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 .
Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
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.
Independent claim 82 recites the limitation:
“a pressure reduction device connected to the degasification housing, wherein during operation, the pressure reduction device is configured to lower the pressure in the degasification zone relative to the pressure in the main flow channel”
This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it recites the generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “during operation, the pressure reduction device is configured to lower the pressure in the degasification zone relative to the pressure in the main flow channel” without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the broadest reasonable interpretation is the structure, material or act described in the specification as performing the entire claimed function and equivalents to the disclosed structure, material or act. Here, the disclosure says that the pressure reduction device comprises a piston, cylinder and piston actuator. See Spec. [0024]. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “pressure reduction device” limitation is a piston, cylinder and piston actuator, and equivalents.
For dependent claims 83, 84, 86, 89–95, the “pressure reduction device” limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation is a piston, cylinder and piston actuator, and equivalents.
For dependent claims 85, 87 and 88, the “pressure reduction device” limitation does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because claim 85 provides sufficient structure by saying that the pressure reduction device comprises a piston, a cylinder, and a piston actuator, while claims 87 and 88 depend from claim 85.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 82–95 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 82 is indefinite because it initially introduces “at least one valve” (indicating that the device can have multiple valves) but then describes “the valve” (singular). This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it is intended that there are multiple valves or a single valve. The claim is further indefinite because it simultaneously refers to “the valve” and “the at least one valve” creating confusion about whether a single or potentially multiple valves are being claimed.
To overcome this rejection “the valve” could amended to “the at least one valve.”
Claims 83–95 are indefinite because they depend from claim 82.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 82–85, 87, 89–93 and 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roffelsen, US 4,718,922.
Regarding claim 82, Roffelsen teaches an apparatus for deaeration of liquid for a heating system with a water boiler, which reads on the claimed “degassing device for degassing a gas-containing liquid in a cooling or heating installation.” See Roffelsen col. 1, ll. 7–10.
The apparatus comprises a system line 5, which reads on the “main flow channel.” See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 1–11. The system line 5 is “defined by a tube extending between a first side and a second side,” as claimed, which is the tube of the line 5, as seen in Fig. 1. Also, in operation, a main flow of liquid flows through the system line 5, as claimed, which is the water flowing through the system line 5. Id.
The apparatus also comprises a suction side line 2, which reads on the “at least one flow passage.” See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 6, ll. 64–68. The line 2 extends between the system line 5 and a boiler 1 (reading on the “degasification zone”). Id. The suction side line 2 is configured to allow communication between the boiler 1 and the system line 5, as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 1.
The apparatus further comprises a housing of the boiler 1, which reads on the “degasification housing defining an inner volume.” See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 6, l. 64–col. 7, l. 11. The inner volume of the boiler 1 substantially corresponds to the “degasification zone,” as claimed, because air is removed from water within the boiler 1. Id.
The apparatus also comprises a valve 6 which is movable between a closed position and an open position, wherein in the closed position the valve 6 obstructs the suction side line 2 and closes off the boiler 1 from the system line 5 and wherein in the open position the valve 6 does not obstruct the suction side line 2. See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 1–11. The valve 6 reads on the “at least one valve.”
The apparatus further comprises a pressure generator 23 fluidly connected to the boiler 1. See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 28–41. The pressure generator 23 reads on the “pressure reduction device” because it has a piston 24, a cylinder (the cylinder the piston 24 is in as seen in Fig. 1) and a piston actuator (the device that moves the piston), which is the corresponding structure “pressure reduction device,” as explained in the “Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. 112(f)” section above. Id. The pressure generator 23 is capable of lowering the pressure of boiler 1 relative to the pressure in the system line 5 when moving from the high pressure position to the normal pressure position. Id.
The apparatus further comprises a deaerator 9 in the housing of the boiler 1. See Roffelsen Fig. 4, col. 7, ll. 12–27. The deaerator 9 reads on the “gas outlet.”
The deaerator 9 comprises a valve 19 that is opened and closed by a float 17 located in a housing 12 to allow or prevent air from exiting the deaerator 9. See Roffelsen Fig. 4, col. 7, ll. 12–27. The structure of the valve 19 comprises a channel for allowing air to flow through, with an outlet opening at the downstream end of the channel, and a mechanism to open and close the channel to allow or prevent air from escaping, which is operated by the float 17. Id.
The channel of the valve 19 reads on “outlet tube” and the housing 12 holding the float 17 reads on the “outlet closing body.” The channel of the valve 19 is “closable by” the housing holding the float 17 because the float 17 operates the mechanism of the valve 19 to open and close the channel to allow or prevent air from escaping the deaerator 9. See Roffelsen Fig. 4, col. 7, ll. 12–27. Note that this interpretation is reasonable in light of the specification because the disclosure says that the outlet closing body 84 comprises a floater (with the floater being the mechanism that closes outlet tube 82). See Spec. [0162]–[0163].
The mechanism of the valve 19 reads on the “overflow valve” and the outlet opening of the channel of the valve 19 reads on the “gas outlet opening.” The mechanism of the valve 19 defines the opening the channel 19, as claimed, because the gas is released from the valve 19 downstream from the mechanism of the valve 19 for opening and closing it. The mechanism of the valve 19 is connected to the float 17 (the “floater”) and the float 17 is configured to operate the mechanism of the valve 19 to open and close the outlet opening of the valve 19 when a liquid level is higher than an “overflow threshold level,” which is higher than a “closing location” of the housing 12, because the float 17 holds the valve 19 in the closed position until the float drops below a certain level (this level is the “closing location of the outlet closing body”). See Roffelsen Fig. 4, col. 7, ll. 22–27. Note that the “overflow threshold level” is the level at which the float 17 closes the valve” and the “closing location” is the area of the housing 12 below this threshold.
The following limitations fail to differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art because they describe the manner of operating the device rather than it structure (see MPEP 2114, subsection II):
“wherein the degassing device is configured to carry out a degassing cycle, the degassing cycle comprising:
a pressure reduction step, during which the gas outlet and the at least one valve are closed, wherein the pressure reduction device is configured to degas the gas- containing liquid by reducing the pressure, wherein at a start of the pressure reduction step, a liquid level in the degassing device is at the overflow threshold level and the outlet closing body closes off the outlet tube, and
a gas expulsion step, during which the pressure in the degasification zone is increased and separated gas is passed through the outlet tube and the gas outlet opening.”
Note, however, that the apparatus of Roffelsen is capable of performing the claimed functions by carrying out the claimed “degassing cycle.” Specifically, the apparatus could undergo a “pressure reducing step” during which the outlet of the valve 19 and the valve 6 are closed and wherein the piston 24 is moved from the high pressure position to the normal position thereby reducing pressure in the boiler 1, which could cause degassing. See Roffelsen col. 7, ll. 28–41. At the start of this step, a liquid level in the apparatus could be at the overflow threshold level with the float 17 closing off the channel of the valve 19, because the float 17 is in the closed position until sufficient air is in the deaerator 9 to cause the float to drop down to a level to open the valve 19, with the float 17 operating in this manner regardless of whether the piston 24 is in the normal or high pressure position. Id. at col. 7, ll. 12–41. The apparatus could also undergo a “gas expulsion step” during which the pressure in the boiler 1 is increased and separated gas is passed through the channel of the valve 19 and the outlet opening of the valve 19, because the piston 24 could be moved from the normal position to the high pressure position, with sufficient air being in the deaerator 9 to cause the float 17 to drop to a level where the valve 19 is opened so that air is blown out. Id. at col. 7, ll. 12–41; MPEP 2114, subsection IV (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
PNG
media_image1.png
885
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 83, Roffelsen teaches that the apparatus comprises a suction side line 2 and a pressure side line 3, with reads on “two flow passages.” See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 6, ll. 64–68. The pressure side line 3 reads on the “branch flow passage” and the suction side line 2 reads on the “return flow passage.” The pressure side line 3 is configured to branch off a branch flow being a portion of the main flow through system line 5, as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 1. The suction side line 2 extends between the interior of the boiler 1 (the “degasification zone”) and the system line 5 (the “main flow channel”) and is configured to return a return flow to the system line 5, as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 84, Roffelsen teaches that the apparatus comprises a valve 6 on the pressure side line 3 (the “branch flow passage”) movable between a closed position and an open position. See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 6, l. 64–col. 7, l. 11. The valve 6 on the pressure side line 3 reads on the “first valve.” In the closed position, the valve 6 obstructs the pressure side line 3 and closes off the interior of the boiler 1 (the “degasification zone”) from the system line 5 (the “main flow channel”) and wherein the open position, the valve 6 does not obstruct the pressure side line 3.
The apparatus also comprises a valve 6 on the suction side line 2 (the “return flow passage”) movable between a closed position and an open position. See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 6, l. 64–col. 7, l. 11. The valve 6 on the suction side line 2 reads on the “second valve.” In the closed position, the valve 6 obstructs the suction side line 2 and closes off the boiler 1 from the system line 5 and wherein the open position, the valve 6 does not obstruct the suction side line 2.
Regarding claim 85, Roffelsen teaches that the pressure generator 23 (the “pressure reduction device”) is connected to the housing of the boiler 1 (the “degasification housing”). See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 28–35. The pressure generator 23 comprises a piston 24, a cylinder (the cylinder the piston 24 is in as seen in Fig. 1) and a piston actuator (the device that moves the piston). Id. The piston 24 is movable between a high pressure position (the “idle position”) and a normal pressure position (the “low pressure position”). Id. The cylinder is in open communication with the inner volume inside the housing of the boiler 1. Id.
In the normal pressure position, the “degasification zone” extends into the cylinder (because the water within the interior of the boiler 1 and the cylinder of the piston has gas that could escape into deaerator 9) and is larger than in the high pressure position of the piston 24 (because in the normal pressure position, the piston 24 is moved back to the dotted lines seen in Fig. 1). See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 28–35.
The “degasification zone” is delimited by the housing of the boiler 1and by at least part of the inner surface of the cylinder because water within the interior of the boiler 1 and the cylinder of the piston has gas that could escape into deaerator 9. See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 6, l. 64–col. 7, l. 27.
Also, a retracted position of the piston 24 corresponds to the normal pressure position and an extended position of the piston corresponds to the high pressure position, as the normal pressure position is represented by the dotted lines and the high pressure position is shown in solid lines in Fig. 1. See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 28–35.
Regarding claim 87, Roffelsen teaches that the piston 24 comprises an end that faces the inside of the boiler 1, which reads on the “actuator end.” The apparatus also comprises a check valve (a non-return valve) (“first valve”) on the blowoff valve 19. See Roffelsen col. 9, ll. 7–11. The “actuator end” of the piston 24 is capable of engaging the check valve, wherein movement of the piston 24 from the “retracted state” (normal pressure position) to the “extended state” (high pressure position) is capable of moving the check valve from an idle closed position to an open position by the “actuator end” because the piston 24 increases the pressure in the boiler 1 when moving from the normal pressure position to the high pressure position, and this increase in pressure could move the check valve from a closed position to an open position. Id. at col. 7, ll. 28–41. Also, movement of the piston 24 from the “extended state” to the “retracted state” is capable of moving the check valve from the open position to the idle closed position via the “actuator end” because the piston 24 reduces pressure in the boiler 1 when moving from the high pressure position to the normal pressure position, and this reduction in pressure could close the check valve. Id.; MPEP 2114, subsection IV (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 89, Roffelsen teaches that a shutoff valve 25 (“first valve”) is integrated as part of the pressure generator 23 (the “pressure reduction device”). Also, the portion of the piston 24 is a “part which obstructs” the pressure side line 3 (“branch flow path”) because it prevents liquid from moving from the pressure side line 3 to the area behind the piston 24. See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 28–35.
Regarding claim 90, Roffelsen teaches that a check valve (“second valve is a non-return valve”) extends outwardly from valve 19. See Roffelsen col. 9, ll. 7–16.
Regarding claim 91, Roffelsen teaches that the deaerator 9 (the “gas outlet”) comprises a chamber that float 17 is located in, which reads on the “floater chamber.” See Roffelsen Fig. 4, col. 7, ll. 22–27. The float 17 is movable within the chamber, which reads on the float 17 is “movable between a floating position and a lower position.” The limitation of—“wherein when liquid level drops below a predetermined liquid level, the floater engages an end of the outlet tube in the lower position, closing off the outlet tube”—fails to differentiate the claim from the prior art because it is a recitation with respect in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, rather than its structure. See MPEP 2114, subsection I. Note that the float 17 is capable of performing this function because the float 17 closes the channel of valve 19 (the “outlet tube”) when it is above a certain level, with the float 17 opening the valve 19 when the float drops to a certain level. The float 17 will continue to keep the valve 19 closed while it is dropping until it reaches the level where it opens the valve. The level where the float 17 has dropped, but continues to keep the valve 19 closed reads on “when liquid level drops below a predetermined liquid level, the floater engages an end of the outlet tube in the lower position, closing off the outlet tube.”
Regarding claim 92, Roffelsen teaches that the float 17 (the “outlet closing body”) is connected to a check valve on the valve 19, wherein the check valve allows gas to flow between the area outside of the apparatus and the interior of the boiler 1 (the “degasification zone”) in an open state and closes off the interior of the boiler 1 in a closed position. See Roffelsen col. 9, ll. 7–16. The check valve reads on the “gas outlet valve.”
Regarding claim 93, Roffelsen teaches that the system line 5 (the “main flow channel”) comprises a valve 6 that connects the line 5 to pressure side line 3 to branch off a portion of the main flow into the interior of the boiler 1 (the “degasification zone”). See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 1–11. The valve 6 reads on the “main flow valve.”
Regarding claim 95, Roffelsen teaches that the float 17 (the “outlet closing body”) is connected to a check valve, which is a non-return valve. See Roffelsen col. 9, ll. 7–16. This reads on “the outlet closing body is a non-return valve.
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.
Claim 86 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roffelsen, US 4,718,922.
Regarding claim 86, Roffelsen teaches the limitations of claim 82, as explained above.
Roffelsen differs from claim 86 because it is silent as to the pressure generator 23 (the “pressure reduction device”) being located in a lower part of the housing of the boiler 1 (the “degasification housing”).
But the pressure generator 23 is at the connection of the pressure side line 3 and the boiler 1, and the purpose of the pressure side line 3 is to supply water to the boiler. See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 6, l. 64–col. 7, l. 27. The reference provides no indication that the location of the pressure side line 3 on the boiler is significant, as long as it can supply water to the boiler 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 move the connection of the pressure side line 3 and the boiler 1 to a lower part of the housing of the boiler 1 because this would merely represent obvious rearrangement of parts with no significant change of function, because the pressure side line 3 would be able to supply water to the boiler if attached at the location seen in Fig. 1 or if attached at a lower part of the housing. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection VI, C.
With this modification of moving the connection of the pressure side line 3 and the housing of the boiler 1 to a lower part of the housing, the pressure generator 23 would be located at the lower part of the housing of the boiler 1 (the “degasification housing”) because the pressure generator 23 is located at the connection of pressure side line 3 and the boiler 1. See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 28–41. The pressure generator 23 would be configured to be operated below a liquid level in the housing of the boiler 1 because the lower part of the housing of the boiler 1 is below a water level at the top of the boiler 1.
Claim 88 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roffelsen, US 4,718,922 in view of Wieczorek et al., US 2008/0179236 A1.
Regarding claim 88, Roffelsen teaches that pressure side line 3 (“branch flow passage”) extends through the cylinder where the piston 24 is located, between the system line 5 (the “main flow channel”) and the interior of the boiler 1 (the “degasification zone”), as seen in Fig. 1.
Roffelsen differs from claim 88 because it is silent as to a piston movement being configured to move the valve 6 on the pressure side line 3 (“first valve”) to a closed state.
But Wieczorek teaches a filter element comprising a magnetically actuated valve that has a piston that moves to open and close the valve to control fluid flow. See Wieczorek abstract, [0051]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the valve of Wieczorek as the valve 6 of Roffelsen because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
Claim 94 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roffelsen, US 4,718,922 in view of Delmas et al., US 2019/0139793 A1.
Regarding claim 94, Roffelsen teaches that the apparatus comprises a “control unit” configured to control the pressure generator 23 (the “pressure reduction device”), which is the mechanism that instructs the pressure generator 23 to move the piston 24 between the normal pressure position and the high pressure position. See Roffelsen col. 7, ll. 28–41. Note that even if the control mechanism is human operation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an automated controller as the mechanism to move the piston 24 because this would merely represent automating an otherwise manual activity. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection III.
Roffelsen differs from claim 94 because it is silent as to at least one sensor with the sensor being configured to read out the at least one sensor and with the pressure generator 23 comprising the sensor, and with the sensor being configured to measure a pressure in the interior of the boiler 1 (the “degasification zone).
But the pressure generator is configured to move the piston 24 between the high pressure position and the normal pressure position to increase or decrease the pressure within the boiler 1. See Roffelsen col. 7, ll. 28–41. With this in mind, Delmas teaches a boiler comprising a pressure sensor that is used to control the pressure in the boiler. See Delmas [0017]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pressure generator 23 to comprise a pressure sensor configured to measure a pressure in the boiler 1 with the sensor sending this information to the controller of the pressure generator 23 to assist the pressure generator determining whether to increase or decrease the pressure within the boiler 1.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws all of the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, except for the indefiniteness issue cited above.
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejections
The Applicant argues that in Fig. 1 of Roffelsen, degassing is performed in housing 1 connected with valves 6 to a main flow channel and a vent valve 7. See Applicant Rem. filed April 17, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) 13.
The Examiner notes that the rejections cite to the Fig. 4 embodiment of Roffelsen, which is different from the embodiment of Fig. 1, with Fig. 4 using an automatically operated mechanical deaerator 9 instead of the electrically operated vent valve 7 illustrated in Fig. 1. See Roffelsen col. 7, ll. 12–27.
The Applicant argues that Roffelsen fails to disclose the following limitations from claim 82:
“an overflow valve defining a gas outlet opening, wherein the overflow valve is connected to a floater, wherein the floater is configured to operate the overflow valve to close the gas outlet opening when a liquid level is higher than an overflow threshold level, and wherein the overflow threshold level is higher than a closing location of the outlet closing body.” See Applicant Rem. 13.
Instead, it is argued that Roffelsen fails to provide any information to configure the device such that an overflow threshold is higher than a closing location of the outlet closing body. See Applicant Rem. 14.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Roffelsen teaches that the float 17 (the “floater”) is configured to close a valve 19 (and thus the “gas outlet opening”) when liquid level in housing 12 (the “outlet closing body”) exceeds a threshold (as the valve 19 opens when the float 17 drops). See Roffelsen col. 7, ll. 22–27. The threshold level in the housing 12 where the float closes the valve 19 is an “overflow threshold level” because above this level, the liquid in the housing overflows the threshold. The “closing location” is the location in the housing 12 that is below this threshold, reading on “the overflow threshold level is higher than a closing location of the outlet closing body.”
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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights