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 May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the set of claims, changing the scope of the claimed invention, resulting in the withdrawal of the previous prior art rejections.
Specifically, on pages 11-17 of the Remarks section, as indicated by the page number at the bottom of each page, Applicant argues against the previous 103 prior art rejections of independent Claims 1 & 13, regarding the use of primary reference Mitrovic et al., (US 2021/0128806), and secondary references Jonsson et al., (US 4,784,495), Brehm et al., (“Brehm”, US 2003/0168120), and Polaschegg, (US 5,580,460). Applicant argues that Mitrovic does not disclose sensing or meeting all four different conditions that are now claimed, including the newly added “second condition of the fluid line system by sensing a mixed fluid value of the fluid flow in the fluid line system”, nor does it disclose the various newly added conditions of not performing the pressure holding test. Applicant also argues that the secondary references listed do not disclose all of these features individually, or in combination with each other and Mitrovic. Upon review, the Examiner finds these arguments persuasive, finding that the references do not disclose all of the newly added features individually or combined. Thus, the Examiner has withdrawn the previous prior art rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 13, 23 and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the at least one concentrate supply line” on line 13. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as the “at least one first concentrate supply line” on line 7 or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the at least one concentrate supply line” on line 37. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as the “at least one first concentrate supply line” on line 7 or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a pressure holding test” on line 69. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as the “pressure holding test” recited earlier in the claim or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a pressure holding test” on line 51. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as the “pressure holding test” recited earlier in the claim or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the detected first condition”, “the detected second condition”, “the detected third condition” and “the detected fourth condition”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: after withdrawing the previous prior art rejections for the reasons stated above in the Response to Arguments section, the Examiner has conducted further searching and consideration of the prior art in the relevant fields of endeavor. After doing so, the Examiner has determined that the most relevant prior art references such as Mitrovic et al., (US 2021/0128806), Jonsson et al., (US 4,784,495), Brehm et al., (“Brehm”, US 2003/0168120), and Polaschegg, (US 5,580,460), do not disclose individually or all together, all of the added claim limitations “sensing a second condition of the fluid line system by sensing a mixed fluid value of the fluid flow in the fluid line system, downstream from the at least one concentrate supply line and upstream of the bypass valve, to determine a second sensed condition”, “the sensor system comprises a mixed fluid value sensor for sensing the mixed fluid value of the fluid flow in the fluid line system”, “the control unit is configured to prevent performance of the pressure holding test when the fluid value does not meet the first predetermined condition, when the mixed fluid value does not meet the second predetermined condition, when the concentrate supply mode does not meet the third predetermined condition, or when the sensed position state of the connecting means does not meet the fourth predetermined condition, and in the event that a pressure holding test is underway, the control unit is configured to terminate the pressure holding test when the fluid value does not meet the first predetermined condition, when the mixed fluid value does not meet the second predetermined condition, when the concentrate supply mode does not meet the third predetermined condition, or when the sensed position state of the connecting means does not meet the fourth predetermined condition” in independent Claim 1, and similar added limitations in independent Claim 13. As a result, the Examiner indicates that these claims and their dependent claims would be allowable once the 112(b) issues indicated in the 112 rejection section above are resolved.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights