OFFICE ACTION
This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application:
Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774.
Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d). All of the CERTIFIED copies of the priority documents have been received in this national stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
Note the attached PTO-1449 form(s) submitted with the Information Disclosure Statement filed 9 APR 2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR § 1.84 in view of the following deficiencies that require correction:
In ¶ [044], the screw cap 53 is not labeled in the appropriate Figures.
Applicant should review the specification and drawing Figures to ensure a proper one-to-one correspondence between the specification and drawings in accordance with MPEP 608.01(g) and 37 CFR 1.84(f). The brief description of the drawings and the descriptive portion of the specification may require revision in accordance with any drawing objections listed herein or those noticed by Applicant during said review.
From MPEP 608.01(g): The reference characters must be properly applied, no single reference character being used for two different parts or for a given part and a modification of such part. See 37 CFR 1.84(p). Every feature specified in the claims must be illustrated, but there should be no superfluous illustrations.
Applicant should thus verify that (1) all reference characters in the drawings are described in the detailed description portion of the specification and (2) all reference characters mentioned in the specification are included in the appropriate drawing Figure(s) as required by 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement figures which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments, or remarks, section of the amendment. Any replacement drawing sheet must be identified in the top margin as “Replacement Sheet” (37 CFR 1.121(d)) and include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even though only one figure may be amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and centered within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheets must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Marked-up Drawings” and accompany the replacement sheets.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ [044], last line: replace “70” with --71--.
Appropriate correction is required.
The substitute abstract is acceptable.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed (MPEP 606.01) by mentioning the slidable mandrel.
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.
The term “high pressure” in claim 43 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high pressure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 43 is thus of indeterminate scope since it is unknown what pumps fall within the scope of “a high pressure water pump” or are excluded from this subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
To determine whether subject matter would have been obvious, "the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved .... Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented." Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
The Supreme Court has noted:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007). "Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." (Id. at 1742).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The instant office action conforms to the policies articulated in the Federal Register notice titled “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449, February 27, 2024, wherein the Supreme Court’s directive to employ a flexible approach to understanding the scope of prior art is reflected in the frequently quoted sentence, ‘‘A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’’ Id. at 421, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. In this section of the KSR decision, the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Circuit that persons having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITAs) also have common sense, which may be used to glean suggestions from the prior art that go beyond the primary purpose for which that prior art was produced. Id. at 421–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. Thus, the Supreme Court taught that a proper understanding of the prior art extends to all that the art reasonably suggests, and is not limited to its articulated teachings regarding how to solve the particular technological problem with which the art was primarily concerned. Id. at 418, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (‘‘As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’’). ‘‘The obviousness analysis cannot be confined . . . by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.’’ Id. at 419, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. Federal Circuit case law since KSR follows the mandate of the Supreme Court to understand the prior art— including combinations of the prior art—in a flexible manner that credits the common sense and common knowledge of a PHOSITA. The Federal Circuit has made it clear that a narrow or rigid reading of prior art that does not recognize reasonable inferences that a PHOSITA would have drawn is inappropriate. An argument that the prior art lacks a specific teaching will not be sufficient to overcome an obviousness rejection when the allegedly missing teaching would have been understood by a PHOSITA—by way of common sense, common knowledge generally, or common knowledge in the relevant art. For example, in Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit vacated a determination of nonobviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) because it had not properly considered a PHOSITA’s perspective on the prior art. Id. at 1364. The Randall court recalled KSR’s criticism of an overly rigid approach to obviousness that has ‘‘little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications.’’ Id. at 1362, citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1727. In reaching its decision to vacate, the Federal Circuit stated that by ignoring evidence showing ‘‘the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, the Board failed to account for critical background information that could easily explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify the cited references to arrive at the claimed inventions.’’ Id.
From Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (‘‘A flexible teaching, suggestion, or motivation test can be useful to prevent hindsight when determining whether a combination of elements known in the art would have been obvious.’’); Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘‘Any motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed process.’’). In keeping with this flexible approach to providing a rationale for obviousness, the Federal Circuit has echoed KSR in identifying numerous possible sources that may, either implicitly or explicitly, provide reasons to combine or modify the prior art to determine that a claimed invention would have been obvious. These include ‘‘market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.’’ Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013), quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–21, 127 S. Ct. at 1741–42.
The Federal Circuit has also clarified that a proposed reason to combine the teachings of prior art disclosures may be proper, even when the problem addressed by the combination might have been more advantageously addressed in another way. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (‘‘Our precedent, however, does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.’’) (emphasis in original). One aspect of the flexible approach to explaining a reason to modify the prior art is demonstrated in the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which confirms that a proposed reason is not insufficient simply because it has broad applicability. Patent challenger Intel had argued in an inter partes review before the Board that some of Qualcomm’s claims were unpatentable because a PHOSITA would have been able to modify the prior art, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency. Id. at 796–97. The Federal Circuit explained that ‘‘[s]uch a rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it’s generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal.’’ Id. The Federal Circuit further pointed out its pre-KSR holding ‘‘that because such improvements are ‘technology independent,’ ‘universal,’ and ‘even common-sensical,’ ‘there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’ ’’ Id., quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added by the Federal Circuit in Intel). When formulating an obviousness rejection, the PTO may use any clearly articulated line of reasoning that would have allowed a PHOSITA to draw the conclusion that a claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the facts. MPEP 2143, subsection I, and MPEP 2144. Acknowledging that, in view of KSR, there are ‘‘many potential rationales that could make a modification or combination of prior art references obvious to a skilled artisan,’’ the Federal Circuit has also pointed to MPEP 2143, which provides several examples of rationales gleaned from KSR. Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1003.
When considering the prior art in its entirety, note Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381, 119 USPQ2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Although modification of the movable blades may impede the quick change functionality disclosed by Caterpillar, ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’" (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed Cir. 2006) (citation omitted))). However, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In view of the 103 guidance above, claims 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOMAR (US 2270637) in view of CH 400592.
KOMAR discloses in figure 1 a mixing device between a steam supply line 24 and a liquid fuel supply line 31. The device has a valve body 10 with a tapered liquid fuel passageway 6 and a smaller smooth passageway 7 towards a mixing chamber 3 and a venturi arrangement 26-28. In the valve body 10 a valve stem 18 is positioned having a treaded portion 20 which cooperates with an inner threaded portion 12 of the valve body 10, and having a hand-wheel 21 arranged on its outer end to actuate the same to control the flow of the liquefied fuel into the mixing chamber. (page 2, column 1, lines 10-16). The valve stem 18 has a tapered portion 22 inside the tapered liquid fuel passageway 6, and a distal cylindrical portion 23 that extends in the smooth passageway 7. The smooth fuel passageway 7 can be kept clean by manipulating the valve-stem 18 back and forth therein (page 2, column 2, lines 23-28), which is affected by rotation of the hand-wheel 21. This implies that the distal cylindrical portion 23 remains inside the smooth fuel passageway 7 and that the movement can cause the removal of dirt. Thus, KOMAR discloses a mixing installation for mixing a first agent to a liquid, wherein the mixing installation comprises a liquid supply conduit 24, a mixture discharge conduit 29, a dosing assembly 2, 10, 26-28 between the liquid supply conduit and the mixture discharge conduit, a first agent container upstream of 31, and a first agent supply conduit 31 between the first agent container and the dosing assembly, wherein the dosing assembly comprises a venturi arrangement 26-28 between the liquid supply conduit and the mixture discharge conduit 29, and a first dosing device 2, 10 between the first agent supply conduit and the venturi arrangement, wherein the first dosing device comprises a first main body 2 with a first agent passage 7, 8 that is in fluid communication with the first agent supply conduit 31 and the venturi arrangement, and a first dosing mandrel 18 having a first dosing pin 23 that extends in the first agent passage; the first dosing pin 23 extends inside the first agent passage to define a first ring shaped dosing channel within 7 around the first dosing pin 23 with a constant first radial flow height around the circumference of the first dosing pin 23; wherein the first ring shaped dosing channel within 7 has a constant first radial height over the length of the first ring shaped dosing channel in the flow direction of the first agent passage; wherein the first radial flow height is the smallest flow width as from the first agent container to the mixture discharge conduit - Figure 1.
KOMAR does not disclose the mandrel being reciprocally slidable via a pulling action. CH 400592 discloses a mixing installation with a venturi 34, 40 suitable for mixing small quantities of a liquid agent with water flowing from a tap and comprises a body 2 having a cap 4 fixed by screwing at one end and a nozzle 6 at the other end. The cap is provided with a central opening 8 communicating with an opening 10 of a rubber pad 12 clamped between the cap and the body and adapted to receive the end of the spout of a water tap to which the device is fixed by any suitable means such as a number of small screws. When in position, the tap spout communicates via the opening 10 with a passage 14 formed in the body of the device. Passage 14 communicates with the upper end of a primary liquid (water) exhaust passage 16 via a valve seat 18. The lower end of the passage 16 opens inside the nozzle 6 through a splash guard 28. Passage 14 also communicates with a passage 22 by means of a valve seat 24 formed at the inner end of a hollow plug 26 and through the inside of the plug. The plug is engaged by screw thread with the body part 2 and is formed with a slot 23 and a hole 30 which, in the position of the block shown in Fig. 1, allow the inside of the plug to communicate both with the passage 22 and with a bypass passage 32 extending from the plug to the nozzle. The passage 22 communicates with a Venturi-shaped passage 34 by means of a groove 36 extending across the top of the body part 2 and whose upper side is normally closed by a metal plate 38 which is held in place when the cap 4 is attached to the body part. The Venturi-shaped passage 34 passes through the body-forming part and terminates at its lower end at nozzle 6. The Venturi-shaped part of the passage has an elongated neck forming section 40 situated between the converging and diverging parts of the Venturi and passing through a chamber 42 connected to a pipe 43 extending outside which, in use, is connected to a secondary liquid source/agent. The arrangement is such that when water flows through the Venturi passage, this creates suction in pipe 43 causing the liquid agent to be injected into the water. The divergence angle of the outlet part of the Venturi shown in the drawings is 50 and the ratio of the length to the transverse diameter of the 40 throat section is 4.5 to 1. The minimum diameter of the Venturi neck section is 3 mm. The flow through passage 32 forming a bypass for the Venturi depends on the angular position of the plug 26. When hole 30 is aligned with passage 32, maximum liquid flow can occur through the bypass. By rotating the plug 26 gradually by 900 using a screwdriver or similar tool engaged in the slot 45, the minimum cross-section of the bypass passage is gradually reduced, the slot 23 being arranged so that the inside of the plug communicates constantly with the passage 22 during this rotation of the plug. The minimum diameter of the bypass passage is 9 mm when hole 30 is in alignment with the passage. The control by which the water from passage 14 flows either into the plug 26 through the valve seat 24, or towards passage 16 through the valve seat 18 is carried out by means of a dosing valve member 44 fixed to the inner end of a rod/dosing mandrel 46 operated by a pull button 48 disposed outside the body part of the device. The valve member 44 is pushed back by means of a spring 50 towards the normal position shown in Fig. 1 in which it rests on the seat 24 so that the water flowing through the passage 14 passes into the passage 16 and only water flows out of the device. When the knob is pulled outwards into the second position, the valve member 56 comes to rest on the valve seat 18 so that water will flow from the passage 14 through the seat 24 inside the plug 26 and from there into the bypass passage 32 and outwards, and into the passage 22 leading to the Venturi passage 34 so that a mixture of water and liquid agent will flow from the device. The passage 14 communicates with the atmosphere through an opening 52 (see fig. 2 and 3) passing through the side of the body part and normally closed by means of a floating valve element 54 which is held in the closed position by the pressure exerted by the water passing through the passage 14. If the skin of the network to which the tap is connected were to fail to create suction in the water supply pipe, then the valve element 54 will move inwards from the position shown in Fig. 3, allowing air to pass through the passage and enter the water supply lines to prevent contamination of the supply water. When the device is in the normal operating position as shown in Fig. 1, tap water will flow through passages 14 and 16 to nozzle 6 to provide a primary liquid flow only. No liquid flows through the Venturi passage and therefore there is no suction tending to force secondary liquid into pipe 43. When a liquid agent is to be injected into the water, the button 48 is pulled outwards so that the valve member 56 closes the seat 18 by opening the seat 24. The valve element will then be held in its new position against the slight force of the spring 50 due to the water pressure acting on its face as long as the tap is not closed or the button 48 is not manually pushed inwards. In this position the water passes from passage 14 through stopper 26 and slot 23 into passages 22 and 36 and down through Venturi passage 34 creating suction in pipe 43 so that a certain amount of agent is injected into the water at the location of chamber 42. The presence of chamber 42 at the agent injection point helps to reduce cavitation effects. The adjustment of the flow rate of the water passing through the Venturi and thus of the suction generated in the pipe 43 is carried out by means of the rotating cap 26. In the position shown in Fig. 1, the hole 30 is fully open to the bypass passage 32 so that a relatively large volume of water flows through the bypass passage and not through the Venturi. As explained, the volume of Skin flowing through the bypass rather than through the Venturi can be gradually reduced by rotating the rotary stopper 26 and can be stopped completely. When applying to a tap normally supplying 5 to 10 L/min, the bypass plug would be turned from the position shown in Fig. 1 to close the bypass if a minimum concentration of 30 g/l of liquid agent is desired. When applying to a tap normally delivering 10 to 15 liters per minute, the cap will be turned so that the bypass is partially open and the same concentration is maintained. However, if a lower concentration and/or secondary liquids of lower viscosity were required, the opening of the bypass would be increased. Under these conditions the operating range of the device can substantially exceed 15 l/min with the majority of the water flowing through the bypass passage 32. Normally the device would be set for a particular installation and from that moment will inject a substantially constant proportion of liquid agent into the water regardless of variations in water flow rate due to partial closure of the tap or variations in supply water pressure. The described mixing device can, in general, be used for many purposes and for a wide variety of fluid flow rates.
Accordingly, the first dosing mandrel 46 with a biasing spring 50 is reciprocally slidable in its axial direction within a guiding slide bearing (about 46) with respect to the first main body 2 over a first release stroke by pulling a pull knob 48 to control the position of the dosing valve member between multiple positions.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the rotational dosing device of KOMAR with the reciprocally slidable dosing device actuated via a pull knob as taught by CH 400592 to enable the dosing pin 23 in KOMAR to be actuated via the pull knob to any desired location within the agent passage to thereby position the dosing pin within the agent passage to form a ring shaped channel around the pin (within 7) or to enable the pin to be retracted out of the agent passage to a permit a higher flow rate for greater addition of the agent into the agent passage and/or to permit flushing of the agent passage via the larger cross-sectional area of the agent passage created upon retraction of the dosing pin out of the agent passage.
Claims 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 1632453 in view of CH 400592.
DE 1632453 discloses a mixing installation for mixing a first agent to a liquid, wherein the mixing installation comprises a liquid supply conduit a, a mixture discharge conduit g, a dosing assembly l between the liquid supply conduit and the mixture discharge conduit, a first agent container upstream of 2, and a first agent supply conduit h between the first agent container and the dosing assembly, wherein the dosing assembly comprises a venturi arrangement c, d between the liquid supply conduit and the mixture discharge conduit, and a first dosing device between the first agent supply conduit and the venturi arrangement, wherein the first dosing device comprises a first main body l with a first agent passage v that is in fluid communication with the first agent supply conduit and the venturi arrangement, and a first dosing mandrel l having a first dosing pin k that extends in the first agent passage; the first dosing pin k extends inside the first agent passage to define a first ring shaped dosing channel around the first dosing pin with a constant first radial flow height around the circumference of the first dosing pin per the Figure; wherein the first ring shaped dosing channel within has a constant first radial height over the length of the first ring shaped dosing channel in the flow direction of the first agent passage per the Figure; wherein the first radial flow height is the smallest flow width as from the first agent container to the mixture discharge conduit - per the Figure.
DE 1632453 does not disclose the mandrel being reciprocally slidable via a pulling action. CH 400592 discloses a mixing installation as described above wherein the first dosing mandrel 46 with a biasing spring 50 is reciprocally slidable in its axial direction within a guiding slide bearing (about 46) with respect to the first main body 2 over a first release stroke by pulling a pull knob 48 to control the position of the dosing valve member between multiple positions.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the rotational dosing device of DE ‘453 with the reciprocally slidable dosing device actuated via a pull knob as taught by CH 400592 to enable the dosing pin k in DE ‘453 to be actuated via the pull knob to any desired location within the agent passage to thereby position the dosing pin within the agent passage to form a ring shaped channel around the pin or to enable the pin to be retracted out of the agent passage to a permit a higher flow rate for greater addition of the agent into the agent passage and/or to permit flushing of the agent passage via the larger cross-sectional area of the agent passage created upon retraction of the dosing pin out of the agent passage.
Claims 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAKATA et al. (US 7416326 B2) in view of CH 400592.
SAKATA et al. discloses a mixing installation for mixing a first and second agents to a liquid, wherein the mixing installation comprises a liquid supply conduit 46, a mixture discharge conduit 51, dosing assemblies 44A, 44B between the liquid supply conduit and the mixture discharge conduit, agent containers 2, 3, and agent supply conduits (Figure 1) between the agent containers and the dosing assemblies, wherein the dosing assembly comprises a venturi arrangement (proximate 41, 42, 49) between the liquid supply conduit and the mixture discharge conduit, and dosing devices between the agent supply conduits and the venturi arrangement including main bodies 44A, 44B with agent passages 445 and rotatable dosing mandrels 444 having dosing pins 441 that extend in the agent passages; the dosing pins 441 extends inside the agent passages to define a first ring shaped dosing channel around the dosing pins with a constant first radial flow height around the circumference of the dosing pins per Figures 2-4; wherein the ring shaped dosing channels have a constant first radial height over the length of the ring shaped dosing channels in the flow direction of the agent passages per Figures 2-4; wherein the first radial flow height is the smallest flow width as from the first agent container to the mixture discharge conduit - per Figures 2-4; check valves 442A, 442B between the dosing devices and the venturi arrangement to prevent backflow conditions; and a pressurized water pump 11.
SAKATA et al. does not disclose the mandrels being reciprocally slidable via a pulling action. CH 400592 discloses a mixing installation as described above wherein the first dosing mandrel 46 with a biasing spring 50 is reciprocally slidable in its axial direction within a guiding slide bearing (about 46) with respect to the first main body 2 over a first release stroke by pulling a pull knob 48 to control the position of the dosing valve member between multiple positions.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted each of the two rotatable agent dosing devices of SAKATA et al. with a reciprocally slidable dosing device actuated via a pull knob as taught by CH 400592 to enable the dosing pins in SAKATA et al. to be actuated via the respective pull knob to any desired location within the agent passages to thereby position the dosing pins within the agent passages to form a ring shaped channel around the pin or to enable the pin to be retracted out of the agent passages to a permit a higher flow rate for greater addition of the agent into the agent passages and/or to permit flushing of the agent passages via the larger cross-sectional area of the agent passages created upon retraction of the dosing pin out of the agent passages.
Claims 32 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOMAR or DE 1632453 or SAKATA et al. in view of OLIVER (US 2002/0166593).
KOMAR, DE 1632453 or SAKATA et al. do not disclose the filter. OLIVER discloses a venturi mixing arrangement including two lateral inlets 2 for mains water; the inlets 2 lead to a removable strainer or filter 3, e.g. of metal mesh or plastics material mesh, held within a supply conduit 4 which fits into the top of and upstream of the venturi body 1.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided KOMAR, DE 1632453 or SAKATA et al. with a filter within the supply conduit(s) thereof as disclosed by OLIVER for the purpose of straining debris or contaminants from the substance(s) flowing through the supply conduit(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33 and 42 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. The cited prior art discloses mixing installations with dosing devices and/or venturi arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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. New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution”.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached at 571-272-1700. 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.
/CHARLES COOLEY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1774
DATED: 11 AUG 2026
Prosecution Insights