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 Objections
Claims 1, 4-5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in lines 15-16 the phrase “a pressure sensing line to sense a pressure in at least one input of the at least one motor or in the at least one intermediate volume” should be changed to “a pressure sensing line to sense a pressure in at least one input of at least one motor of the set of motors or in at least one intermediate volume of the first intermediate volume and the second intermediate volume”.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “the pressure provided in the tank line” should be changed to “the pressure in the tank line”.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “each intermediate volume” should be changed to “each of the first intermediate volume and the second intermediate volume”.
Regarding claim 5, in line 3 the phrase “in the one of the at least one input” should be changed to “in one of the at least one input”.
Regarding claim 6, in lines 15-16 the phrase “a pressure sensing line to sense a pressure in at least one input of the at least one motor or in the at least one intermediate volume” should be changed to “a pressure sensing line to sense a pressure in at least one input of at least one motor of the set of motors or in at least one intermediate volume of the first intermediate volume and the second intermediate volume”.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “the pressure provided in the tank line” should be changed to “the pressure in the tank line”.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “each intermediate volume” should be changed to “each of the first intermediate volume and the second intermediate volume”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 1 recites the limitation "the drop" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the increase" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pressure" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the replacement flow" in line 21-22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-5 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, in line 6 the phrase “the respective check valve” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the respective check valve” is the same as or different from “a first check valve” that recited in line 3 of the same claim 2; and it is unclear if “the respective check valve” is the same as or different from “a second check valve” that recited in line 4 of the same claim 2.
Regarding claim 2, in line 8 the phrase “the respective intermediate volume” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the respective intermediate volume” is the same as or different from “the first intermediate volume” that recited in line 4 of the same claim 2; and it is unclear if “the respective check valve” is the same as or different from “the first intermediate volume” that recited in line 5 of the same claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the back pressure valve" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " the valve arrangement" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim the phrase "the valve arrangement" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if "the valve arrangement" is the same as or different from “a pressure control valve” that recited in claim 1 which claim 5 depends from.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the pressure" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7-10 are rejected because they depend from claim 6.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the back pressure valve" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, in lines 4-5 the phrase “the respective check valve” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the respective check valve” is the same as or different from “a first check valve” that recited in line 2 of the same claim 7; and it is unclear if “the respective check valve” is the same as or different from “a second check valve” that recited in line 4 of the same claim 7.
Regarding claim 7, in line 7 the phrase “the respective intermediate volume” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the respective intermediate volume” is the same as or different from “the first intermediate volume” that recited in lines 2-3 of the same claim 7; and it is unclear if “the respective check valve” is the same as or different from “the first intermediate volume” that recited in line 4 of the same claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closet prior art is Alfthan (EP3812112A1), however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the claim as recited.
Claims 2-5 are depended from claim 1.
Claims 7-10 are depended from claim 6.
Claims 1 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725