DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I (claims 1-5, 16, 17) in the reply filed on 7/23/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that because: (1) the groups are classified in the same class that there would not be a search burden or different field of search, (2) that there is not a specific explanation of the restriction, (3) that the claims present a combination-sub combination such that the inventions are not distinct. This is not found persuasive.
As to argument (3), the examiner notes that a combination-sub combination restriction was not made, but rather a distinct apparatuses restriction (see MPEP 806.05(j)).
As to argument (2), the examiner disagrees that there is not an explanation of the restriction, and the examiner maintains that there was a reasons for distinctness that was provided. Applicants have not provided any discussion of the reasons for restriction presented, and have not provided any arguments towards why the reasons for distinctness does not apply. Specifically, the inventions of group I (Claims 1-5, 16, 17) present distinct products from the invention of group II (6-15, 18, 19) because the inventions as claimed have a materially different design, are mutually exclusive, and would require a different field of search. Group I requires a pump, a first input valve, a second input valve, and movable valve arrangements, none of which is required by group II; and group II requires an inlet for providing a fluid connection between a distribution conduit and a valve and an outlet for providing a fluid connection between the distribution conduit and a second valve, none of which is required by group I. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
As to argument (1), the examiner disagrees that there is not a search burden and notes that while the classifications may be the same, that there would still be a search burden because: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different class/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries); and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
Claims 6-15, 18, 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/26/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-19 are pending with claims 1-5, 16, 17 being examined and claims 6-15, 18, 19 deemed withdrawn.
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 1-5, 16, 17 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.
With respect to claim 1, it is unclear if applicants are attempting to claim “a corresponding valve arrangement” in lines 13-14 or not because the valve arrangement appears to be a function of the flow path and reservoirs and is not positively recited. Applicants do not positively recite the valve arrangement and the flow path and reservoirs are configured to interact with the valve arrangement. Therefore, references to the valve arrangement are directed to intended use of the flow path and reservoirs. However, lines 13-19 then attempts to limit the valve arrangement by relating it to the flow path and reservoirs and also by describing how the valve arrangement is controllable. The problem is that the relationship of the valve arrangement and the flow path and reservoirs is defined in terms of the relationship between the flow path and reservoirs and the unclaimed valve arrangement when in use. This is indefinite as it is unclear how this is meant to further define the flow path and reservoirs and it is unclear how this is met given a flow path and reservoirs alone (without including the valve arrangement). The fact is, with such a recitation, a given flow path and reservoirs that meets the other limitations could meet the limitations of the claim when used with a valve arrangement and fail to meet the limitations of the claim when used without a valve arrangement. As such, given any flow path and reservoirs alone, it is unclear whether the limitations of the claim would be met and it is unclear how to determine whether or not the limitation is met. In summary, because the valve arrangement is not positively recited, then it is unclear what limitations the relationship of the valve arrangement is attempting to define with respect to the detection robot. A potential infringer would not know whether or not a device absent a valve arrangement would read on the claims or not. Based on the claim language, the examiner believes applicants are intending to recite the valve arrangement due to the interconnectivity and function of the unclaimed valve arrangement and other structures of the claims.
Claims 2-5, 16, 17 are rejected based on further claim dependency.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Metzger et al (US 4980130; hereinafter “Metzger”).
As to claim 1, Metzger teaches a pneumatic circuit for a pneumatic drive (Metzger; Fig. 1) apparatus, the pneumatic circuit comprising: a pump; a fluid distribution conduit; a plurality of reservoirs; a plurality of actuation ports; a first input valve operable to selectively provide a fluid connection between an outlet of the pump and the fluid distribution conduit; a second input valve operable to selectively provide a respective fluid connection between an inlet of the pump and the fluid distribution conduit; and a plurality of flow paths, each flow path extending from the fluid distribution conduit to a respective actuation port of the plurality of actuation ports, wherein each flow path is associated with a respective reservoir of the plurality of reservoirs and a corresponding valve arrangement, and wherein each valve arrangement is controllably moveable between a first configuration, in which an associated reservoir is in fluid communication with the fluid distribution conduit, so as to enable the associated reservoir to be charged with a pressure from the fluid distribution conduit, and a second configuration, in which the associated reservoir is in fluid communication with the respective actuation port (Metzger teaches pump 84 connected to first valve 90 and second valve 92, and a fluid distribution conduit formed by 86/88/94/96, which is connected to a plurality of reservoirs 112/132/136/140/168 which are connected to valves 110/130/134/138/114 that are connected to actuation ports that are formed by the exits for analyzer/effluent/sprinkler/on line; Fig. 1, col.6 line 46- col. 12 line 50. The examiner notes that the valve arrangements have not been positively recited and therefore limitations directed to the valve arrangements do not further define the structure of the device.).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “operable to…”, “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 2, Metzger teaches the pneumatic circuit of claim 1 (see above), wherein the first input valve and the second input valve are controllably moveable between a respective first configuration, in which the pump applies a positive pressure to the fluid distribution conduit, and a respective second configuration, in which the pump applies a negative pressure to the fluid distribution conduit (Metzger teaches valves 90 and 92 and referable pump that can apply positive and negative pressure; Fig. 1, col. 7 line 26-67, col. 11 line 22-col. 12 line 50).
As to claim 3, Metzger teaches the pneumatic circuit of claim 1 (see above), wherein the pneumatic circuit comprises at least three flow paths extending from the fluid distribution conduit (Metzger teaches many flow paths extending from portion 94/96 of the fluid conduit, where there are many flow paths defined by arbitrary selections along the fluid connections; Fig. 1. Alternatively, Metzger teaches the paths for analyzer/effluent/sprinkler/on line and also where there are multiple flow paths for these including branches off the on line analyzer; Fig. 1).
As to claim 4, Metzger teaches the pneumatic circuit of claim 1 (see above), wherein each valve arrangement comprises a pair of valves, wherein a first valve of the pair of valves is a 2/2 valve having a first port in fluid communication with the fluid distribution conduit and a second port in fluid communication with the associated reservoir, and wherein a second valve of the pair of valves is a 2/2 valve having a respective first port in fluid communication with the associated reservoir and a respective second port in fluid communication with the respective actuation port (The examiner notes that the valve arrangements have not been positively recited and therefore limitations directed to the valve arrangements do not further define the structure of the device. Metzger teaches the valves as 2/2 valves that have 2 connection ports and open and close).
As to claim 5, Metzger teaches the pneumatic circuit of claim 1 (see above), wherein each valve arrangement comprises a single 3/2 valve having a first port in fluid communication with the fluid distribution conduit, a second port in fluid communication with the associated reservoir and a third port in fluid communication with the respective actuation port (The examiner notes that the valve arrangements have not been positively recited and therefore limitations directed to the valve arrangements do not further define the structure of the device).
As to claim 16, Metzger teaches the pneumatic circuit of claim 1 (see above), wherein the pneumatic circuit comprises at least five flow paths extending from the fluid distribution conduit (Metzger teaches many flow paths extending from portion 94/96 of the fluid conduit, where there are many flow paths defined by arbitrary selections along the fluid connections; Fig. 1. Alternatively, Metzger teaches the paths for analyzer/effluent/sprinkler/on line and also where there are multiple flow paths for these including branches off the on line analyzer; Fig. 1)
As to claim 17, Metzger teaches the pneumatic circuit of claim 1 (see above), wherein the pneumatic circuit comprises at least seven flow paths extending from the fluid distribution conduit (Metzger teaches many flow paths extending from portion 94/96 of the fluid conduit, where there are many flow paths defined by arbitrary selections along the fluid connections; Fig. 1. Alternatively, Metzger teaches the paths for analyzer/effluent/sprinkler/on line and also where there are multiple flow paths for these including branches off the on line analyzer; Fig. 1)
Claims 1-5, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Stern et al (US 20120164036; hereinafter “Stern”).
As to claim 1, Stern teaches a pneumatic circuit for a pneumatic drive apparatus, the pneumatic circuit comprising: a pump; a fluid distribution conduit; a plurality of reservoirs; a plurality of actuation ports; a first input valve operable to selectively provide a fluid connection between an outlet of the pump and the fluid distribution conduit; a second input valve operable to selectively provide a respective fluid connection between an inlet of the pump and the fluid distribution conduit; and a plurality of flow paths, each flow path extending from the fluid distribution conduit to a respective actuation port of the plurality of actuation ports, wherein each flow path is associated with a respective reservoir of the plurality of reservoirs and a corresponding valve arrangement, and wherein each valve arrangement is controllably moveable between a first configuration, in which an associated reservoir is in fluid communication with the fluid distribution conduit, so as to enable the associated reservoir to be charged with a pressure from the fluid distribution conduit, and a second configuration, in which the associated reservoir is in fluid communication with the respective actuation port (Stern teaches pump connected to first and second valve, and fluid distribution formed by the rectangular loop as well as the branched conduit around the pump, which is connected to a plurality of reservoirs water/EtOH/bead/T7mix/25mix/RTMix/RNA which are connected to valves that are connected to actuation ports that are formed by the either the port for entry of the solution from the reservoir or alternatively to Out1/2 for the pump; Fig. 19, [91-93]. The examiner notes that the valve arrangements have not been positively recited and therefore limitations directed to the valve arrangements do not further define the structure of the device.).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 2, Stern teaches the pneumatic circuit of claim 1 (see above), wherein the first input valve and the second input valve are controllably moveable between a respective first configuration, in which the pump applies a positive pressure to the fluid distribution conduit, and a respective second configuration, in which the pump applies a negative pressure to the fluid distribution conduit (Stern teaches valves on either side of the pump that reverses and can apply positive and negative pressure; Fig. 19, [91-93]).
As to claim 3, Stern teaches the pneumatic circuit of claim 1 (see above), wherein the pneumatic circuit comprises at least three flow paths extending from the fluid distribution conduit (Stern teaches many flow paths extending from the rectangular loop of the fluid conduit, where there are many flow paths defined by arbitrary selections along the fluid connections; Fig. 19. Alternatively, Stern teaches the paths for that are out1 and out2, and also the analyzer/effluent/sprinkler/on line and also paths to actuation ports that are formed by the either the port for entry of the solution from the reservoirs water/EtOH/bead/T7mix/25mix/RTMix/RNA; Fig. 19).
As to claim 4, Stern teaches the pneumatic circuit of claim 1 (see above), wherein each valve arrangement comprises a pair of valves, wherein a first valve of the pair of valves is a 2/2 valve having a first port in fluid communication with the fluid distribution conduit and a second port in fluid communication with the associated reservoir, and wherein a second valve of the pair of valves is a 2/2 valve having a respective first port in fluid communication with the associated reservoir and a respective second port in fluid communication with the respective actuation port (The examiner notes that the valve arrangements have not been positively recited and therefore limitations directed to the valve arrangements do not further define the structure of the device. Stern teaches the valves as 2/2 valves that have 2 connection ports and open and close; Fig. 19, [91-93]).
As to claim 5, Stern teaches the pneumatic circuit of claim 1 (see above), wherein each valve arrangement comprises a single 3/2 valve having a first port in fluid communication with the fluid distribution conduit, a second port in fluid communication with the associated reservoir and a third port in fluid communication with the respective actuation port (The examiner notes that the valve arrangements have not been positively recited and therefore limitations directed to the valve arrangements do not further define the structure of the device)..
As to claim 16, Stern teaches the pneumatic circuit of claim 1 (see above), wherein the pneumatic circuit comprises at least five flow paths extending from the fluid distribution conduit (Stern teaches many flow paths extending from the rectangular loop of the fluid conduit, where there are many flow paths defined by arbitrary selections along the fluid connections; Fig. 19. Alternatively, Stern teaches the paths for that are out1 and out2, and also the analyzer/effluent/sprinkler/on line and also paths to actuation ports that are formed by the either the port for entry of the solution from the reservoirs water/EtOH/bead/T7mix/25mix/RTMix/RNA; Fig. 19).
As to claim 17, Stern teaches the pneumatic circuit of claim 1 (see above), wherein the pneumatic circuit comprises at least seven flow paths extending from the fluid distribution conduit (Stern teaches many flow paths extending from the rectangular loop of the fluid conduit, where there are many flow paths defined by arbitrary selections along the fluid connections; Fig. 19. Alternatively, Stern teaches the paths for that are out1 and out2, and also the analyzer/effluent/sprinkler/on line and also paths to actuation ports that are formed by the either the port for entry of the solution from the reservoirs water/EtOH/bead/T7mix/25mix/RTMix/RNA; Fig. 19).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “operable to…”, “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 2, Metzger teaches the pneumatic circuit of claim 1 (see above), wherein the first input valve and the second input valve are controllably moveable between a respective first configuration, in which the pump applies a positive pressure to the fluid distribution conduit, and a respective second configuration, in which the pump applies a negative pressure to the fluid distribution conduit
As to claim 3, Metzger teaches the pneumatic circuit of claim 1 (see above), wherein the pneumatic circuit comprises at least three flow paths extending from the fluid distribution conduit (Metzger teaches many flow paths extending from portion 94/96 of the fluid conduit, where there are many flow paths defined by arbitrary selections along the fluid connections; Fig. 1. Alternatively, Metzger teaches the paths for analyzer/effluent/sprinkler/on line and also where there are multiple flow paths for these including branches off the on line analyzer; Fig. 1).
As to claim 4, Metzger teaches the pneumatic circuit of claim 1 (see above), wherein each valve arrangement comprises a pair of valves, wherein a first valve of the pair of valves is a 2/2 valve having a first port in fluid communication with the fluid distribution conduit and a second port in fluid communication with the associated reservoir, and wherein a second valve of the pair of valves is a 2/2 valve having a respective first port in fluid communication with the associated reservoir and a respective second port in fluid communication with the respective actuation port (The examiner notes that the valve arrangements have not been positively recited and therefore limitations directed to the valve arrangements do not further define the structure of the device. Metzger teaches the valves as 2/2 valves that have 2 connection ports and open and close).
As to claim 5, Metzger teaches the pneumatic circuit of claim 1 (see above), wherein each valve arrangement comprises a single 3/2 valve having a first port in fluid communication with the fluid distribution conduit, a second port in fluid communication with the associated reservoir and a third port in fluid communication with the respective actuation port (The examiner notes that the valve arrangements have not been positively recited and therefore limitations directed to the valve arrangements do not further define the structure of the device).
As to claim 16, Metzger teaches the pneumatic circuit of claim 1 (see above), wherein the pneumatic circuit comprises at least five flow paths extending from the fluid distribution conduit (Metzger teaches many flow paths extending from portion 94/96 of the fluid conduit, where there are many flow paths defined by arbitrary selections along the fluid connections; Fig. 1. Alternatively, Metzger teaches the paths for analyzer/effluent/sprinkler/on line and also where there are multiple flow paths for these including branches off the on line analyzer; Fig. 1)
As to claim 17, Metzger teaches the pneumatic circuit of claim 1 (see above), wherein the pneumatic circuit comprises at least seven flow paths extending from the fluid distribution conduit (Metzger teaches many flow paths extending from portion 94/96 of the fluid conduit, where there are many flow paths defined by arbitrary selections along the fluid connections; Fig. 1. Alternatively, Metzger teaches the paths for analyzer/effluent/sprinkler/on line and also where there are multiple flow paths for these including branches off the on line analyzer; Fig. 1)
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include;
Thakkar et al (US 20210283606; hereinafter “Thakkar”) teaches that valves for liquid transfer are commonly known to include 2/2 valves or 3/2 valves; [407].
Wikswo et al (US 20170081625; hereinafter “Wikswo”) teaches pump 2654 that has an inlet and outlet and connected to valves with several other valves to connect fluid inlets 2605 from reservoirs to fluid outlets/actuator ports 2606; [236-237], Fig. 26A,B.
Marquiss et al (US 20020009391; hereinafter “Marquiss”) teaches various pumps with inlets and outlets and then connected to valves 3160/3218 which are connected to outlet actuation ports; Fig. 26, 27, [174-178].
Mann et al (WO 2023020981 where US 20240359201 is used as the corresponding document; hereinafter “Mann”) teaches 2/2 and 3/2 valves [97, 101, 104], and pump 35 which connects to various actuating ports at 33 or alternatively actuating ports connected to 55; Fig. 1, 2. Mann teaches various valves connected to the pump in fig. 2, and then also various valves in fig. 1, [91-110].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571) 272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/Benjamin R Whatley/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights