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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on the 18530512 application filed 12/06/23
Claim(s) 1,2,3,4,5 are pending and claim(s) 1,2,3,4,5 have been fully considered
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) 5 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.
Claim(s) 5 has the phrase, “the vapor portion,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language;
Particularly, it is unclear if the phrase refers to something previously mentioned (albeit without proper antecedent basis), OR if this phrase is setting forth a new element
Though one or more of the claim(s) are indefinite, for the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner has done his best to ascertain their meaning for the following Double Patenting, 35 USC § 102 and/or 35 USC § 103 rejection(s)
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,3,5 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1,3,4,5 of copending Application No. 18530527 (US 20250189221) MILLER (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the method for removing entrained liquid droplets from a gas as recited in the co-pending application claims clearly envisages the method for removing entrained liquid droplets from a gas of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 4 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1,3,4,5 of copending Application No. 18530527 (US 20250189221) MILLER (reference application) in view of US 20190233177 (herein known as HAN).
With regard to claim 4, MILLER does not specifically teach a vacuum insulated volume
But, HAN sufficiently teaches a vacuum insulated volume, especially at claim 2
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide MILLER with a vacuum insulated volume of HAN for the benefit of temperature control, as determined as needed
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US 8551225 (herein known as Gray) in view of US 20160187890 (herein known as Borkowski) and US 3630496 (herein known as HURST)
With regard to claim 1, Gray sufficiently teaches a method for removing entrained liquid from a gas, comprising:, especially at fig 3, c4ln54-67, abstract
a) introducing a gas with entrained liquid into a cyclone separator, thereby producing a gaseous portion 63 and a liquid portion 65, especially at fig 3, c4ln54-c5ln8, abstract
Gray does not specifically teach entrained liquid droplets
But, HURST sufficiently teaches entrained liquid droplets, especially at c1ln8-24
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide Gray with entrained liquid droplets of HURST, as determined as needed
Gray sufficiently teaches wherein the gaseous portion exits the cyclone separator at 63, especially at fig 3, c4ln54-c5ln8, abstract
wherein the liquid portion is restricted by a liquid control valve 69 and collected in a reservoir volume in the cyclone separator, especially at fig 3, c4ln54-c5ln8, abstract
b) opening the liquid control valve, the liquid portion thereby exiting the cyclone separator, especially at fig 3, c4ln54-c5ln8, abstract
Gray does not specifically teach opening the liquid control valve upon receiving a signal from a liquid level sensor located in the reservoir volume, the liquid portion thereby exiting
But, Borkowski sufficiently teaches opening the liquid control valve 10 upon receiving a signal from a liquid level sensor 14 located in the reservoir volume, the liquid portion thereby exiting, especially at fig 2, para 16
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to substitute Gray with opening the liquid control valve 10 upon receiving a signal from a liquid level sensor 14 located in the reservoir volume, the liquid portion thereby exiting of Borkowski because the substitution of one type of valve for another that are both used for the same purpose (i.e. draining) would be well within the scope of the skilled artisan. (See MPEP 2141 III,B)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US 8551225 (herein known as Gray) in view of US 20160187890 (herein known as Borkowski), US 3630496 (herein known as HURST), and US 20190233177 (herein known as HAN)
With regard to claim 4, Gray does not specifically teach a vacuum insulated volume
But, HAN sufficiently teaches a vacuum insulated volume, especially at claim 2
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide Gray -Borkowski -HURST with a vacuum insulated volume of HAN for the benefit of temperature control, as determined as needed
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R SHUMATE whose telephone number is (571)270-5546. The examiner can normally be reached on M,T,Th,F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron can be reached on (571)272-0475. 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.
/ANTHONY SHUMATE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776