DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 11/25/24 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Castagno et al. UK 2 275 000.
Claim 1, Castagno teaches a sleeve (18) comprising: a cylindrical body having a first and second end, the body having an interior wall that defines an aperture through the body and an exterior wall, the body is capable of receiving a piston within the aperture of the body, a first collar (22) extending radially outward from the exterior wall at the first end of the body and a second collar (24) extending radially outward from the exterior wall at the second end of the body, a supply fluid flow aperture (40) extending through the exterior wall of the body and a discharge fluid flow aperture (42) extending through the exterior wall of the body (fig. 2). The recitation of the sleeve being configured to receive a piston within a modular fluid processing apparatus for use in fluid processing systems is a recitation of intended use and does not provide any further structural limitations to the sleeve.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castagno et al. UK 2 275 000.
Castagno teaches the sleeve of claim 1 but does not teach the material the body and collars of the sleeve are made of. A metal material, such as steel, would have been an obvious choice to one of ordinary skill in the art as steel is known to have a good strength to weight ratio, is readily available and easily machined and would be able to withstand the forces acting on the body and collars during use of the apparatus of Castagno. The claim would have been obvious because "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Steel is also well recognized as expanding when heated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 21, the closest prior art of record to Castagno teaches the sleeve of claim 1 but does not teach the sleeve comprising a metal that is heat-treated post machining of the sleeve to withstand heat and pressures of a fluid processing line nor would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 2 is allowable for the reasons stated in the previous office action and claims 22-25 are allowable as depending from claim 2.
Claim 4 has been rewritten in independent form and is allowable for the reasons stated in the previous office action of 7/23/25.
Claim 5 is allowable as depending from claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Castagno does not teach the cylinder 12 has a collar on either end of the cylinder but that the flanges 22 and 24 cap the ends for the cylinder 12 by extending radially inward and are not just extending radially outward from the exterior wall 18. The claim requires a first and second collar that extend radially outward from the exterior wall of the cylindrical body, which applicant concedes Castagno teaches. The flanges 22 and 24 of Castagno each extend radially outward from the exterior wall of the cylindrical body 12 as recited in the claim. The claim does place any further limitations as to the arrangement of the cylindrical body and the two collars/flanges.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779