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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/26 has been entered.
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) 10, 14, 16-22 and 24-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bleck et al. (US Patent No. 9,580,988).
Regarding claim 10, the Bleck et al. (hereinafter Bleck) reference discloses a structure (Fig. 1) comprising: elements (25) which are interconnected and are arranged movably relative to one another (Fig. 1), wherein the structure is arranged in a fluid in order to change the flow resistance (Col. 1, Lines 46-52), wherein
the structure is connected to a rotary drive (e.g. pipe),
the structure is configured to have a sealing effect when subject to rotation (Col. 6, Line 55-Col. 7, Line 5), and
the structure has a rubber lip (lip of 13), and
when the structure is subject to rotation, the interconnected elements are configured to fan out under centrifugal forces to change flow resistance (Col. 6, Line 55-Col. 7, Line 5 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, the Bleck reference discloses the structure is of funnel- shaped design (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, the Bleck reference discloses the structure has cavities (Figs. 1,2).
Regarding claim 17, the Bleck reference discloses the structure as claimed. MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims states that "If the product in the product-by-process claim is that same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process." Claim 17 is anticipated by Bleck. The process by which the structure is made is not a patentable distinction.
Regarding claim 18, the Bleck reference discloses a method comprising: using a structure with elements which are interconnected and are arranged movably relative to one another, in a fluid in order to change the flow resistance (Col. 1, Lines 46-52), wherein
the structure is arranged in a fluid in order to change the flow resistance (Col. 1, Lines 46-52), wherein
the structure is connected to a rotary drive (e.g. pipe),
the structure is configured to have a sealing effect when subject to rotation (Col. 1, Lines 46-52), and
the structure has a rubber lip (e.g. lips of 13) , and
when the structure is subject to rotation, the interconnected elements are configured to fan out under centrifugal forces to change flow resistance (Col. 6, Line 55-Col. 7, Line 5 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, the Bleck reference discloses the rubber lip is arranged at the outer periphery of the structure and on a downstream side thereof (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, the Bleck reference discloses with increasing rotation, the rubber lip comes into contact with a pipe wall or shaft feedthrough to have a sealing effect (Col. 6, Line 55-Col. 7, Line 5 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, the Bleck reference discloses the rubber lip is capable of being replaceable by a rubber cap which, given a certain rotation, acts as a cover and completely closes the flow cross section.
Regarding claim 22, the Bleck reference discloses the elements are connected directly (Fig. 13). MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims states that "If the product in the product-by-process claim is that same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process." Claim 22 is anticipated by Bleck. The process by which the element is made is not a patentable distinction.
Regarding claim 24, the Bleck reference discloses the connection between the elements is flexible (Fig. 1), thereby enabling relative movement in at least three dimensions (e.g. during use from vibration and rotation).
Regarding claim 25, the Bleck reference discloses the structure. MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims states that "If the product in the product-by-process claim is that same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process." Claim 25 is anticipated by Bleck. The process by which the structure is made is not a patentable distinction.
Regarding claim 26, the Bleck reference discloses the structure is configured to fan out under centrifugal forces when subject to rotation (Col. 6, Line 55-Col. 7, Line 5 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 27, the Bleck reference discloses the elements define cavities (Figs. 1,2) whose size determines the fluid flow through the structure.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, the Bleck reference discloses the rubber lip is arranged at an outer periphery of the structure on a downstream side thereof (Figs. 1,2), and, with increasing rotation, comes into contact with a pipe wall or shaft feedthrough to have the sealing effect (e.g. pressure during use will compress the rubber).
Regarding claims 30 and 31, the Bleck reference discloses the elements define cavities through which fluid can flow (Figs. 1,2), the size of the cavities determining the fluid flow through the structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10, 14, 16-22, and 24-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERT Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571)272-8322. 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.
/GILBERT Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675