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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) are being withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 are being withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
New grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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 1-18 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 is amended to recite the limitation “a plurality of blocking elements each of which is configured to block the inflow of external air to the main flow path through the outlet of each of the plurality of reservoirs when all the fluid in each of the plurality of reservoirs flows out” in lines 9-11. While the original disclosure discloses a plurality of blocking elements (Fig. 4), and that each of the blocking element is configured to block the inflow of external air to the main flow path through the outlet of the corresponding reservoir (Fig. 4), the original disclosure does not disclose each of the blocking element is configured to block the inflow of external to the main flow path through the outlet of each of the plurality of reservoirs. It appears in light of the specification, the Applicant intends to claim each of the of the blocking element block the inflow of the external air to the main flow path through the outlet of the corresponding reservoir because the blocking elements in Figs. 2 and 4 do not block the external air to the main flow path through the outlet of each of the plurality of reservoirs (Figs. 2- 4 and pp. 11-14). As such, it is suggested the limitation is amended to be “a plurality of blocking elements each of which is configured to block the inflow of external air to the main flow path through the outlet the corresponding reservoir when all the fluid in each of the plurality of reservoirs flows out.”
Claims 2-20 are rejected because of their dependence of claim 1.
Clam 12 is amended to recite “wherein each of the plurality of blocking elements includes a blocking bead that floats on the fluid in each of the plurality of reservoirs the reservoir and descends as the fluid flows out through the outlet to block the outlet in lines 3-5. The original disclosure does not disclose each of the blocking element includes a blocking bead that floats on the float in each of the plurality of reservoirs. It appears, in light the specification (Figs. 2-3), the Applicant intends to claim “wherein each of the plurality of blocking elements includes a blocking bead that floats on the fluid in the corresponding reservoir and descends as the fluid flows out through the outlet to block the outlet.”
Claim 14 recites “wherein each of the plurality of blocking elements the blocking element is formed with a valve that blocks the outlet or blocks each of the plurality of reservoirs from the outside” in lines 3-5. The original disclosure does not disclose each blocking element … blocks each of the plurality of reservoirs from the outside (Fig. 4). It appear, in light of the specification (Fig. 4), that the Applicant intends to claim “wherein each of the plurality of blocking elements the blocking element is formed with a valve that blocks the outlet of the corresponding reservoir or blocks the corresponding reservoir from the outside.”
Prior Art
Claims 1-18 are free of the prior art since the prior art neither teaches nor renders obvious the limitation “a plurality of blocking elements each of which is configured to block the inflow of external air to the main flow path through the outlet of each of the plurality of reservoirs when all the fluid in each of the plurality of reservoirs flows out” in lines 9-11 of claim 1 in combination with the other recited elements.
However, should Applicant amend as examiner has suggested above to overcome the 112a rejection, rejections for the claims would be put forth in view of the teachings of Tan (US 20130236375), Cauley et al. (US 10046322), Lee et al. (KR 101515403), Sprague et al. (US 20120156112), Kelly et al. (US 8663583) and Cox et al. (US 20050016589). Tan teaches a plurality of blocking elements (vent valves 82 and 84) each of which is configured to block the inflow of external air to the main flow path through the outlet of the corresponding reservoir (Figs. 1 and 2A-D and para. 0030, vent valve 82 and 84 are located at the outlet of 48 and the outlet of 50 respectively, and they are capable of blocking external air) when all the fluid in each of the plurality of reservoirs flows out (interpreted as an intended use. Para. 0019 teaches vent valves are employed such that fluid control such as a sequence of fluid flow and/or a change in flow rate can be achieved by opening and closing one or more vent valves by an user. Therefore, valves can be opened and closed for the fluids in each of the plurality of reservoirs to flow out, and then valve 82 or 84 can be closed to block external air from entering the device. Therefore, valve 82 or 84 meets the structural limitations of the intended use.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6, filed 01/06/2026, with respect to the claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6, filed 01/06/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) claims 1-18 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. For purposes of compact prosecution, however, the examiner substantively addresses the arguments with respect to Prior Art Tan in light of the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) presented supra.
At pages 7-11 of the amendment, the Applicants argues that Tan does not teach the limitation recites in lines 9- 16 of claim 1. In particular, the Applicant argues that the vent valves (e.g., 78 or 84) taught by Tan are opened or closed by an actuator and “directly block the flow of fluid A to control the flow of fluid A” which is different than the claimed “a plurality of blocking elements” in claim 1, with which “the flow of fluid ‘B’ is blocked to control the flow of fluid ‘A’.” Furthermore, the Applicant explains that the invention is intended for the blocking element to “automatically blocks the inflow of external air through the outlet of the reservoir, so the fluid stored in the reservoir adjacent to the reservoir closest to the suction port is initiated to flow out, such that the fluid stored in the plurality of the reservoirs sequentially flows out from the fluid stored in the reservoir closest to the suction port without a separate control signal.“ For this reason, the Applicant argues that Tan fails to teach the limitations recites in lines 9- 16 of claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is first noted that the amended claim 1 does not require the blocking element(s) to be configured such that “the flow of fluid ‘B’ is blocked to control the flow of fluid ‘A’, nor does it require the blocking element(s) to automatically blocks the inflow of external air, nor does it require the blocking element(s) to be controlled “without a separate control signal.” 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). Furthermore, "a claim containing a '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' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim" (MPEP 2114 II).
Tan’s vent valves (e.g. 82 and 84) is configured to block the inflow of external air to the main flow path through the outlet the corresponding reservoir (Figs. 1 and 2A-D and para. 0030, vent valve 82 and 84 are located at the outlet of 48 and the outlet of 50 respectively, and they are capable of blocking external air), and the vent valves are capable of doing so (with an actuator, para. 0033) when all the fluid in each of the plurality of reservoirs flows out. With regards to the limitation recites in lines 12-16 of claim 1, the limitation is an intended use because the invention is an apparatus. The structure of Tan’s system would meet the structural limitation of the intended use as evidenced by the fact that fluids can flow sequentially as described in this limitation by applying vacuum and controlling the timing of opening and closing vent valves.
Therefore this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY CHIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1054. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 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, Maris Kessel can be reached at 571-270-7698. 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.
/M.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights