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 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 1-2, 7-10, 13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walters et al. (AU2020202483, see attached Publication).
Regarding claim 1, Walters teaches a system comprising: a base unit (Figs.1-5, 20+30) that defines one or more inlets (Figs.1-5, 22) and an outlet (Figs. 1-5, 33), wherein the base unit includes at least one valve (Figs. 1-5, 80) configured to control gas flow through the base unit from one of the inlets to the outlet (Page 21, line 17 to page 22, line 32); and a control unit (Figs. 1-5, 50+55) that is configured to be detachably connected to the base unit (As shown in Fig.6, both the programmable computing device 50 and the batteries 55 can be detached from the base unit 20+30), wherein the control unit includes a battery (Figs. 1-5, 55), a processor (Figs.1-5, 50), and a wireless communication unit (Page 22, lines 5-20, “The programmable computing device 50 has a wireless communications circuit”), wherein the system is configured to generate a controlled distribution of a fluid using the processor of the control unit and the valve of the base unit (Page 22, lines 5-32).
Regarding claim 2, Walters teaches wherein the base unit includes at least one of a mass flow meter, a manometer, a temperature sensor, or a humidity sensor (Page 32, lines 9-25).
Regarding claim 7, Walters teaches wherein the inlet is configured to connect to a gas tank or a gas canister (Figs.1-5, 15).
Regarding claim 8, Walters teaches wherein the control unit is configured to transmit data regarding an operation of the base unit, a gas flow through the base unit, and/or information regarding a gas tank or a gas canister connected to the inlet (Page 18, lines 19-34).
Regarding claim 9, Walters teaches wherein the processor is configured to receive data regarding the operation of the system (Page 32, lines 9-31).
Regarding claim 10, Walters teaches wherein the control unit is configured for duplex communication (Page 25, lines 22-33).
Regarding claim 13, Walters teaches a method comprising: connecting an inlet (Figs.1-5, 22) of a base unit (Figs.1-5, 20+30) to a gas tank or a gas canister (Figs.1-5, 15), wherein the base unit includes at least one valve (Figs.1-5, 80); connecting the base unit to a control unit (Figs. 1-5, 50+55) such that a processor (Figs. 1-5, 50) in the control unit is in electronic communication with the valve; and generating a controlled distribution of a fluid using the processor of the control unit and the valve of the base unit (Page 22, lines 5-32).
Regarding claim 17, Walters teaches sending instructions to the processor via wireless communications (Page 25, lines 22-33).
Regarding claim 19, Walters teaches controlling flow of the fluid using the valve and the processor (Page 22, lines 5-32).
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.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters et al. (AU2020202483, see attached Publication) in view of Ropkins et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20200240885).
Regarding claim 3, Walters teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Walters is silent about wherein the base unit includes at least three of the valves.
Ropkins teaches wherein the base unit includes at least three of the valves (Paragraph 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have at least three of the valves in Walters’ system because it would improve flow control in Walters’ system.
Regarding claim 18, Walters teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Walters is silent about performing a calibration sequence using the processor.
Ropkins teaches performing a calibration sequence using the processor (Paragraphs 35 and 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Walters’ processor to perform a calibration sequence because it would increase accuracy of Walters’ system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters et al. (AU2020202483, see attached Publication) in view of Peters et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20040045608).
Regarding claim 4, Walters teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Walters is silent about wherein the base unit includes an interlocking mechanism, and wherein the control unit is configured to connect with the interlocking mechanism of the base unit.
Peters teaches the base unit (Figs 1-5, 14+16) includes an interlocking mechanism (Figs 1-5, 39 and paragraphs 33-40), and wherein the control unit (Figs 1-5, 24) is configured to connect with the interlocking mechanism of the base unit (Paragraphs 33-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to separate Walters’ base unit and control unit into two different housing and connect the two different housing by an interlocking mechanism because it would further protect Walters’ electronic control circuits.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters et al. (AU2020202483, see attached Publication) in view of McSheffrey et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20150332193).
Regarding claim 5, Walters teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Walters is silent about wherein the base unit further includes an imaging system.
McSheffrey teaches wherein the base unit further includes an imaging system (Paragraph 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate McSheffrey’s camera into Walters’ system because it would provide information regarding integrity of Walters’ tank and improve workflow for fluid container resource management.
Regarding claim 6, Walters teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Walters is silent about wherein the control unit further includes an RFID reader.
McSheffrey teaches wherein the control unit further includes an RFID reader (Paragraph 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate McSheffrey’s RFID reader into Walters’ system because it would provide information regarding Walters’ tank and improve workflow for fluid container resource management.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters et al. (AU2020202483, see attached Publication) in view of Bills et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20200391992).
Regarding claim 11, Walters teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Walters is silent about wherein the valve of the base unit is configured to remain closed when the control unit is disconnected from the base unit.
Bills teaches wherein the valve of the base unit is configured to remain closed when the control unit is disconnected from the base unit (Fig. 24A, steps 2612, 2616, 2618 and paragraph 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to close Walters’ valve when the control unit is disconnected because it would prevent unauthorized access and improve security.
Regarding claim 20, Walters teaches all the features of claim 13 as outlined above, Walters is silent wherein the valve of the base unit is closed prior to connecting the base unit to the control unit.
Bills teaches wherein the valve of the base unit is closed prior to connecting the base unit to the control unit (Fig. 24A, steps 2612, 2616, 2618 and paragraph 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to close Walters’ valve when the control unit is disconnected because it would prevent unauthorized access and improve security.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters et al. (AU2020202483, see attached Publication) in view of Airfire (EP3193046, see attached publication).
Regarding claim 12, Walters teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Walters is silent about wherein the base unit has at least three inlets in fluid communication with only one outlet.
Airfire teaches wherein the base unit has at least three inlets in fluid communication with only one outlet (Paragraphs 8 and 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Walaters’ valve to have three inlets because it would improve user handling.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters et al. (AU2020202483, see attached Publication) in view of Ropkins et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20200240885) and Nist (U.S. Publication No. 20030192513).
Regarding claim 14, Walters teaches all the features of claim 13 as outlined above, Walters is silent about connecting a second inlet of the base unit to a filter; and connecting a third inlet of the base unit to a particulate calibrator-generator configured to vaporize a liquid mixture to generate a particle distribution.
Nist teaches connecting a second inlet of the base unit to a filter (Paragraph 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nist’s filter into Walters’ inlet because it would increase accuracy of Walters’ system.
The combination of Walters and Nist is silent about connecting a third inlet of the base unit to a particulate calibrator-generator configured to vaporize a liquid mixture to generate a particle distribution.
Ropkins teaches connecting a third inlet of the base unit to a particulate calibrator-generator configured to vaporize a liquid mixture to generate a particle distribution (Abstract and paragraphs 16, 27, 40 and 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ropkins; particulate calibrator-generator into Walters’ system because it would increase safety and accuracy of Walters’ system.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters et al. (AU2020202483, see attached Publication) in view of Ropkins et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20200240885) and Nist (U.S. Publication No. 20030192513) and Wei (U.S. Publication No. 20130014560).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Walters, Nist and Ropkins teaches all the features of claim 14 as outlined above, the combination of Walters, Nist and Ropkins is silent about connecting an outlet of the base unit to an emissions measurement system; and measuring particulate matter/number, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, and/or oxygen of the fluid using the emissions measurement system.
Wei teaches connecting an outlet of the base unit to an emissions measurement system; and measuring particulate matter/number, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, and/or oxygen of the fluid using the emissions measurement system (Paragraphs 30 and 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the outlet and emissions measurement of Wei with the base of Walters to improve the accuracy of emissions measurements.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters et al. (AU2020202483, see attached Publication) in view of Ogiwara et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20190275882).
Regarding claim 16, Walters teaches all the features of claim 13 as outlined above, Walters is silent about diluting the fluid from the gas tank using the base unit.
Ogiwara teaches diluting the fluid from the gas tank using the base unit (Paragraphs 13 and 76).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ogiwara’s diluting unit into Walters’ system because it would improve tank durability of Walters’ tank.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIN Y ZHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3798. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/XIN Y ZHONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855