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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/12/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlsson, US PGPub 2017/0152992 in view of El-Ibiary, US PGPub 2006/0054404
PNG
media_image1.png
481
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Karlsson discloses an automated multi-point lubrication system (1) and method comprising: a system control panel (5) communicably coupled to an air supply unit (4 and connected air supply); a master control device (6) configured to cause a target amount of lubricant to be transferred to a lubrication point (lubrication stations); and a lubricant pump (3), said lubricant pump (3) being coupled to said air supply unit (4) and to said master control device (6). Karlsson does not disclose the relief outlet.
PNG
media_image2.png
484
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
El-Ibiary discloses a similar lubrication circuit (50) including a relief outlet (64,66) configured to to direct an amount of lubricant in excess of said target amount to a lubricant reservoir (16). Relief outlet (64,66) may be incorporated into the master control device of Karlsson. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the relief outlet described by El-Ibiary to the system disclosed by Karlsson in order to avoid over pressure situation in the event of filter clogging and allow the machine to operate without damage until the filter may be cleaned or replaced.
Regarding claim 2, Karlsson in view of El-Ibiary discloses the system of claim 1 wherein said system control panel (5) is configured to cause said air supply unit (as described above) to begin air flow to said lubricant pump (3) when said system control panel (5) is activated (via control of solenoid valve 4).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Karlsson in view of El-Ibiary discloses the system of claims 2 and 7 wherein said system control panel (5) is further configured to regulate said air flow (via 4) at a predetermined interval (see [0029], pulsed intervals).
Regarding claim 4, Karlsson in view of El-Ibiary discloses the system of claim 2 wherein said air flow (from air tant connected to 4) causes a first amount of lubricant to be transferred from said lubricant pump (3) to said master control device (6) via a supply line (lubricant line connected between 3 and 6 shown as arrow in fig 1).
Claims 5-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlsson in view of El-Ibiary in view of Conley et al., US PGPub 2016/0290848.
Regarding claims 5-6 and 9-10, Karlsson in view of El-Ibiary discloses the invention of claims 1 and 7 but does not specify the secondary control device.
PNG
media_image3.png
542
533
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conley teaches a similar pneumatic lubrication system (see fig 1) wherein said master control device (149) is coupled to a secondary control device (134) configured to transfer said target amount of lubricant to said lubrication point (119). (claim 5 and 9)
wherein said secondary control device (134) is coupled a plurality of lubrication points (119), and wherein said plurality of lubrication points (119) includes said lubrication point (bearings). (claims 6 and 10).
It would have been obvious to provide the secondary control device described by Conley to the system disclosed by Karlsson in view of El-Ibiary in order to control the distribution of lubricant to discrete bearings in the system and promote overall system efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to incorporate the relief outlet of El-Ibiary to the system disclosed by Karlsson, since the relief valve would undermine the point of having an upper pressure threshold that triggers an alarm indicating that the filter may be clogged. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Adding the relief valve would be beneficial, enabling the machine to avoid damage caused by over pressure situations in the event of filter clogging and allow the machine to operate without damage until the filter may be cleaned or replaced. The relief valve would not in any way interfere with the operation of trigger a fault message, it would just provide a safety during the time between the fault trigger and the maintenance operations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the relief valve for these reasons. Therefore applicants argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7956. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6 EST Monday - Friday.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
MICHAEL A. RIEGELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654