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 Amendment
The amendments filed February 26, 2026, have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-7 are currently pending.
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:
a measuring device in claim 1.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “measuring”), and
(C) However, claim 1 further recites a measuring device comprises a photoelectric sensor unit, which is sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.
an photoelectric sensor unit in claim 1.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “photoelectric”), and
(C) However, claim 1 further recites a photoelectric sensor unit comprises a light-emitting transmitter and a light-sensitive receiver, which is sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.
a removal device in claim 6.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “removal”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
a) The structure is described in the specification by means of incorporation of EP 3222946 and WO 2017/167620 A1 as a corresponding structure for a removal device, while box 8 is shown in the drawings and disclosed in Application specification [0017] as being a removal device, the specific structure is described in the applicant admitted prior art1 as to what a removal device requires and its equivalents.
means for removing in claim 6. For purposes of examination: this term is interpreted as a rotary feeder (See Applicant Specification Publication [0014]) and it’s equivalents.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the limitation uses the term “means for”,
(B) the term “means for” is modified by functional language (e.g. “removing”), and
(C) the term “means for” is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umino et al (US 4412852 A) in view of Rhodes (US 5548974 A) and Fukiharu (JP H0733425 A).
In re Claim 1, Umino discloses device for generating and storing carbon dioxide snow (Fig. 2), the device comprising –
a container (1);
a snow horn that opens into the container (12/13; See Col 5:56-60: includes a nozzle 13 and charging duct 12 which taper outwardly in cross section from top to bottom which describes a snow horn)
the snow horn being connected to a supply line (22) for liquid carbon dioxide ( the liquid carbon dioxide conduit 22) and
a gas extraction line that opens into the container (18/19)
Umino does not explicitly teach, a measuring device for detecting the fill level of carbon dioxide snow in the container.
However, Rhodes teaches a measuring device (37; See Col 8:59-Col 9:3) for detecting the fill level of carbon dioxide snow (when fullness of one or more cavities 12 is detected) in the container (10 corresponding to Umino 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Umino and to have modified them by having a measuring device for detecting the fill level of carbon dioxide snow in the container, in order to avoid waste of CO2 (See Rhoades Col 3:34-56), without yielding unpredictable results.
However, Umino does not explicitly teach, a photoelectric sensor unit that is arranged vertically spaced apart from the base of the container and that has a light-emitting transmitter and a light-sensitive receiver.
On the other hand, Fukiharu teaches a photoelectric sensor unit (26: photoelectric transmitter) that is arranged vertically spaced apart from a base of the container (arranged apart from the bottom of 1) and that has a light-emitting transmitter (26a) and a light-sensitive receiver (26b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Umino and to have modified them by having wherein the measuring device of Umino comprises a photoelectric sensor unit that is arranged vertically spaced apart from the base of the container and that has a light-emitting transmitter and a light-sensitive receiver as taught by Fukiharu, in order to detect the operation of the liquid carbon dioxide ejected into the container by the snow horn and (See Fukiharu Page 2¶2), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 2, Umino as modified teaches wherein the light emitting transmitter (Fukiharu 26a) and the light-sensitive receiver (26b) of the photoelectric sensor unit (26) are arranged in a common housing (Fukiharu 4; Fig. 1: 26 is in a common housing ).
In re Claim 5, Umino as modified teaches wherein a photoelectric sensor unit (Fukiharu 26) arranged vertically spaced apart from the container (Umino 1).
Umino as modified is silent about a plurality of photoelectric sensors.
However the use of a plurality of photoelectric sensors would be considered a mere duplication of parts which has been held to have no patentable significance unless a new an unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI B). In this case having a plurality of photoelectric sensors instead of one would allow for an increase in data to determine multiple heights of carbon dioxide snow within the container, but would not result in any new and unexpected results being produced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Umino as modified and to have modified them by having a plurality of photoelectric sensors perform the same function as the photoelectric sensor of Umino as modified to the vertically spaced positions of Umino as modified, because Umino as modified teaches a measuring device carrier (as recited in Claim 1) and photoelectric sensor (as recited in Claim 1) and such that having a plurality of photoelectric sensors is a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, because results of the duplication fail to be new and unexpected.
In re Claim 6, Umino as modified teaches further comprising a removal device (Umino 25/6/7 and related components) that has means for removing a defined amount of carbon dioxide snow (Umino 6/7; Col 6:1-10: the actuators 25 are then actuated to move the shutter 6 and its extension 7 to the fully retracted position wherein both the inlet 5 and the outlet 4 are open, and the charge block 15 can then move by gravity into the lower, press mold 2) from the container (Umino 1) at regular time intervals (Col 7:49-51: each cycle, i.e. interval, taking a few minutes).
In re Claim 7, Umino as modified teaches wherein the photoelectric sensor unit (Fukiharu 26) has a data connection to a control unit (Umino 32; Fig. 6 and Col 8:50-62: control circuit), by means of which the inflow of liquid carbon dioxide (See Umino Fig. 1 and [0019]: inflow of carbon dioxide) in the supply line (Umino 22) can be controlled depending on a detected fill level of carbon dioxide snow in the container (Umino Fig. 6 and Col 8:59-Col 9:6: filling quantity of the carbon dioxide snow in the storage container, prevented from further filling of liquid carbon dioxide).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umino (US 4412852 A) as modified by Fukiharu (JP H0733425 A), herein, further in view of Gantos (US 20190351267 A1).
In re Claim 3, Umino as modified is silent regarding the photoelectric sensor unit (26) operates using light in the infrared frequency range.
However, Gantos teaches a similar photoelectric sensor unit ([0025]: photoelectric sensor that includes an emitter 82 and a receiver 84) operates using light in the infrared frequency range ([0025]: uses an infrared light).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take the invention of Gantos having a photoelectric sensor operate using light in the infrared frequency range as taught by Gantos, as this operation using infrared light is known in the art. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umino (US 4412852 A) as modified by Fukiharu (JP H0733425 A), herein, further in view of Hutchinson (US 20040013534 A1).
In re Claim 4, Umino as modified teaches wherein the transmitter (Fukiharu 26a) and receiver (Fukiharu 26b) of the photoelectric sensor unit (Fukiharu 26) are arranged in such a way that the transmitter (26a) and receiver (26b) are each arranged with a respective front surface (Fukiharu 25) in alignment with an inner wall of the container (Umino inner wall of 1).
However, Umino as modified does not explicitly teach, arranged in a lateral wall of the container.
On the other hand, Hutchinson teaches are arranged in a lateral wall of the container ([0050]: photoelectric sensor positioned to be located along a side of the collection reservoir 50, i.e., container).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Umino as modified and to have modified them by having the photoelectric unit of Umino as modified arranged in a lateral wall of the container of Umino as modified as taught by Hutchinson, in order to for sensing high and low level conditions of the carbon dioxide. (See Hutchinson [0050]), without yielding unpredictable results.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks of February 26, 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below.
Applicant argues
On Page 1-2 of the Remarks, that the examiner has not shown that claims 1 are obvious over Umino because there is allegedly no basis in the prior art for measuring device as required by the claims. Applicant appears to suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize from the teaching of Umino that a measuring device that operates based on a preset timed sequence does not sense a fill level (See Remarks Page 1¶4).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Umino. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, fill level can be sensed by a preset timed sequence. However, assuming arguendo and in order to expedite prosecution, the Examiner provides the teachings of Rhodes supra to provide explicit teaching of a sensor that measures fill level which includes a preset timed sequence.
It should be noted that applicant's amendments have changed the scope of the claimed invention, thereby necessitating a new grounds of rejection. in light of the above, the claim has been reconsidered, and the new grounds of rejection now incorporates teachings from Rhoades to arrive at the claimed invention.
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 IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 See Applicant Specification Publication [0014] and [0017]
Prosecution Insights