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 .
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.
Claims 1-7, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mazzei (US 5,863,128):
Regarding claim 1, Mazzei discloses an eductor for mixing a primary fluid with a flowable secondary substance comprising: a primary inlet (31) for the primary fluid; a secondary inlet (46) for the secondary substance; an outlet (32); a suction chamber (extending from 46 to 45 and the region from 41 to 42) having a side wall delimiting the suction chamber, between the side wall and the secondary inlet, the suction chamber having a hopper-shaped designed inlet area, the hopper being tapered (see Figs. 1 and 14); a converging inlet nozzle (35) arranged between the primary inlet and the suction chamber so that the primary fluid is capable of flowing from the primary inlet into the suction chamber; and an outlet nozzle (43) between the suction chamber and the outlet, through which the primary fluid and the secondary substance are capable of flowing to the outlet, and the secondary inlet is disposed at the suction chamber so that the secondary substance is capable of flowing from the secondary inlet into the suction chamber, and the inlet nozzle, the suction chamber and the outlet nozzle are a one-piece unit (see hatching of Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, as held in In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), "The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production". Nonetheless, making by molding is disclosed (see col. 2, lines 40-42: "molding the device of FIG. 1").
Regarding claim 3, Mazzei discloses an eductor for mixing a primary fluid with a flowable secondary substance comprising: a primary inlet (31) for the primary fluid; a secondary inlet (46) for the secondary substance; an outlet (32); a suction chamber (45 or the region from 41 to 42); a converging inlet nozzle (35) arranged between the primary inlet and the suction chamber so that the primary fluid is capable of flowing from the primary inlet into the suction chamber; and an outlet nozzle (43) between the suction chamber and the outlet, through which the primary fluid and the secondary substance are capable of flowing to the outlet, and the secondary inlet is disposed at the suction chamber so that the secondary substance is capable of flowing from the secondary inlet into the suction chamber, and the inlet nozzle, the suction chamber and the outlet nozzle are a one-piece unit (see hatching of Fig. 1), the suction chamber having a bottom and a side wall which delimit the suction chamber, the bottom arranged opposite the secondary inlet, the side wall joined to the bottom and arranged at an angle of at least 90° relative to the bottom, and the inlet nozzle terminating in the side wall (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the bottom and the side wall are fully visible from the secondary inlet (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the inlet nozzle has a longitudinal axis (28) defining a center axis of the eductor, and the outlet nozzle has a longitudinal axis lying on the center axis of the eductor (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, the outlet nozzle has an entering edge which is arranged at the suction chamber opposite the side wall.
Regarding claim 7, the entering edge of the outlet nozzle has a distance from the center axis of the eductor which is at least the same size as a distance of a bottom of the suction chamber from the center axis (see Fig. 1).
Claim 15 fails to further structurally limit the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 18, the outlet nozzle has an entering edge which is arranged at the suction chamber opposite the side wall wherein this entering edge is designed to be rounded (see arcuate edge in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, the suction chamber is free of undercuts (see Fig. 1).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzei (US 5,863,128) in view of Howell (US 2015/0167441). The eductor of Mazzei was discussed above. Mazzei does not discuss roughness of inner surfaces. Howell explains "Flow paths with roughness on high velocity surfaces cause eductors to operate less efficiently" (see [0062]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have minimized the roughness of inner surfaces of the eductor to achieve efficiency as taught by Howell at [0062].
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzei (US 5,863,128) in view of Dunning (US 2014/0196795).
Regarding claim 9, Mazzei discloses an eductor for mixing a primary fluid with a flowable secondary substance comprising: a primary inlet (31) for the primary fluid; a secondary inlet (46) for the secondary substance; an outlet (32); a suction chamber (45 or the region from 41 to 42); a converging inlet nozzle (35) arranged between the primary inlet and the suction chamber so that the primary fluid is capable of flowing from the primary inlet into the suction chamber; and an outlet nozzle (43) between the suction chamber and the outlet, through which the primary fluid and the secondary substance are capable of flowing to the outlet, and the secondary inlet is disposed at the suction chamber so that the secondary substance is capable of flowing from the secondary inlet into the suction chamber, and the inlet nozzle, the suction chamber and the outlet nozzle are a one-piece unit (see hatching of Fig. 1). Mazzei does not disclose a pressure sensor. Dunning teaches providing an eductor with pressure sensors (181, 190A; 182,190B). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a pressure sensor at or in the eductor to facilitate calculation of flow characteristics at taught by Dunning at [0030].
Regarding claim 10, Dunning further teaches that a pressure sensor is arranged in or at a side wall in which the inlet nozzle terminates (see Fig. 4 of Dunning).
Regarding claim 11, Dunning further teaches that at least one pressure sensor is arranged in or at the suction chamber and adjacent to the secondary inlet (see Fig. 4 of Dunning).
Regarding claim 12, Dunning further teaches that at least one pressure sensor is arranged in or at the outlet nozzle (see Fig. 4 of Dunning).
Regarding claim 13, Dunning further teaches that the eductor has a connector to receive a pressure sensor (see Fig. 4 of Dunning).
Regarding claim 14, as held in In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), "The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production". Nonetheless, see Fig. 4 of Dunning concerning the locations and structures of the pressure sensors taught by Dunning.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzei (US 5,863,128) in view of Howell (US 2015/0167441). The eductor of Mazzei was discussed above. Mazzei does not discuss roughness of inner surfaces. Howell explains "Flow paths with roughness on high velocity surfaces cause eductors to operate less efficiently" (see [0062]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have minimized the roughness of inner surfaces of the eductor to achieve efficiency as taught by Howell at [0062].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzei (US 5,863,128) in view of Howell (US 2015/0167441). The eductor of Mazzei was discussed above. Mazzei does not discuss roughness of inner surfaces. Howell explains "Flow paths with roughness on high velocity surfaces cause eductors to operate less efficiently" (see [0062]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have minimized the roughness of inner surfaces of the eductor to achieve efficiency as taught by Howell at [0062].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzei (US 5,863,128) in view of Dunning (US 2014/0196795) as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Schumacher (US 2017/0268913). Mazzei does not specifically state that the eductor is gamma-sterilizable. Schumacher teaches making an eductor of gamma sterilizable material (see [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the eductor gamma sterilizable so as to prevent bacterial contamination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1 as currently amended, the hopper shaped inlet area of Mazzei does taper down from 46 exactly as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, contrary to applicant’s remarks, a side wall shown in Fig. 1 running parallel to line 4—4 is 90 degrees relative to the bottom.
Regarding claim 9, while 190A and 190B taken alone might be considered sensor, they are still sensor when their further components 191, 192, and structure defining 181 and 182 are included. Over, Dunning teaches sensors being at or in an eductor. The pressure within the eductor is measured. See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) concerning the obviousness of selecting a location of a sensor.
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 DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights