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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 1-7, 9, 12-17 and 20 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
New claims:
Claims 1-7, 9, 12-17 and 20 (the current 07/01/2025) are directed to controller to clean/decontaminate that uses loop back connector. Claim 18 only recites the disinfection procedure as a functional limitation. There is no structure required by claim 18 to perform the cleaning procedure and for that reason it is not withdrawn.
Originally Presented Claims:
Claims 1-17 (the original claims of 09/27/202) are directed to thermal accessory controller for controlling the temperature of a thermal accessory.
The new controller for cleaning claims and the originally presented thermal accessory controller for controlling the temperature of the thermal accessory claims are unrelated inventions. Inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that they are not disclosed as capable of to use together and they have different designs, modes of operation and effects (MPEP § 802.01 and MPEP § 806.06). in the instant case, the new claims are directed to a controller (fig.7-8) programmed to clean and disinfect the thermal accessory controller. The cleaning and disinfecting process operates when the thermal accessory is disconnected for cleaning operation [0054]. Whereas, the originally presented claim was a thermal accessory controller for controlling the temperature of a thermal accessory (fig.2). Therefore, the two inventions are completely different and unrelated.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 1-7, 9, 12-17 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 18-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2021/0060230) in view of Knott et al. (US 2020/0172785).
Regarding claim 18, Hopper discloses a controller (thermal control system 20) for a thermal accessory, the controller comprising: an output conduit (outlet ports 58) through which a glycol-based liquid destined for the thermal accessory is able to exit the controller; an input conduit (inlet ports 60) at which the glycol-based liquid returning from the thermal accessory is able to enter the controller [0054]; a reservoir (reservoir 32) that includes a store of liquid; and a temperature control system (thermal control unit 22) that includes a heating component (heater 44); and a pump (pump 34) that is in liquid communication with the input conduit and that, in operation, is configured to move the glycol-based liquid through the heating component, such that the glycol-based liquid is warmed to at least a predetermined temperature for at least a predetermined amount of time, as part of procedure. Hopper does not disclose the reservoir to include store of glycol-based liquid and the procedure to be glycol-based liquid disinfectant. Knott disclose a heat transfer liquid for a temperature control device for human body temperature control that is configured to heat and/or cool the body temperature (abstract and see also [0005]). The heat transfer liquid consists of ethylene glycol or propylene glycol at about 25 volume-percent to about 35 volume-percent, hydrogen peroxide at 0.05 volume-percent or less and sterile, filtered and de-mineralized water as rest (abstract). The temperature control liquid including a disinfectant comprising glycol to inhibit microbial growth (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the Application was effectively filed to modify the device of Hopper with glycol-based liquid as taught by Knott for the purpose of preventing microbial growth.
Regarding claim 19, Hopper/Knott does not teach wherein the predetermined temperature is 70°C. Hopper teaches the predeterminer maximum temperature may be set to selected value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the Application was effectively filed to have the desired maximum temperature value including 70°C, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 21, Hopper/Knott does not teach the temperature control system is configured to, at the predetermined amount of time, turn off the heating component and the pump ([0062] of Hopper).
Regarding claim 22, Hopper/Knott teaches the controller of claim 18, wherein the temperature control system further includes: a microncontroller unit configured to perform a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) algorithm ([0068]-[0069] of Hopper).
Regarding claim 23, Hopper/Knott teaches the controller of claim 18, wherein the glycol-based liquid is in a range from 30% glycol and 70% water to 70% glycol and 30% water (abstract of Knott).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the amendment necessitated a new ground of rejection.
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 TIGIST S DEMIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-2721213. 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.
/TIGIST S DEMIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794