided by Examiner: previously cited) and Kiblawi (US-5282370-A: previously cited) .
Regarding claim 1, Manning discloses a gas-liquid separator (Fig 1 and 2: heated accumulator #12), comprising:
an outer cylinder (upright cylindrical metallic tank #36);
an input pipe (inlet tube #30), wherein a part of the input pipe is inserted into the outer cylinder (see Fig 1 and 2), an inlet of the input pipe is located outside the outer cylinder (inlet at first end #90), and an outlet of the input pipe is located inside the outer cylinder (swirl port #106);
an output pipe (outlet U-tube #32), wherein a part of the output pipe is inserted into the outer cylinder (see Fig 2), an inlet of the output pipe is located inside the outer cylinder (outlet at first end #116), an outlet of the output pipe is located outside the outer cylinder (outlet at second end #118), and an arrangement position of the inlet of the output pipe is higher than an arrangement position of the outlet of the input pipe (see Fig 2: #116 resides higher in #36 than #106); and
a blocking structure arranged in the outer cylinder (strainer plate member #82), wherein the blocking structure is located between the inlet of the output pipe and the outlet of the input pipe, so as to separate the inlet of the output pipe from the outlet of the input pipe (see #82 in Fig 2 that separates #116 and #106)
wherein the blocking structure is provided with an avoidance hole (small opening(s) #88), and the avoidance hole allows communication between a region above the blocking structure and a region below the blocking structure (Fig 2, see also col 6 lines 63-68).
wherein the blocking structure is a plate-shaped structure (see plate structure of #82 in Fig 2), and a periphery of the blocking structure is connected to an inner wall of the outer cylinder (Fig 2, #82 connected to inner wall of #36); and in a radial direction of the outer cylinder, an area of the avoidance hole is less than an area of an entity area which excludes the avoidance hole of the blocking structure (Manning col 5 lines 26-40: as evidenced by “smaller” openings #88 and relative diameters discussed, see also Fig 2 depicting plate #82 extending to the wall, which is evident that entity portion would be greater in area than one of the small holes #88); and
the output pipe is of a U-shaped structure (U-tube #32);
the output pipe (outlet U-tube #32) comprises two extension sections extending along a side wall of the outer cylinder (Fig 2 leg members #110 and #112), and
wherein the gas-liquid separator further comprises: a reinforcing plate arranged in the outer cylinder (annotated Fig A), and a bottom of the output pipe passes through the reinforcing plate (#32 goes past or lies across the reinforcing plate, see annotated Fig A), so as to fix the output pipe in place (see annotated Fig A: plate is capable of fixing the output pipe by preventing it from moving position).
Manning is silent regarding wherein a distance between the outlet of the input pipe and an edge of the avoidance hole is greater than an outer diameter of the input pipe.
However, a distance between the outlet of the input pipe and an edge of the avoidance hole is a results effective variable, as recognized by Li (see paragraph(s) 0033: since an input pipe (Li inlet pipe #2) can be straight, a U-shaped tube, or other structure, the position of the outlet can vary and thus the distance between an outlet of the input pipe and an edge of an avoidance hole (Li circular hole #5) will be variable and subject to design and optimization decisions).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Manning with wherein a distance between the outlet of the input pipe and an edge of the avoidance hole is greater than an outer diameter of the input pipe, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Manning does not disclose wherein the input pipe comprises a vertical segment and a horizontal segment, which are connected to each other, wherein the inlet of the input pipe is located at an end of the vertical segment, the outlet of the input pipe is located at an end of the horizontal segment, and the outlet of the input pipe faces the inner wall of the outer cylinder; and the vertical segment is parallel to the two extension sections.
Kiblawi teaches wherein the input pipe (Fig 2 inlet tube #36) comprises a vertical segment and a horizontal segment (see annotated Fig B), which are connected to each other (see annotated Fig B), wherein the inlet of the input pipe is located at an end of the vertical segment (annotated Fig B), the outlet of the input pipe is located at an end of the horizontal segment (annotated Fig B), and the outlet of the input pipe faces the inner wall of the outer cylinder (annotated Fig B, outlet of input pipe faces wall of #24); the output pipe (Kiblawi Fig 2 outlet tube #38) comprises two extension sections extending along a side wall of the outer cylinder (Kiblawi Fig 2 vertically oriented legs #40 and #42 extend along walls of shells #22 and #24), the vertical segment is parallel to the two extension sections (annotated Fig B, vertical segment is parallel to legs #40 and #42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Manning with wherein the input pipe comprises a vertical segment and a horizontal segment, which are connected to each other, wherein the inlet of the input pipe is located at an end of the vertical segment, the outlet of the input pipe is located at an end of the horizontal segment, and the outlet of the input pipe faces the inner wall of the outer cylinder; and the vertical segment is parallel to the two extension sections, as taught by Kiblawi, to improve the system of Manning by ensuring sufficient vapor flow activity to cause the liquid/vapor mixture to completely vaporize prior to collecting at the top of the chamber (see Kiblawi col 4 lines 27-36).
Manning does not disclose wherein the input pipe passes through the avoidance hole.
Kiblawi further teaches wherein the input pipe passes through the avoidance hole (annotated Fig B inlet tube #36 passes through avoidance hole).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Manning with the arrangement of Kiblawi such that the input pipe passes through the avoidance hole, as doing so would improve the system of Manning by integrating the input pipe within the avoidance hole which would enable the delivery of vapor at a faster rate due to the larger area available as opposed to using multiple smaller holes, and accommodating the input pipe would make the system more structurally sound.
Modified Manning does not disclose the horizontal segment is formed to pass through the two extension sections.
However, there is no evidence of record that having the horizontal segment formed to pass through the two extension sections would result in a difference in function of the gas-liquid separator of Modified Manning. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the input pipe of Modified Manning, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the horizontal segment passing through the two extension sections solves any stated problem, only indicating that by having the horizontal segment, “the fluid output from the input pipe 20 is able to impact the inner wall of the outer cylinder 10” and therefor there appears to be no criticality placed such that the limitation produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Modified Manning such that the horizontal segment is formed to pass through the two extension sections as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 5, Manning further discloses wherein the inlet of the output pipe and the outlet of the output pipe are both located above the blocking structure (#116 and #118 located above #82), the blocking structure is provided with a limiting hole (first opening #84 or opening #132), and the output pipe passes through the limiting hole to limit an outer wall of the output pipe (outer wall of #32) by an inner wall of the limiting hole (see interpretation in 112(b) rejection above, Fig 2 #32 passes through #84 and #132, inner wall(s) of #84 or #132 are capable of fixing outlet U-tube #32, and therefore outer wall of #32 in place).
Regarding claim 7, Manning further discloses wherein the gas-liquid separator further comprises: a filter assembly (debris straining screen member #130), and the filter assembly is arranged at a bottom of the output pipe (Fig 2, see #130 located at bottom of #32).
Regarding claim 9, Manning further discloses wherein the outer cylinder comprises an upper cover (upper tank cap #44), a middle cylinder (tank side walls #38) and a lower cover (lower tank cap #46), which are connected in sequence (see Fig 2), and both the input pipe and the output pipe pass through the upper cover (#30 and #32 pass through #44).
Claim(s) 10, 14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manning (US-5233842-A: previously cited) in view of Li (CN-206709456-U: cited by Applicant, translation provided by Examiner: previously cited) and Kiblawi (US-5282370-A: previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Manning in view of Li and Kiblawi discloses a compression system, wherein the compression system comprises a compressor (Manning Fig 1 compressor #14) and the gas-liquid separator (Manning Fig 1 heated accumulator #12) as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and an outlet of the gas-liquid separator communicates with an inlet of the compressor (Manning, see where outlet of outlet U-tube #32 communicates with #14).
Regarding claim 14, Manning further discloses wherein the inlet of the output pipe and the outlet of the output pipe are both located above the blocking structure (#116 and #118 located above #82), the blocking structure is provided with a limiting hole (first opening #84 or opening #132), and the output pipe passes through the limiting hole to limit an outer wall of the output pipe (outer wall of #32) by an inner wall of the limiting hole (see interpretation in 112(b) rejection above, Fig 2 #32 passes through #84 and #132, inner wall(s) of #84 or #132 are capable of fixing outlet U-tube #32, and therefore outer wall of #32 in place).
Regarding claim 16, Manning further discloses wherein the gas-liquid separator further comprises: a filter assembly (debris straining screen member #130), and the filter assembly is arranged at a bottom of the output pipe (Fig 2, see #130 located at bottom of #32).
Regarding claim 17, Manning further discloses wherein the gas-liquid separator further comprises: a reinforcing plate arranged in the outer cylinder (annotated Fig A), and a bottom of the output pipe passes through the reinforcing plate (#32 goes past or lies across the reinforcing plate, see annotated Fig A), so as to fix the output pipe in place (see annotated Fig A: plate is capable of fixing the output pipe by preventing it from moving position).
Regarding claim 18, Manning further discloses wherein the outer cylinder comprises an upper cover (upper tank cap #44), a middle cylinder (tank side walls #38) and a lower cover (lower tank cap #46), which are connected in sequence (see Fig 2), and both the input pipe and the output pipe pass through the upper cover (#30 and #32 pass through #44).
PNG
media_image1.png
809
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
814
679
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESMERALDA ARREGUIN-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on (571) 270-7740. 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.
/ESMERALDA ARREGUIN-MARTINEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763