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 § 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.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “large number” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large number” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, recitation “large number of cleaning locations” is indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a vehicle" in line 1. It depends on claim 6 which depends on claim 1, which recites “a vehicle” in line 2. It is not clear if a single vehicle is claimed. It is assumed a single “vehicle” is claimed based on specification and drawings.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a vehicle" in line 1. It depends on claim 7 which recites “a vehicle” in line 3. It is not clear if a single vehicle is claimed. It is assumed a single “vehicle” is claimed based on specification and drawings.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Keller et al (20210388909).
Regarding claim 1, Keller discloses a distributing device for supplying a pressurized liquid to individual cleaning locations (when the circulating fluid is cleaning fluid) of a vehicle (set of columns 50, with each column connected to a port 24a is seen as a “vehicle” for chromatography, Para 37), the distributing device comprising: a housing 10,20, further comprising: an inlet connection 28c; a plurality of outlet connections 28a for the individual cleaning locations; a return connection 28d; an electromotively drivable (by motor Para 30), rotatably adjustable distributor 30 which is arranged in the housing and which is in the form of a disk 30, in which a liquid receiver (innermost portion of groove 34a adjacent 25) and a liquid guide (outermost portion of 34a next to 24a) are formed, and the distributor is rotatably adjustable relative to the housing in defined positions in order to allow or to prevent the supply of liquid (through 24a in 20); wherein the disk controls the liquid to the desired locations of the distributing device via the liquid receiver (innermost portion of groove 34a adjacent 25) and a liquid guide (outermost portion of 34a next to 24a) at the front side in the form of a radial groove (34a is a radial groove). The recitation “cleaning” is seen as intended use of fluid passages. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). (MPEP 2113)
As to claim 2, a coherent space 40 fluidically connected to the return connection 29; wherein the coherent space 40 is filled by conveyed liquid during operation of the distributing device between the disk 30 and the housing (portion 20).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al (20210388909) in view of Mizuno et al (20190136988).
Regarding claim 7, Keller discloses liquid-distributing actuator comprising: a distributing device 10 for supplying a pressurized liquid cleaning locations (when the circulating fluid is cleaning fluid) of a vehicle (set of columns 50, with each column connected to a port 24a is seen as a “vehicle” for chromatography, Para 37), the distributing device comprising: a housing 16,20, further comprising: an inlet connection 28c; a plurality of outlet connections 28s for the individual cleaning locations; a return connection 28d; an electromotively drivable (by motor Para 30), rotatably adjustable distributor 30 which is arranged in the housing and which is in the form of a disk 30, in which a liquid receiver (innermost portion of groove 34a adjacent 25) and a liquid guide (outermost portion of 34a next to 24a) are formed, and the distributor is rotatably adjustable relative to the housing in defined positions in order to allow or to prevent the supply of liquid; wherein the disk 30 controls the liquid to the desired locations of the distributing device via the liquid receiver (innermost portion of groove 34a adjacent 25) and a liquid guide (outermost portion of 34a next to 24a) at the front side in the form of a radial groove groove (34a is a radial groove).
Keller fails to disclose electric motor for driving the rotatably adjustable distributor of the distributing device. Mizuno teaches an electric motor (stepping motor K) for driving a rotatably adjustable distributor of the distributing device V1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Keller with electric motor drive as taught by Mizuno in order to provide automatic electric control.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno et al (20190136988) in view of Keller et al (20210388909).
Regarding claim 1, Mizuno discloses a distributing device ‘B” for supplying a pressurized liquid to individual cleaning locations 42-44 of a vehicle, the distributing device comprising: a housing, further comprising: an inlet connection 1; a plurality of outlet connections 2 for the individual cleaning locations; an electromotively drivable, rotatably adjustable distributor V1 which is arranged in the housing and which is in the form of a disk, in which a liquid receiver 4 and a liquid guide 5 are formed, and the distributor is rotatably adjustable relative to the housing in defined positions in order to allow or to prevent the supply of liquid; wherein the disk controls the liquid to the desired locations of the distributing device via the liquid receiver and the liquid guide at the front side in the form of a radial groove (4 is in form of a radial groove).
Mizuno fails to disclose a return connection. Keller teaches a distributing device for supplying a pressurized liquid to individual cleaning locations (when the circulating fluid is cleaning fluid) of a vehicle (set of columns 50, with each column connected to a port 24a is seen as a “vehicle” for chromatography, Para 37), the distributing device comprising: a housing 10,20, further comprising: an inlet connection 28c; a plurality of outlet connections 28a for the individual cleaning locations; a return connection 28d; an electromotively drivable (by motor Para 30), rotatably adjustable distributor 30 which is arranged in the housing and which is in the form of a disk 30, in which a liquid receiver (innermost portion of groove 34a adjacent 25) and a liquid guide (outermost portion of 34a next to 24a) are formed, and the distributor is rotatably adjustable relative to the housing in defined positions in order to allow or to prevent the supply of liquid (through 24a in 20); wherein the disk controls the liquid to the desired locations of the distributing device via the liquid receiver (innermost portion of groove 34a adjacent 25) and a liquid guide (outermost portion of 34a next to 24a) at the front side in the form of a radial groove (34a is a radial groove).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Mizuno with a distributor with valve mechanism and return connection as described above as taught by Keller in order to enable excess fluid return.
As to claim 7, Mizuno as modified (discloses a distributing device ‘B” for supplying a pressurized liquid to individual cleaning locations 42-44 of a vehicle, the distributing device comprising: a housing, further comprising: an inlet connection 1; a plurality of outlet connections 2 for the individual cleaning locations; an electromotively drivable, rotatably adjustable distributor V1 which is arranged in the housing and which is in the form of a disk, in which a liquid receiver 4 and a liquid guide 5 are formed, and the distributor is rotatably adjustable relative to the housing in defined positions in order to allow or to prevent the supply of liquid; wherein the disk controls the liquid to the desired locations of the distributing device via the liquid receiver and the liquid guide at the front side in the form of a radial groove (4 is in form of a radial groove); an electric motor “K” for driving the rotatably adjustable distributor of the distributing device.
Mizuno fails to disclose a return connection. Keller teaches a distributing device for supplying a pressurized liquid to individual cleaning locations (when the circulating fluid is cleaning fluid) of a vehicle (set of columns 50, with each column connected to a port 24a is seen as a “vehicle” for chromatography, Para 37), the distributing device comprising: a housing 10,20, further comprising: an inlet connection 28c; a plurality of outlet connections 28a for the individual cleaning locations; a return connection 28d; an electromotively drivable (by motor Para 30), rotatably adjustable distributor 30 which is arranged in the housing and which is in the form of a disk 30, in which a liquid receiver (innermost portion of groove 34a adjacent 25) and a liquid guide (outermost portion of 34a next to 24a) are formed, and the distributor is rotatably adjustable relative to the housing in defined positions in order to allow or to prevent the supply of liquid (through 24a in 20); wherein the disk controls the liquid to the desired locations of the distributing device via the liquid receiver (innermost portion of groove 34a adjacent 25) and a liquid guide (outermost portion of 34a next to 24a) at the front side in the form of a radial groove (34a is a radial groove).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Mizuno with a distributor with valve mechanism and return connection as described above as taught by Keller in order to enable excess fluid return.
As to claim 9, Mizuno as modified discloses vehicle (Fig 13). having a cleaning apparatus of claim 7.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno et al (20190136988) in view of Keller et al (20210388909) further in view of Staudinger et al (20090107569).
Mizuno as modified fails to disclose disk having pressure equalizer through-holes. Staudinger teaches a distributor valve with disk 103 having pressure equalizer through-holes 121.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Mizuno with a disk having pressure equalizer through-holes as taught by Staudinger in order to prevent excess force on the disk.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 5, 8 respectively of copending Application No. 18606134 in view of Mizuno et al (20190136988). Claims 1 and 8 of respectively of copending Application No. 18606134 teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 7 of current application except “device for supplying a pressurized liquid to individual cleaning locations of a vehicle” and “connections for the individual cleaning locations”. Modifying 1 and 8 of respectively of copending Application No. 18606134 to include installation of device in a vehicle device for supplying a pressurized liquid to individual cleaning locations of a vehicle with outlet connected for the individual cleaning locations would have been obvious for the purpose of applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results of providing switchable locations to cleaning outlets in view of Mizuno, since Mizuno teaches a distributing device ‘B” for supplying a pressurized liquid to individual cleaning locations 42-44 of a vehicle, the distributing device comprising: a housing, further comprising: an inlet connection 1; a plurality of outlet connections 2 for the individual cleaning locations. Claim 4 is substantially identical to claim 5 of Mizuno et al (20190136988) except for parent claim differences explained above as obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3 is/are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atif Chaudry at phone number 571-270-3768. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached 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 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.
/ATIF H CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights