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 Objections
Claims 15-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 15, line 1, “The system of claim 1 comprising” should read --The system of claim 1, comprising--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims not specifically referenced are objected to as being dependent on an objected to base claim.
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 1-22 and 33 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tubing system" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears the limitation should read --the closed system--.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “one of the at least one aperture” is unclear and indefinite. Claim 9 depends on claim 8, which recites both an inlet aperture and an outlet aperture. It is unclear and indefinite which aperture “one of the at least one aperture” refers to or if it is referring to either aperture.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “the pressure balancing module” in line 1 lacks antecedent basis. It appears that the limitation should read --the pressure balancing system--.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the method of claim 12” is unclear and indefinite. Claim 12 is an apparatus claim and it is therefore unclear and indefinite if claim 13 is a method or apparatus claim. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as an apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 33, the limitation “the system of claim 32” is unclear and indefinite. Claim 33 depends on claim 30, which is a method claim. It is unclear and indefinite whether claim 32 is a method or an apparatus. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as a method.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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, 15-17, 19, 20, 22-27, 29, 32, 33, and 35, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,141,403).
Regarding claim 1, Guo discloses:
A system for controlling vacuum level in a closed fluid system comprising:
a valve (14) comprising: an inlet (42) fluidly connectable with the closed system (Col. 4, line 27 -Col. 5, line 14)
an outlet (48) in fluidly connectable to a vacuum pump 28 (Col. 4, line 27 -Col. 5, line 14)
a pressure-controlled vacuum control device (34, 38) between the inlet (42) and the outlet 48 (Col. 5, lines 15-29)
a controller (24) in fluid communication with the pressure-controlled vacuum control device (34, 38), the controller (24) being configured to (Col. 4, line 27 -Col. 5, line 14)
measure the pressure in the valve 14 (Col. 4, line 27 -Col. 5, line 14)
vary the pressure in the pressure-controlled vacuum control device (34, 38) based on the measured pressure in the valve 14 (Col. 4, line 27 -Col. 5, line 14)
wherein a variation of pressure in the pressure-controlled vacuum control device (34, 38) impacts the vacuum level in the closed system (Col. 4, line 27 -Col. 5, line 14)
Regarding claim 2, Guo discloses:
the pressure-controlled vacuum control device (34, 38) comprising a flexible membrane (34) forming a first sealed cavity (33) on a first side of the membrane (34) and a second sealed cavity (36) on a second side of the membrane (34), the second sealed cavity (36) being in fluid communication with the closed system (through 40; Col. 4, lines 27 -65)
Regarding claim 15, Guo discloses:
a pressure sensor (21) measuring the pressure level in the valve 14 (Col. 4, lines 27 -65)
Regarding claim 16, Guo discloses:
the sensor (21) being in communication with the controller 24 (Col. 4, lines 27 -65)
Regarding claim 17, Guo discloses:
the sensor (21) being fluidly connected to the valve 14 (Col. 4, lines 27 -65)
Regarding claim 19, Guo discloses:
the closed fluid system comprising gas (see abstract)
Regarding claim 20, Guo discloses:
the gas being air (see abstract)
Regarding claim 22, Guo discloses:
the closed fluid system conveying milk from animals (see abstract)
Regarding claim 23, Guo discloses:
A method for controlling vacuum level in a closed fluid system, the method comprising:
increasing the relative pressure in a first sealed cavity (33) of a valve (14) in relation to a second cavity (36) to decrease the vacuum level of the closed system, the second sealed cavity (36) being in fluid communication with the closed system (through 40; Col. 4, line 27 -Col. 5, line 14)
decreasing the relative pressure in the first sealed cavity (33) in relation to the second sealed cavity (36) to increase the vacuum level of the closed system (Col. 4, line 27 -Col. 5, line 14)
Regarding claim 24, Guo discloses:
the increase of the relative pressure in the first sealed cavity (33) comprising allowing a fluid in the first sealed cavity (33), the fluid having a pressure level higher than the pressure level in the closed system in the first sealed cavity 33 (Col. 4, line 27 -Col. 5, line 14)
Regarding claim 25, Guo discloses:
the fluid being ambient air (see abstract)
Regarding claim 26, Guo discloses:
wherein allowing the fluid comprises actuating a servo motor (26) fluidly connecting a source of the fluid and the first sealed cavity 33 (Col. 4, line 27 -Col. 5, line 14)
Regarding claim 27, Guo discloses:
the decrease of the relative pressure in the first sealed cavity (33) comprising balancing at least in part the pressure level between the first sealed cavity (33) and the second sealed cavity 36 (Col. 4, line 27 -Col. 5, line 14)
Regarding claim 29, Guo discloses:
the method further comprising measuring the vacuum level in the first sealed cavity 33 (Col. 4, line 27 -Col. 5, line 14)
Regarding claim 32, Guo discloses:
the closed fluid system comprising gas (see abstract)
Regarding claim 33, Guo discloses:
the gas being air (see abstract)
Regarding claim 35, Guo discloses:
the closed fluid system conveying milk from animals (see abstract)
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.
Claim(s) 5-11 and 14, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Lodolo (U.S. 2019/0049038).
Regarding claims 5-11 and 14, Guo discloses the invention as essentially claimed, but fails to disclose the pressure-controlled vacuum control device further comprising a support for the flexible membrane, the support creating a passage between the inlet and the outlet, the opening of the passage being controlled by the flexible membrane; the valve comprising a body and a bonnet, the support and the flexible membrane being between the body and the bonnet; at least one fastener for securing the body, the flexible membrane, the support and the bonnet; the support comprising at least one inlet aperture in fluid communication with the inlet and at least one outlet aperture in fluid communication with the outlet; the flexible membrane fluidly restricting one of the at least one aperture when the pressure in the first sealed cavity is higher than the pressure in the second sealed cavity; the valve further comprising pressure balancing system in fluid communication with the first sealed cavity and the second sealed cavity; the pressure balancing module comprising a first servo valve controlling the variation of pressure level in the first sealed cavity through input of a fluid in the first sealed cavity, the inputted fluid having a pressure level higher than the vacuum level in the closed system; the flexible membrane being made with an elastomer.
Lodolo teaches a vacuum valve, a pressure-controlled vacuum control device further comprising a support (11, 27) for a flexible membrane (10), the support (11, 27) creating a passage between an inlet (4) and an outlet (6), an opening of the passage being controlled by the flexible membrane 10 (see paragraph 0041); the valve comprising a body (1) and a bonnet (3), the support (11, 27) and the flexible membrane (10) being between the body (1) and the bonnet 3 (see Figure 1; see paragraphs 0039-0041); at least one fastener for securing the body (1), the flexible membrane (10), the support (11, 27) and the bonnet 3 (see paragraph 0047); the support (11, 27) comprising at least one inlet aperture in fluid communication with the inlet (4) and at least one outlet aperture in fluid communication with the outlet 6 (see Figure 3A); the flexible membrane (10) fluidly restricting one of the at least one aperture when the pressure in a first sealed cavity (14) is higher than the pressure in a second sealed cavity (interior of 1); the valve further comprising pressure balancing system (17, 21, 23, 31) in fluid communication with the first sealed cavity (14) and the second sealed cavity (interior of 1; see paragraph 0070); the pressure balancing system (17, 21, 23, 31) comprising a first servo valve (23) controlling the variation of pressure level in the first sealed cavity (14) through input of a fluid in the first sealed cavity (14), the inputted fluid having a pressure level higher than a vacuum level in a closed system (see abstract); the flexible membrane (2) being made with an elastomer (see paragraph 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Guo to provide the pressure-controlled vacuum control device further comprising a support for the flexible membrane, the support creating a passage between the inlet and the outlet, the opening of the passage being controlled by the flexible membrane; the valve comprising a body and a bonnet, the support and the flexible membrane being between the body and the bonnet; at least one fastener for securing the body, the flexible membrane, the support and the bonnet; the support comprising at least one inlet aperture in fluid communication with the inlet and at least one outlet aperture in fluid communication with the outlet; the flexible membrane fluidly restricting one of the at least one aperture when the pressure in the first sealed cavity is higher than the pressure in the second sealed cavity; the valve further comprising pressure balancing system in fluid communication with the first sealed cavity and the second sealed cavity; the pressure balancing module comprising a first servo valve controlling the variation of pressure level in the first sealed cavity through input of a fluid in the first sealed cavity, the inputted fluid having a pressure level higher than the vacuum level in the closed system; the flexible membrane being made with an elastomer. Doing so would provide a simpler and faster assembled valve (see paragraphs 0026-0028), as recognized by Lodolo.
Claim(s) 21 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Perkins (U.S. 2010/0170152).
Regarding claims 21 and 34, Guo discloses the invention as essentially claimed, but fails to disclose the closed fluid system conveying sap from trees.
Perkins teaches a vacuum system used for conveying sap from trees (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Guo to provide the closed fluid system conveying sap from trees, as taught by Perkins. Both Guo and Perkins teach vacuum systems, and therefore modifying Guo would provide a different use for the vacuum system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 12, 13, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 28, 30, and 31 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sneh (U.S. 2016/0341330) discloses a vacuum system comprising a diaphragm valve and a controller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E CARY whose telephone number is (571)272-9427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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 supervisors, 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 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.
/KELSEY E CARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753