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 without traverse of Invention II, drawn to a system for 2. controlling level in a vessel, in the reply filed on February 27, 2025, is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on October 16, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, line 8, the recitation “said switch” should read –said pneumatic switch--; and
In claim 10, lines 9-10, the recitation “the switch” should read –the pneumatic switch--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10, 12, 13 and 15-17 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.
Regarding claim 10, the term “when” is typically used to include contingent limitations, which are only required if a precedent condition is/are met. Claim 10 recites the term “when” in line 16; however, the claim is unclear as to what are the precedent condition(s) and function(s) or condition(s) contingent to the precedent condition(s).
Claims 13 and 16 depend upon canceled claim 11. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that claims 13 and 16 depend upon claim 10.
Claims 12, 15 and 17 are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2944562 (“Glasgow”) in view of US2708849 (“Steenbergh”).
Regarding claim 10, Glasgow discloses a system for controlling level in a vessel, said system comprising:
a vessel (1) comprising a vessel float lever (30);
a pneumatic switch (defined mainly by 31 and 43) comprising a switch peg (60; see fig. 3) extending toward a switch lever (32);
wherein said vessel float lever applies a force (downward or upward force via prongs 40 or 41, respectively) upon said switch lever depending upon a level (3) of fluid (2) in said vessel;
a mount (mainly defined by 25, 26 and/or 27) for coupling said pneumatic switch to said vessel;
a pneumatic supply line (12) into said pneumatic switch, and a pneumatic supply out (23) line from said pneumatic switch, and wherein said switch has at least an open position (position causing drain 6 to open; see fig. 3) and a closed position (position where drain 6 is closed; see fig. 1), and wherein a location of said switch peg determines whether the switch is in the open position or the closed position (reciprocating positions of switch peg 60 determines opening and closing of drain 6);
wherein said pneumatic switch is fluidly coupled to a dump control (9) which controls fluid level within said vessel;
and wherein when said pneumatic switch engages said dump control, fluid is discharged from said vessel (via drain 6);
wherein when said pneumatic switch keeps said dump control in an open position (via actuating arm 40; see fig. 2) until desired level within vessel has been obtained whereby vessel float lever no longer applies downward force on said switch lever (when sufficient drainage is performed, float 4 lowers from position of fig. 2 to position of fig. 1, and downward force on switch lever 32 is stopped).
Glasgow discloses the invention as claimed except for said pneumatic supply comprising pressurized gas from said vessel.
However, Steenbergh teaches a pneumatic supply (21) comprising pressurized gas from a vessel (1), the vessel comprising a vessel float lever (30) and a pneumatic switch (at least partially defined by 20, 5 and 7) mounted to the vessel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Glasgow by configuring the said pneumatic supply to have pressurized gas from said vessel, as taught by Steenbergh, so the system would not require an auxiliary pneumatic supply.
Regarding claim 12, Glasgow discloses a dump control (9) in fluid communication with said pneumatic switch (mainly defined by 31 and 43), and wherein when a force (force applied via float arms 40 and 41) is applied to said switch lever (32), said pneumatic switch directs pressurized gas (via lines 10 and/or 11) to said dump control which begins draining (via outlet 6; see fig. 1) fluid from said vessel (1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Glasgow and Steenberg discloses said pneumatic supply (Steenbergh, 21) comprises air (Steenberg, air which is discharged through port 24 to atmosphere, or Glasgow, air discharge port 64).
Regarding claim 15, Glasgow discloses said switch lever (32) further comprises a lever pivot (75; see fig. 4) about which said switch lever pivots.
Regarding claim 16, Glasgow discloses said pneumatic switch (defined mainly by 31 and 43) further comprises a pneumatic discharge line (77 & 84, and/or 64) fluidly coupled to said pneumatic switch.
Claim 17, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glasgow in view of Steenbergh, as applied to claim 10 above, alone or alternatively further in view of US2022/0403911 (“Neeb”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Glasgow and Steenbergh discloses the mount (Glasgow, mainly defined by 25, 26 and/or 27) as claimed except for the mount being 3D printed.
However, with regards to recitations pertaining to the method of manufacturing and/or assembly, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Alternatively, Neeb teaches (see paragraph [0030]) 3D printing fluid handling structure(s) (106 and 110).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to further modify the combination of Glasgow and Steenbergh by 3D printing various parts of the system including the mount, as taught by Neeb, to be able to small batch
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 16, 2025, have been fully considered.
With regards to the drawings, in light of the replacement drawings filed 10/16/2025, this objection is now withdrawn.
With regards to the claim objections, Applicant’s current amendments have overcome the claim objections set forth in the prior Office action dated 3/27/2025; however, the current claim amendments have motivated new claim objection(s), see Office action, above.
With regards to the prior art rejection of claims 10-16 over Steenbergh, Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, the amended claims have necessitated new ground(s) of rejection rendering Applicant's arguments regarding Steenbergh are moot.
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 Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM ET).
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 supervisors, Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753