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 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 7, 12 and 14 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 7 recites the limitation "said second branch" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “a vent line which puts in communication fluid the inside of said collection tank” in line 6. It is unclear what the communication is.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said support brackets" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barani (WO2013/050981).
Regarding claim 1, Barani discloses an automated mixing and dosing apparatus (device 1), comprising:
a suction line, in fluid communication with an inlet through which to suck water (4),
hydraulic pump operatively connected in suction to said suction line (24),
a programmable logic control unit, operatively connected to said hydraulic pump to selectively control its operation (page 12, lines 31-35),
a first delivery line connected to said hydraulic pump in delivery to feed said water sucked towards a tank compartment delimited at a top of said mixing apparatus (10, 19b, 21),
wherein said tank compartment comprises:
a perforated basket wherein to house a solid material to be dissolved (11; page 6, lines 6-13),
a dispenser operatively connected to said first delivery line, wherein said dispenser is positioned at a top of said perforated basket and is configured to selectively deliver jets of water in pressure inside said perforated basket to dissolve the solid material contained therein (17),
a collection tank wherein to collect a saturated solution of said dissolved material which flows through a bottom of said perforated basket (8),
a second delivery line in fluid communication, at delivery, with said hydraulic pump and with an outlet of said mixing apparatus through which to deliver a mixed liquid (8a, right hand side after junction 19a),
a mixing line which places said collection tank in fluid communication with said second delivery line (8a), wherein said mixing line is connected in fluid communication with said second line through a Venturi tube connected along a section of said second delivery line so that the passage of water through said second delivery line determines the suction of said solution contained in said collection tank by effect of said Venturi tube, mixing said solution with said water which is then delivered through said outlet (5a).
Regarding claim 6, Barani discloses a delivery tube which extends inside a top portion of said collection tank and is connected, in communication of fluid, to a second branch which extends into fluid communication with said first delivery line, said delivery tube comprising a plurality of holes through which jets of pressurized water can be delivered directed towards an inclined bottom on which said dispensing tube faces, wherein said inclined bottom defines a bottom of said collection tank (22).
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) 2, 4, 7, 9, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barani in view of Pinto et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,684,457).
Regarding claim 2, Barani discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, does not explicitly disclose the dispenser has a frame shape and comprises a hydraulic inlet connection connected to a first branch, wherein said first branch protrudes in fluid communication from said first delivery line, wherein said dispenser comprises two perforated tubes which extend parallel to each other and are mechanically joined and in fluid connection by means of respective pipes transversal, said perforated tubes being in fluid communication with said hydraulic inlet connection.
Pinto et al. teaches another chemical dissolver (abstract). Pinto et al. teaches the dispenser has a frame shape and comprises a hydraulic inlet connection connected to a first branch, wherein said first branch protrudes in fluid communication from said first delivery line, wherein said dispenser comprises two perforated tubes which extend parallel to each other and are mechanically joined and in fluid connection by means of respective pipes transversal, said perforated tubes being in fluid communication with said hydraulic inlet connection (figure 1, #12, 13, 13a, 14, 17; column 2, lines 28-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the dispenser of Barani to have a frame shape with two perforated tubes as taught by Pinto et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach chemical dissolvers. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing so the frame of the dispenser matches the shape of the container so that the pipes all spray towards the center of the tank to achieve a quicker and more rapid mixture of the chemical with the water (Pinto et al. columns 2, lines 28-45).
Regarding claim 4, Barani in view of Pinto et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein said hydraulic inlet connection is connected to one end of one of said transverse tubes, so as to extend at a vertex of said frame structure, wherein said hydraulic inlet connection is extendable to allow the lifting or lowering of said dispenser relative to said perforated basket (Pinto et al. figure 1 versus figure 4, #14 versus 14a and 13/13a). While the inlet connection extends to allow the lifting or lowering of said dispenser relative to said perforated base, rather than by rotation, it is well known in the art that lifting or lowering by extension or rotation is an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 7, Barani in view of Pinto et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The combination further discloses a first delivery valve configured to selectively intercept said first branch and a second delivery valve configured to selectively intercept said second branch, wherein said first delivery valve and said second delivery valve are operatively connected to said control logic unit (Barani valves 25, 35, controller 26).
Regarding claim 9, Barani in view of Pinto et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The combination further discloses an outlet valve (valve 40). While the valve is not explicitly a float valve, float valves are well known in the art, as evidenced by Pinto et al. (15 and 16) and it would have been obvious to use a float valve to maintain a balanced flow and pressure (Pinto et al. column 2, lines 46-54).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Barani discloses an auxiliary tank (7), an auxiliary line which places said auxiliary tank in fluid communication with the interior of said tank collection tank (32), and an auxiliary outlet valve configured to selectively place said auxiliary tank and said collection tank in fluid communication (51), selectively intercepting said auxiliary line as a function of the level of liquid included in said collection tank (25, 26, 27); and comprising an auxiliary delivery line which connects, in fluid communication, an outlet of said auxiliary tank with said mixing line, along a portion of said mixing line upstream said Venturi line (6 and 19 recirculates upstream of venturi 5), wherein said auxiliary delivery line comprises a shut-off valve configured to selectively intercept it, said shut-off valve being operatively connected to said logic control unit (26, 52). To the extent the valve is not positioned inside said collection tank, it would have been obvious to place the valve inside the tank in order to better control the flow of liquid into the tank, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. To extent Barani does not explicitly disclose selectively intercepting said auxiliary line as a function of the level of liquid included in said collection tank, Pinto et al. teaches the valves should consider flow level (column 2, lines 46-54).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barani in view of Pinto et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sims et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,056,286).
Regarding claim 3, Barani in view of Pinto et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein said holes being positioned so that the jets of water dispensable by them are directed towards the inside of said perforated basket on which said dispenser faces inside said tank compartment (Pinto et al. 13, 13a). While the combination does not disclose the specific arrangement of holes, it is well known in the art that the dispensing holes can have a variety of configurations, including wherein each of said perforated tubes has a plurality of through holes which are arranged in alternating succession to each other along a first row and a second row, wherein said first row and said second row are angularly offset from each other and wherein the holes of said first row are offset with respect to the holes of a second row (as evidenced by Sims et al. 34). The change in configuration is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify dispenser of Barani to include a variety of hole configurations, as taught by Sims et al. An ordinary skilled artisan at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do the foregoing in order to increase the direction of water spray for faster dissolution of chemical with water.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barani in view of Freudenberg et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,549,245).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Barani discloses all the limitations as set forth above. While Baran discloses the basket is supported in an elevated position (11), Baran does not explicitly disclose brackets. Freudenberg et al. teaches another chemical dissolution device (abstract) comprising brackets for supporting said perforated basket in an elevated position with respect to said collection tank, said brackets being positioned at the top of the mixing apparatus, inside said tank compartment, wherein each of said support brackets has notches for housing respective bottom portions which protrude from a bottom end of said perforated basket (figure 1d, where #50 connects with brackets having notches, not labeled, in device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the basket of Barani to have brackets as taught by Freudenberg et al. to allow the basket to be easily removable and placeable within the device.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barani in view of Greaves et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0244315).
Regarding claim 8, Baran discloses all the limitations as set forth above. While Baran discloses a lid (9), Baran does not explicitly disclose a lid hinged to a top portion of said mixing and dosing apparatus, wherein said lid selectively frees a access opening to said tank compartment, wherein said lid comprises an insert embedded in it and configured to interact with a sensor arranged at said tank compartment, wherein said sensor is operatively connected to said logic control unit and configured to detect when said lid is in the closed position.
Greaves et al. teaches another solid product dissolver (title) comprising a lid hinged to a top portion of said mixing and dosing apparatus, wherein said lid selectively frees a access opening to said tank compartment, wherein said lid comprises an insert embedded in it and configured to interact with a sensor arranged at said tank compartment, wherein said sensor is operatively connected to said logic control unit and configured to detect when said lid is in the closed position (74, 78, 80; [0050]; [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lid of Barani to have a hinge and detection as taught by Greaves et al. to prevent fluid flow when the lid is open for safety purposes.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barani in view of Nesheim et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0251177).
Regarding claim 12, Barani discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not comprise a hollow base on which said mixing and dosing apparatus rests, said hollow base having a bottom bounded perimeter by side walls and comprising inside it some crosspieces which support said mixing and dosing apparatus in a raised position with respect to said bottom, wherein said mixing and dosing apparatus comprises a vent line which puts in communication fluid the inside of said collection tank with said hollow base when said liquid contained in said collection tank exceeds a predetermined maximum level. Nesheim et al. teaches another solid dissolving device (abstract) comprising a hollow base on which said mixing and dosing apparatus rests, said hollow base having a bottom bounded perimeter by side walls and comprising inside it some crosspieces which support said mixing and dosing apparatus in a raised position with respect to said bottom (104, 213, 215), wherein said mixing and dosing apparatus comprises a vent line which puts in communication fluid the inside of said collection tank with said hollow base when said liquid contained in said collection tank exceeds a predetermined maximum level ([0095]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the base and vent of Nesheim et al. in the apparatus of Barani in order to easily transport and support the apparatus and admit air to facilitate draining (Nesheim et al. [0095]).
Regarding claim 13, Barani discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not comprise a dispensing device for acid. Nesheim et al. teaches another solid dissolving device (abstract) comprising a dispensing device for the controlled dispensing of an acid substance to be selectively fed into said collection tank through said dispensing tube, wherein said delivery device comprises a peristaltic pump in fluid communication with a hydraulic connection connected along said second branch, wherein said delivery device is operatively connected to said logic control unit (27, 42, 50; [0051]-[0053]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the dispensing device of Nesheim et al. in the apparatus of Barani in order to control the salinity of the solution (Nesheim et al. [0050]-[0053]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights