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
1. The amendment filed 24 April 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are presently pending, with claims 17-20 withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-8, 10-16, and 21 being examined herein.
2. All objections and rejections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
3. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) and 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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: “user interface device” in claim 11, interpreted as “a screen, or one or more user-actuated buttons or triggers to allow to user to read information and alter the sterilization process” per Specification par 0034 and equivalents thereof.
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 § 112
7. 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.
8. Claim 10 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. As amended, claim 1 now recites wherein the controller is configured to convert the detected fluid height to a fluid volume, thus this limitation is duplicate and fails to further limit the scope of the claim. 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
9. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
10. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goncalves (US 20170312378 A1) in view of Childers II (US 20050084411 A1).
11. Regarding claim 1, Goncalves discloses a system (process and device for sterilization/disinfection, par 0001; FIG. 1a; pars 0107-0110) for measuring chemical components (precision of the drop by drop dosing…of hydrogen peroxide or other chemicals, pars 0008-0009), the system comprising:
a dosing cylinder (tank 6F, FIG. 1a) configured to receive and measure a fluid containing one or more chemical components (chemical product is pumped by the filling pump 7 and placed into a tank 6F, par 0109; level of the chemical product is controlled by the level sensor, par 0110), the dosing cylinder including a fluid sensor configured to detect a height of fluid within the dosing cylinder (level float 6B/level sensor 6A, par 0110, FIG. 1a);
a pump operably coupled to the dosing cylinder (filling pump 7, FIG. 1a), the pump configured to drive the fluid to the dosing cylinder (chemical product is pumped by the filling pump 7 and placed into a tank 6F, par 0109); and
a controller (computer or control unit, par 0110) in communication with the dosing cylinder and the pump (chemical product tank 6F is provided with a system that controls the float 6B and interacts with the computer or the control unit, par 0110), the controller configured to (computer that controls the process, par 0122):
generate a signal to initiate driving of the fluid into the dosing cylinder (chemical product is pumped by the filling pump 7 and placed into a tank 6F, par 0109; an order from the operator starts the refilling sequence, pars 0107-0108),
receive a signal from the fluid sensor corresponding to the detected height of the fluid (level of the chemical product is controlled by the level sensor 6A which sends the information to the computer, par 0110),
and
initiate dispersing the fluid from the dosing cylinder to a sterilization system (small vapor quantities of the mixture from the vaporizer chamber to the sterilization/disinfection chamber 1, pars 0111-0113) wherein the dispersed fluid corresponds to the predetermined volume measured within the dosing cylinder (adjustable dose system allows the adjustment of a defined dose of a certain chemical product, par 0111).
Goncalves does not teach that the level sensor is an ultrasonic fluid sensor, nor does Goncalves specifically teach that the controller would be configured in the operation of the level sensor to convert the detected height of the fluid to a volumetric measurement indicative of a volume of fluid contained within the dosing cylinder.
Childers II teaches an analogous dosing storage tank for disinfecting solution (Abstract, pars 0017-0027, FIG. 1) wherein the level of the dosing tank is monitored with an ultrasonic level sensor/transmitter (par 0033), enabling the controller to similarly control the flow rates to match predetermined dosing amounts (par 0041) by measuring the volume in the tank (the total volume of feed water directed to the dosing storage tank is measured, pars 0018 and 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the float sensor of Goncalves with an ultrasonic level sensor/transmitter configured with the controller to convert the detected height into a volumetric measurement as taught by Childers II because the use of an ultrasonic level sensor would predictably provide the same level sensing capability for the dosing cylinder in a way that can be convertible into a useful volume measurement as demonstrated by Childers II.
Goncalves does not explicitly teach that tank 6F, which is configured to receive and measure doses to perform the functions of the claimed dosing cylinder, is a cylinder having a cylindrical geometry. As many fluid containment vessels are known to take the form of a cylinder (including bottle/container 8F of Goncalves, FIGS. 1a-b), making such a tank cylindrical would be a matter of obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B), in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Goncalves also does not explicitly teach that the controller would generate a signal to stop pumping of the fluid into the dosing cylinder when the volumetric measurement reaches a predetermined volume, though it is known that the filling pump 7 fills the tank 6F as a finite action (pars 0107 and 0109) and the level in the tank 6F is controlled by the level sensor 6A (par 0110). In the next sequence of the process, the same controller does send a signal to stop the dosing peristaltic pump 5 after a circulation period (par 0111), teaching a dosing period started by a start signal and stopped by a stop signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the controller of Goncalves to generate a signal to stop pumping of the fluid into the dosing cylinder when the volumetric measurement reaches a predetermined volume, as Goncalves teaches that the controller can send a stop signal to predictably and reliably control the dosing provided by a pump. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the tank 6F of Goncalves as a cylinder, as such a shape would predictably hold a controllable amount of liquid for distribution into the sterilization system.
12. Regarding claim 2, Goncalves as modified by Childers II teaches the system of claim 1, wherein dispersing the fluid from the dosing cylinder to the sterilization system is in response to an indication of a desired amount of sterilant filling the dosing cylinder (level of the chemical product is controlled by the level sensor which sends the information to the computer, Goncalves par 0110; computer system gives indication to the dosing peristaltic pump 5 to start pumping the chemical product from tank 6F, Goncalves par 0111).
13. Regarding claim 3, Goncalves as modified by Childers II teaches the system of claim 2, further comprising a second pump operably coupled to the dosing cylinder (Goncalves FIG. 1a, dosing pump 5 removes chemical product from tank 6F, Goncalves par 0110), the second pump for driving the fluid from the dosing cylinder to the sterilization system for a sterilization cycle (liquid fed to vaporizer by dosing peristaltic pump 5 to dose small quantities to the sterilization/disinfection chamber, Goncalves pars 0111-0113).
14. Regarding claim 4, Goncalves as modified by Childers II teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a fluid source (Goncalves FIG. 1a, bottle/container 8F of supply system 8, Goncalves pars 0106-0109) coupled to the pump (after the perforation of the bottle/container, the chemical product is pumped by the filling pump 7, Goncalves par 0109).
15. Regarding claim 6, Goncalves as modified by Childers II teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a sterilization system fluidly coupled to the dosing cylinder (Goncalves FIG. 1a, sterilization/disinfection chamber 1 connected via vaporizer/mixer 4 and dosing pump 5 to tank 6F, Goncalves par 0110), wherein the sterilization system is configured to receive the predetermined volume of fluid for a sterilization cycle (defined dose of a certain chemical product…introduced drop by drop into the vaporizer/mixer, Goncalves par 0111; dose small vapor quantities of the mixture/combination from the vaporizer chamber 4G to the sterilization/disinfection chamber, Goncalves par 0113).
16. Regarding claim 7, Goncalves as modified by Childers II teaches the system of claim 6, further comprising a valve between the dosing cylinder and the sterilization system (Goncalves FIG. 1a, three way vaporization valves 4E, Goncalves par 0110) for regulating flow of the fluid between the dosing cylinder and the sterilization system (it introduces the chemical product into one of the vaporizer's/mixer's capillary tubes…then diffused to the sterilization/disinfection chamber, Goncalves par 0110).
17. Regarding claim 8, Goncalves as modified by Childers II teaches the system of claim 6, further comprising a second pump between the dosing cylinder and the sterilization system (Goncalves FIG. 1a, dosing pump 5 removes chemical product from tank 6F, Goncalves par 0110), the second pump for driving the fluid into the sterilization system from the dosing cylinder (liquid fed to vaporizer by dosing peristaltic pump 5 to dose small quantities to the sterilization/disinfection chamber, Goncalves pars 0111-0113).
18. Regarding claim 10, Goncalves as modified by Childers II teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to convert the detected fluid height to a fluid volume (the total volume of feed water directed to the dosing storage tank is measured, Childers II par 0018; liquid level in the storage tank is monitored by an ultrasonic level sensor/transmitter, Childers II par 0033).
19. Regarding claim 12, Goncalves as modified by Childers II teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to initiate driving of the fluid into the dosing cylinder (after e.g., RFID verification by controller, chemical product is pumped by the filling pump 7 and placed into a tank 6F, Goncalves pars 0108-0109). As it is known that the filling pump is a peristaltic pump (filing peristaltic pump 7, Goncalves par 0052) which relies on peristalsis i.e. pulsating, directional motion to move the fluid, it is understood that any pumping with this pump would involve driving the fluid in a pulsatile fashion.
20. Regarding claim 13, Goncalves as modified by Childers II teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to initiate driving of the fluid into the dosing cylinder (after e.g., RFID verification by controller, chemical product is pumped by the filling pump 7 and placed into a tank 6F, Goncalves pars 0108-0109). Goncalves does not specifically teach that this pump control operation would occur by driving the fluid in a continuous fashion.
Childers II further teaches that the feed water pump directs feed water to the analogous dosage storage tank at a consistent feed flow rate (par 0033), operating the pump to drive the fluid in a continuous fashion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the filling pump of Goncalves to drive the fluid in a continuous fashion as taught by Childers II because such continuous actuation would predictably provide a consistent feed flow rate for the dosing cylinder in the same manner.
21. Regarding claim 14, Goncalves teaches a sterilization system (sterilization device, Title/Abstract) comprising:
an atomizer comprising at least one capillary inlet configured to receive and atomize a sterilant fluid (vaporizer/mixer chamber receives chemical sterilizing chemical product from capillary tube drop by drop, pars 0111-0113; ultra-sound system applied to the capillary tubes can improve vaporization by transforming liquid into pulverized i.e. atomized gas, par 0014);
a dosing cylinder (tank 6F, FIG. 1a) fluidly coupled to the atomizer (FIG. 1a, tank 6F and vaporizer/mixer system 4 connected by line terminating at capillary tube 4D), the dosing cylinder for receiving and measuring the sterilant (chemical product is pumped by the filling pump 7 and placed into a tank 6F, par 0109; level of the chemical product is controlled by the level sensor, par 0110), the dosing cylinder including a fluid sensor (level float 6B/level sensor 6A, par 0110, FIG. 1a);
a pump operably coupled to the dosing cylinder (filling pump 7, FIG. 1a), the pump for driving the fluid to the dosing cylinder (chemical product is pumped by the filling pump 7 and placed into a tank 6F, par 0109); and
a controller (computer or control unit, par 0110) in communication with the dosing cylinder and the pump (chemical product tank 6F is provided with a system that controls the float 6B and interacts with the computer or the control unit, par 0110), the controller including a processor and a memory with instructions (process is controlled and programmed by the computer, par 0117) which, when executed, cause the processor to (computer that controls the process, par 0122):
initiate driving of the sterilant fluid into the dosing cylinder (chemical product is pumped by the filling pump 7 and placed into a tank 6F, par 0109; an order from the operator starts the refilling sequence, pars 0107-0108),
receive data from the fluid sensor representative of a volumetric measurement of fluid within the cylinder (level of the chemical product is controlled by the level or pressure sensor 6A which sends the information to the computer, par 0110), and
initiate driving of the predetermined volume of sterilant fluid from the dosing cylinder (computer system gives indication to the dosing peristaltic pump 5 to start pumping the chemical product from a tank 6F, par 0111) to the atomizer (introduces the chemical product into the vaporizer/mixer 4G drop by drop through the capillary tube, pars 0111-0113; ultra-sound system applied to the capillary tubes can improve vaporization by transforming liquid into pulverized i.e. atomized gas, par 0014).
Goncalves does not teach that the level sensor is an ultrasonic fluid sensor, nor does Goncalves specifically teach that the controller/processor would be configured to convert data received from the ultrasonic fluid sensor into a volumetric measurement of fluid within the dosing cylinder.
Childers II teaches an analogous dosing storage tank for disinfecting solution (Abstract, pars 0017-0027, FIG. 1) wherein the level of the dosing tank is monitored with an ultrasonic level sensor/transmitter (par 0033), enabling the controller to similarly control the flow rates to match predetermined dosing amounts (par 0041) by measuring the volume in the tank (the total volume of feed water directed to the dosing storage tank is measured, pars 0018 and 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the float sensor of Goncalves with an ultrasonic level sensor/transmitter configured with the controller to convert the detected height into a volumetric measurement as taught by Childers II because the use of an ultrasonic level sensor would predictably provide the same level sensing capability for the dosing cylinder in a way that can be convertible into a useful volume measurement as demonstrated by Childers II.
Goncalves does not explicitly teach that tank 6F, which is configured to receive and measure doses to perform the functions of the claimed dosing cylinder, is a cylinder having a cylindrical geometry. As many fluid containment vessels are known to take the form of a cylinder (including bottle/container 8F of Goncalves, FIGS. 1a-b), making such a tank cylindrical would be a matter of obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B), in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Goncalves also does not explicitly teach that the controller would stop pumping of the sterilant fluid into the dosing cylinder when the volumetric measurement reaches a predetermined volume, though it is known that the filling pump 7 fills the tank 6F as a finite action (pars 0107 and 0109) and the level in the tank 6F is controlled by the level sensor 6A (par 0110). In the next sequence of the process, the same controller does send a signal to stop the dosing peristaltic pump 5 after a circulation period (par 0111), teaching a dosing period started by a start command and stopped by a stop command.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the controller of Goncalves to stop pumping of the fluid into the dosing cylinder in response to sensing that the fluid reaches the predetermined level, as this level stop configuration would predictably enable control of the level in the dosing cylinder based on the level sensor. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the tank 6F of Goncalves as a cylinder, as such a shape would predictably hold a controllable amount of liquid for distribution into the sterilization system.
22. Regarding claim 15, Goncalves as modified by Childers II teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the atomizer is configured to receive and atomize the fluid (vaporizer/mixer chamber receives chemical sterilizing chemical product from capillary tube drop by drop, Goncalves pars 0111-0113; ultra-sound system 4I applied to the capillary tubes can also be used to improve the vaporization, Goncalves par 0118) from the dosing cylinder (chemical product pumped from tank 6F through the capillary tube, Goncalves par 0111).
23. Regarding claim 16, Goncalves as modified by Childers II teaches the system of claim 14, further comprising a second pump (dosing peristaltic pump 5, Goncalves FIG. 1a and pars 0110-0111) configured to drive the fluid from the dosing cylinder to the atomizer (chemical product is removed from a tank 6F thanks to a dosing pump 5…it introduces the chemical product into one of the vaporizer/mixer’s capillary tubes 4D, Goncalves par 0110).
24. Regarding claim 21, Goncalves as modified by Childers II teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the dosing cylinder is configured to contain a single measured dose of sterilant fluid at a time (chemical product tank 6F is provided with a system that controls the float to prevent the cycles to initiate without the measured amount of fluid in the tank, Goncalves par 0110). The limitation wherein the controller prevents introduction of additional fluid into the dosing cylinder by maintaining the dosing cylinder in an isolated state until the measured dose has been dispersed to the sterilization system is recited as an intended use of the apparatus which does not carry patentable weight per MPEP 2114(II), but Examiner notes that the claimed use condition can be met in operation by controlling dose delivery via vaporization valves e.g. 4E and preventing operation of peristaltic pump 7 (Goncalves FIG. 1).
25. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goncalves (US 20170312378 A1) and Childers II (US 20050084411 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Childers et al (US 5,527,507 A).
Regarding claim 5, Goncalves as modified by Childers II teaches the system of claim 4, further comprising several valves for flow control (Goncalves FIG. 1a, 4E, 4H, 13A and 13E, Goncalves pars 0110-0113 and 0116). Although Goncalves teaches a pump between the fluid source and the dosing cylinder (Goncalves FIG. 1a, peristaltic pump 7), the combination does not teach a valve positioned between the fluid source and the dosing cylinder, the valve being selectively actuated by the controller to isolate the dosing cylinder after the predetermined volume has been measured.
Childers teaches an analogous accumulator-based liquid metering system for metering a sterilant into a vaporization system for vapor-phase sterilization (Title, Abstract, col 3 lines 8-53) wherein three-way valve 22 is located between the reservoir 10 and the accumulator 12 (FIG. 1, col 7 lines 46-65). When the three-way valve is opened to allow flow of the liquid from the fluid source to the accumulator, the metering pump 14 is also started to draw liquid sterilant along that path (col 9 lines 50-66); when the amount to be dispensed is reached, the metering pump is stopped and diverter valve 22 opens on path B-C to isolate path A to the accumulator cylinder (col 8 lines 19-42). As such, the valve is operably coupled to the pump and preferably placed close to the accumulator to maximize the benefits i.e. measurement accuracy of priming and purging steps (col 7 lines 46-67 and col 8 lines 19-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include between the fluid source and dosing cylinder of Goncalves a valve selectably actuatable to isolate the dosing cylinder after the predetermined volume has measured as taught by Childers, because this valve placement would predictably provide the same advantageous flow regulation wherein virtual identical amounts of liquid are measured repeatedly into the dosing cylinder as taught by Childers (col 10 lines 2-5).
26. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goncalves (US 20170312378 A1) and Childers II (US 20050084411 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tremblay et al (US 20130236373 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Goncalves as modified by Childers II teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a user interface device coupled to and in communication with the controller (automation system coupled to components that interface with the user that include RFID, TAG, or microchip and system printer, par 0106). However, Goncalves does not teach the user interface device as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to include “a screen or one or more user actuated buttons or triggers to allow to user to read information and alter the sterilization process as desired”.
Tremblay teaches an analogous metering system provided for metering hydrogen peroxide into an evacuated vessel (Abstract, pars 0008-0010 and 0015) including a reservoir 220 equipped with a level sensor (par 0040) wherein the control system is provided with a user interface 118, preferably a touch-sensitive liquid crystal display (LCD) screen 118 and a printer 119 allowing the user to receive and transmit information necessary for use of the apparatus (par 0118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the user interface device of Goncalves a touch-sensitive liquid crystal display as taught by Tremblay because such a touchscreen would predictably provide the same capability for the user to receive and transmit information necessary for the use of the metering and injection system.
Response to Arguments
27. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 24 April 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made over Goncalves in view of Childers II to address the newly recited limitation wherein the fluid sensor is an ultrasonic fluid sensor configured with the controller to convert the detected height of fluid to a volumetric measurement, these new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
28. Regarding Applicant’s argument that the level sensor as configured requires the cylindrical geometry to be operative thus a change of shape would not be obvious, Examiner finds this unpersuasive. A level sensor necessarily correlates with volume in any shape of container having fixed walls, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand how to configure a level sensor control arrangement to convert to a volume of fluid in any chosen shape of vessel. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Examiner notes that the references relied upon for the rejections are very closely related to the present application and to one another as describing systems for measuring and injecting a disinfectant fluid into a sanitization application.
Conclusion
29. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akutsu (US 20150037206 A1) teaches an analogous dosing sterilant system (FIGS. 6 and 8-9, pars 0071-0080) having a metering pump 34 with cylindrical volume for measuring predetermined amounts of sterilant (par 0076) and isolating valving 35a-c to accomplish a similar goal.
30. 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.
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights