DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing dated 1/31/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/31/2024. These drawings are not acceptable.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the container having “a configurable width” (claim 1, lines 2-3; claim 19, lines 2-3; and claim 20, line 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 1, 19 and 20 state the container having “a configurable width” without providing any structure or method of providing the “configurable width” to the container.
Claims 1-20 are non-enabling because one having ordinary skill in the art could not make or use the invention from the disclosure coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation. An analysis of the Wands factors reveals that the following factors weigh against enablement:
The breadth of the claims;
The amount of direction provided by the inventor; and
The existence of working examples.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988); MPEP § 2164.01 (a). It is noted that the determination of undue experimentation is reached by weighing all the factors and that no single factor is dispositive (MPEP 2164.01 (a)).
A review of the originally filed disclosure recites “increasing or decreasing the run time for an apparatus 100 with such a valve 108 may involve increasing or decreasing the width of the container 106 so that the liquid level 112 rises more slowly or more quickly, which may also affect the off time for an apparatus 100 (e.g., the time from when the valve 108 turns off to when it turns on again” (see paragraph [0114] of the originally filed disclosure).
An analysis of the Wands factors reveals that the following factors weigh against enablement:
the breadth of the claims are indefinite because a function is claimed instead of structure, therefore, there could be many different methods as to how one could configure the width of the container, and, without written disclosure, it is unclear as to how the container has a “configurable width”;
the amount of direction provided by the inventor does not convey how one of ordinary skill in the art configures the width of the container, as there is no discussion regarding the structure or features that provide the mechanism such that the container has a “configurable width”; and
the existence of working examples are not presented in the originally filed application.
Upon the weight of all of these factors, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been enabled by the originally filed disclosure to make and/or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation, and, therefore, claims 1-20 are not enabled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings (US 5014735) in view of Moran (US Pre-Grant Publication 2015/0237814).
Regarding claim 1, the Cummings reference discloses an apparatus comprising:
a container (20) shaped to receive a liquid (the container 20 receives liquid from the inlet 30, 28);
an inlet (30, 28) configured to allow the liquid to enter the container; and
a valve (it is considered that the interaction of the member 46 on the seat 44 constitutes a valve) actuated (via the operation of the float 52 within the container) to open at a first liquid level within the container (see the orientation depicted in figure 3B) and to close at a different liquid level within the container (see the orientation depicted in figure 3A), wherein an amount of time that the valve is opened is determined based on the width of the container (it is considered that the amount of time that the valve is opened is determined based on the fill rate and the amount of liquid within the container 20 wherein it is considered that the amount of liquid received within the container is based on the dimensions/size/volume of the container).
The Cummings reference does not express disclose wherein the container has a configurable width.
However, the Moran reference teaches a water system having a container (101) that includes a reservoir (103) wherein the reservoir may vary with the size of the container such that the reservoir can hold different amounts of fluid based on the intended use of the system (see at least paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the container of the Cummings reference as having a configurable size (which would include the width since the container is cylindrical) as taught by the Moran reference in order to adjust the amount of liquid stored by the container based on the desired need of the apparatus.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of the Cummings reference and the Moran reference discloses a drain port (Cummings: 84) for releasing liquid from the container, the drain port having a drain rate that is less than a flow rate of liquid into the container (Cummings: it is considered that the control of the valve 88 would adjust the flow rate of liquid through the drain port such that the drain rate would be less than the fill rate when the drain port is closed).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of the Cummings reference and the Moran reference discloses a float (Cummings: 52) disposed within the container and at least one magnet (Cummings: 56) coupled to the float, the at least one magnet actuating the valve (Cummings: 46) based on the position of the float within the container.
In regards to claim 5, the combination of the Cummings reference and the Moran reference discloses wherein the at least one magnet (Cummings: 56) is configured to delay movement of the float and produce a delayed actuation of the valve based on the liquid level in the container (Cummings: it is considered that the float moves based on the liquid level within the container and, therefore, the interaction of the magnet 56 and the valve 46 would be delayed).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of the Cummings reference and the Moran reference discloses wherein the valve (Cummings: 46) is isolated from the container such that liquid flowing through the valve does not fill the container (Cummings: it is considered that the sleeve 32, 34 isolates the valve 46 from the container), the container filled with liquid from a secondary source (Cummings: 12).
In regards to claim 16, the combination of the Cummings reference and the Moran reference discloses the valve is opened to allow the flow of a material through the valve (Cummings: 46) based on the liquid level within the container (Cummings: it is considered that when the valve 46 is removed from the valve seat as depicted in figure 3A, a fluid flow through the valve is permitted).
Regarding “hazard-neutralizing material”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of preforming the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 20, the Cummings reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would perform the method of making and/or making an apparatus comprising:
receiving a liquid in a container (20) (the container 20 receives liquid from the inlet 30, 28);
allowing the liquid to exit the container via an outlet (86); and
actuating a valve (it is considered that the interaction of the member 46 on the seat 44 constitutes a valve) (it is considered that actuation of the valve is via the operation of the float 52 within the container) based on a liquid level in the container to open at a first liquid level (see the orientation depicted in figure 3B) and to close the valve at a different liquid level (see the orientation depicted in figure 3A), wherein an amount of time that the valve is opened is determined based on the width of the container (it is considered that the amount of time that the valve is opened is determined based on the fill rate and the amount of liquid within the container 20 wherein it is considered that the amount of liquid received within the container is based on the dimensions/size/volume of the container).
The Cummings reference does not express disclose wherein the container has a configurable width.
However, the Moran reference teaches a water system having a container (101) that includes a reservoir (103) wherein the reservoir may vary with the size of the container such that the reservoir can hold different amounts of fluid based on the intended use of the system (see at least paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the container of the Cummings reference as having a configurable size (which would include the width since the container is cylindrical) as taught by the Moran reference in order to adjust the amount of liquid stored by the container based on the desired need of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dukes et al. (US 6935844) in view of Moran (US Pre-Grant Publication 2015/0237814).
Regarding claim 1, the Dukes et al. reference discloses an apparatus comprising:
a container (12) shaped to receive a liquid (the container 12 receives liquid from the inlet 28);
an inlet (28) configured to allow the liquid to enter the container; and
a valve (19 having a plug 20) actuated (via the operation of the float 14 within the container) to open at a first liquid level within the container (see the orientation depicted in figure 1C) and to close at a different liquid level within the container (see the orientation depicted in figure 1B and 1A), wherein an amount of time that the valve is opened is determined based on the width of the container (it is considered that the amount of time that the valve is opened is determined based on the fill rate and the amount of liquid within the container 12 wherein it is considered that the amount of liquid received within the container is based on the dimensions/size/volume of the container).
The Dukes et al. reference does not express disclose wherein the container has a configurable width.
However, the Moran reference teaches a water system having a container (101) that includes a reservoir (103) wherein the reservoir may vary with the size of the container such that the reservoir can hold different amounts of fluid based on the intended use of the system (see at least paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the container of the Dukes et al. reference as having a configurable size as taught by the Moran reference in order to adjust the amount of liquid stored by the container based on the desired need of the apparatus.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of the Dukes et al. reference and the Moran reference discloses a drain port (Dukes et al.: 30) for releasing liquid from the container, the drain port having a drain rate that is less than a flow rate of liquid into the container (Dukes et al.: it is considered that the control of the valve 34 would adjust the flow rate of liquid through the drain port such that the drain rate would be less than the fill rate when the drain port is closed).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of the Dukes et al. reference and the Moran reference discloses a float (Dukes et al.: 14) disposed within the container and at least one magnet (Dukes et al.: 46) coupled to the float, the at least one magnet actuating the valve (Dukes et al.: 19, 20 based on the interaction of the magnet 46 and the magnet 48) based on the position of the float within the container.
In regards to claim 5, the combination of the Dukes et al. reference and the Moran reference discloses wherein the at least one magnet (Dukes et al.: 46) is configured to delay movement of the float and produce a delayed actuation of the valve based on the liquid level in the container (Dukes et al.: see the operation between figure 1A, 1B and 1C wherein it is considered that the float moves based on the liquid level within the container and, therefore, the interaction of the magnet 46 and the valve 20 with magnet 48 would be delayed).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of the Dukes et al. reference and the Moran reference discloses at least one mechanical lever (Dukes et al.: 16) within the container that is disposed to act upon the float to mechanically advantage the float to move up or down based on the liquid level in the container.
Regarding claim 19, the Dukes et al. reference discloses a system (10) comprising:
a container (12) shaped to receive a liquid (the container 12 receives liquid from the inlet 28);
an inlet (28) configured to allow the liquid to enter the container; and
a valve (19 having a plug 20) actuated (via the operation of the float 14 within the container) to open at a first liquid level within the container (see the orientation depicted in figure 1C) and to close at a different liquid level within the container (see the orientation depicted in figure 1B and 1A), wherein an amount of time that the valve is opened is determined based on the width of the container (it is considered that the amount of time that the valve is opened is determined based on the fill rate and the amount of liquid within the container 12 wherein it is considered that the amount of liquid received within the container is based on the dimensions/size/volume of the container);
a float (14) disposed within the container and at least one magnet (46) coupled to the float (14), the at least one magnet actuating the valve based on the position of the float within the container; and
at least one mechanical lever (16) within the container that is disposed to act upon the float (14) to mechanically advantage the float to move up or down based on the liquid level in the container.
The Dukes et al. reference does not express disclose wherein the container has a configurable width.
However, the Moran reference teaches a water system having a container (101) that includes a reservoir (103) wherein the reservoir may vary with the size of the container such that the reservoir can hold different amounts of fluid based on the intended use of the system (see at least paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the container of the Dukes et al. reference as having a configurable size as taught by the Moran reference in order to adjust the amount of liquid stored by the container based on the desired need of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 20, the Duke et al. reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would perform the method of making and/or making an apparatus comprising:
receiving a liquid in a container (12) (the container 12 receives liquid from the inlet 28);
allowing the liquid to exit the container via an outlet (30); and
actuating a valve (19 having a plug 20) (it is considered that actuation of the valve is via the operation of the float 14 within the container) based on a liquid level in the container to open at a first liquid level (see the orientation depicted in figure 1C) and to close the valve at a different liquid level (see the orientation depicted in figures 1B and 1A), wherein an amount of time that the valve is opened is determined based on the width of the container (it is considered that the amount of time that the valve is opened is determined based on the fill rate and the amount of liquid within the container 12 wherein it is considered that the amount of liquid received within the container is based on the dimensions/size/volume of the container).
The Duke et al. reference does not express disclose wherein the container has a configurable width.
However, the Moran reference teaches a water system having a container (101) that includes a reservoir (103) wherein the reservoir may vary with the size of the container such that the reservoir can hold different amounts of fluid based on the intended use of the system (see at least paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the container of the Duke et al. reference as having a configurable size (which would include the width since the container is cylindrical) as taught by the Moran reference in order to adjust the amount of liquid stored by the container based on the desired need of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 14, 15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goettl (US 4289713) in view of Moran (US Pre-Grant Publication 2015/0237814).
Regarding claim 1, the Goettl reference discloses an apparatus comprising:
a container (20) shaped to receive a liquid (see figure 1);
an inlet (42) configured to allow the liquid to enter the container; and
a valve (36) actuated (via the operation of the float 26 within the container) to open at a first liquid level within the container (based on the falling of the liquid level) and to close at a different liquid level within the container (based on raising of the liquid level), wherein an amount of time that the valve is opened is determined based on the width of the container (it is considered that the amount of time that the valve is opened is determined based on the fill rate and the amount of liquid within the container 20 wherein it is considered that the amount of liquid received within the container is based on the dimensions/size/volume of the container).
The Goettl reference does not express disclose wherein the container has a configurable width.
However, the Moran reference teaches a water system having a container (101) that includes a reservoir (103) wherein the reservoir may vary with the size of the container such that the reservoir can hold different amounts of fluid based on the intended use of the system (see at least paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the container of the Goettl reference as having a configurable size as taught by the Moran reference in order to adjust the amount of liquid stored by the container based on the desired need of the apparatus.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of the Goettl reference and the Moran reference discloses a drain port (Goettl: 53) for releasing liquid from the container, the drain port having a drain rate that is less than a flow rate of liquid into the container (Goettl: it is considered that the control of the valve 28 would adjust the flow rate of liquid through the drain port such that the drain rate would be less than the fill rate when the drain port is closed).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of the Goettl reference and the Moran reference discloses an evaporative cover (it is considered that the material 15 is received within the evaporative cover) that is adjustable (based on the material 15) to control an amount of liquid that is allowed to exit the container through evaporation.
In regards to claim 9, the combination of the Goettl reference and the Moran reference discloses a material (Goettl: 15) disposed within an opening of the container (Goettl: see figure 1) to allow liquid to flow out of the container while preventing unwanted materials from entering the container.
In regards to claim 14, the combination of the Goettl reference and the Moran reference discloses a bleed-off outlet (Goettl: 38) configured to allow liquid into the container directly from the valve (Goettl: 36), wherein a flow rate of the liquid into the container via the bleed-off outlet is adjustable (Goettl: based on the operation of the valve 36).
In regards to claim 15, the combination of the Goettl reference and the Moran reference discloses wherein the valve is connected between a fluid supply (Goettl: it is considered that the line 42 is connected to a fluid supply) and a fluid line (Goettl: 38), the fluid line supplying liquid to the container to keep the container full, and wherein, in response to a disruption in the fluid line causing the container to lose liquid (Goettl: it is considered that when the container losses liquid, the float 26 falls and opens the valve 36 to supply liquid to the fluid line 38), the valve is opened to allow liquid from the fluid supply to the fluid line.
In regards to claim 18, the combination of the Goettl reference and the Moran reference discloses a lid (Goettl: 68) for the container, the lid comprising a plurality of openings (Goettl: 76, 80 and the openings between the projections 70) that align with corresponding openings in the container (Goettl: considered the large opening of the well 20 and the openings between the projections 74) for allowing liquid into the container, the lid rotatable to cover the openings in the container to prevent material to enter the container (Goettl: it is considered that the lid 68 is able to be moved / rotated during installation to align the cover into the proper alignment so that the projections 70 would be able to prevent foreign material of a larger size from entering the well 20).
Regarding claim 20, the Goettl reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would perform the method of making and/or making an apparatus comprising:
receiving a liquid in a container (20) (the container 20 receives liquid from the inlet 42);
allowing the liquid to exit the container via an outlet (53); and
actuating a valve (36) (it is considered that actuation of the valve is via the operation of the float 26 within the container) based on a liquid level in the container to open at a first liquid level (based on the falling of the liquid level) and to close the valve at a different liquid level (based on raising of the liquid level), wherein an amount of time that the valve is opened is determined based on the width of the container (it is considered that the amount of time that the valve is opened is determined based on the fill rate and the amount of liquid within the container 20 wherein it is considered that the amount of liquid received within the container is based on the dimensions/size/volume of the container).
The Goettl reference does not express disclose wherein the container has a configurable width.
However, the Moran reference teaches a water system having a container (101) that includes a reservoir (103) wherein the reservoir may vary with the size of the container such that the reservoir can hold different amounts of fluid based on the intended use of the system (see at least paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the container of the Goettl reference as having a configurable size as taught by the Moran reference in order to adjust the amount of liquid stored by the container based on the desired need of the apparatus.
a valve (36) actuated (via the operation of the float 26 within the container) to open at a first liquid level within the container (based on the falling of the liquid level) and to close at a different liquid level within the container (based on raising of the liquid level), wherein an amount of time that the valve is opened is determined based on the width of the container (it is considered that the amount of time that the valve is opened is determined based on the fill rate and the amount of liquid within the container 20 wherein it is considered that the amount of liquid received within the container is based on the dimensions/size/volume of the container).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Balet (US 7921865), Duke (US 2362747) and Gibson (US 1758941) disclose various water filling systems having a float valve to automatically control a flow of liquid through a container.
Han (US 6182306), Ottinger et al. (US 5983919), Robinson (US 5533545) and Cummings et al. (US 4779640), disclose various float operated valves.
Amsellem (US 6178984), Green (US 4245434), Tull (US 4117631), and Schall (US 3400919) disclose various systems having a wick material to control the flow of fluid from a container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753