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 .
Drawings
Fig. 5 does not show 1C as described in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: “purification device,” “non-energized sensor that detects presence or absence of the liquid,” “a housing that accommodates the purification device” and “an electrical hardware receiver that is provided outside the housing and that receives a signal.”
Claim 11: “purification device,” “non-energized sensor that detects presence or absence of the liquid” and “a housing that accommodates the purification device.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Argument about ‘purification device’ is not persuasive: the disclosure has “Purification device 3 includes filter device 5 and granular material-filled device 4 that is filled with a granular material composed of at least one of ion exchanger, activated carbon, synthetic adsorbent, and zeolite.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
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.
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) 1-3 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Shuja (US 2020/0190428) in view of Crowne (US 2023/0251122), CN 103101867 A and Madala (US 2012/0158188).
PNG
media_image1.png
705
683
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shuja fig. 1 is copied herein with some annotations. The purification device in Shuja is 140, which includes RO, NF, or ultrafilter [0020], but is silent on GAC or other particulate filters. However, in [0034], Shuja teaches/suggest using bleaching clays, activated carbon, etc., for removal of chlorophyll and decoloring from Cannabis or hemp oil. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such filters to remove coloring matter from the product in addition to the membrane cross-flow filter for wax removal.
Shuja teaches using optical sensors in a line exiting the feed tank of a purification system that uses flammable solvents. Shuja teaches that the sensors are so selected for safety in handling flammable solvents [0005]. While Shuja does not expressly teach a housing, by the broadest reasonable interpretation, implicitly, the system of Shuja is accommodated in a housing, such as at the least inside a building to protects from the elements, that is, it is not out in the open. Also, while Shuja does not explicitly teach optical cables for optical sensors, such also would be implied because any electrical wiring for the signal transmission of the optical sensors would be unsafe.
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)
The receiver is a control system, which Shuja teaches in [0032]. While Shuja is silent on the location of the control system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to locate such electrically operated system outside the “housing” or, separated by a fire wall from the purification system for safety reasons.
Shuja also teaches a feed tank 199 with a feed line and a vent/reject return line 195. Please note that the lines can be used for all these purposes; vent or reject return being intended use. Providing a housing for the apparatus is prima facie obvious to contain the process plant with flammable liquids. Having optical fiber cables for the sensors would also be obvious – to transmit optical signal from an optical sensor. See for example, Crowne, which teaches optical level sensors for measuring presence of flammable liquids in tanks, etc.
Other elements not addressed in the dependent claims are: second sensor in the vent line and a third sensor for the drain pan, and compressed gas pumping system.
Shuja teaches a solvent tank 199 to feed solvent to the feed tank 110, and a vent or concentrate return line 195 (this line can be functionally used for both,) but does not teach an optical sensor therein. CN at [0157] teaches a liquid sensor 460 in the vent of a tank 432 for detecting liquid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have such as sensor to assure that the liquid does not escape the tank by overfilling, and provide an optical sensor for safety when the liquid is flammable. Alternately, it would have been obvious to monitor line 195 in Shuja for presence or absence of liquid for proper operation as intended.
Claims 9 and 10: Shuja does not teach a housing bottom sensor. Providing drain pans for containment of spills and leaks are well known in the industry, and such pans are provided with liquid sensors to detect such spills. For example, Madala teaches (see the figures) a drain pan with a liquid sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a drain pan with a liquid sensor (optical for safety) for this purpose in the teaching of Shuja for the same reasons.
Regarding the receiver or controller, sensors do require a control system for monitoring and displaying the information, which is implicit, or which would have been prima facie obvious. Since the controller is electrically operated, it would also have been obvious to isolate it from the vicinity of the process apparatus for safety.
Regarding the compressed gas pumping system as in claim 6 and 11, Shuja shows pumping system for flowing the feed through the purification system. However, providing a compressed air pumping system would have been an obvious equivalent. A compressed air system, like an air-motor pump, or pressurizing the tank, would have been safer compared to an electric motor pump, which are considered functionally equivalent, but safer. Such compressed air systems do come with pressure regulators and cut-off valves – well-known. Means for stopping the flow would be stopping the pumping, which are routine and obvious. While Shuja does not explicitly teach stopping pumping when no liquid is present in the feed line, such would have been implied, or obvious to one or ordinary skill to stop the pumping when the system runs out of feed.
MPEP 2143: the following rationales for combining the references apply:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments traversing the 102(a1) rejection are moot.
The argument that Shuja fails to teach/suggest the sensors to monitor presence or absence of liquid is …well, unpersuasive. [0023] clearly teaches the monitors as tracking concentrations, which requires the liquid and the solutes (oil and wax.) Shuja does teach using decoloring agents as shown in the rejection, and therefore, the argument that it does not teach activated carbon, etc., is also not persuasive.
Regarding claim 4, the first liquid supply pipe is from feed tank to pump to filter unit 140. Argument about claim 6 – stoppage of the pump is addressed in the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 5712720579. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights