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 § 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Despres et al. US 2018/0180225.
Regarding claim 1, Despres discloses a device (see Figs. 1-12) comprising:
a single unitary body 226, which includes:
a housing 226, wherein the housing includes:
an inlet (INLET), and
an outlet (OUTLET); and
a pressure reducing mechanism (see Figs. 4-5, pressure sensing assembly), which is contained within the housing, and is disposed between the inlet and the outlet,
wherein the pressure reducing mechanism includes a diaphragm portion (see Figs. 4-5, multiple diaphragms) connected to a valve (see Figs. 4-5, poppet), wherein the pressure reducing mechanism is configured to receive a fluid having a first pressure which enters via the inlet, direct a flow of the fluid towards the outlet at a second pressure (see Figs. 4, 5 and 11, [0043], [0078], [0083], [0094]).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the pressure reducing mechanism further comprises a stem,
wherein the valve includes a poppet valve (POPPET, 404),
wherein a first end of the stem is connected to one side of the diaphragm portion, a second end of the stem is connected to the poppet valve (see Fig. 12),
wherein the pressure reducing mechanism operates such that the poppet valve is in an open state when the diaphragm portion flexes towards the inlet, and the poppet valve is in a closed state when the diaphragm portion is at rest or flexes towards the outlet (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the housing and the pressure reducing mechanism does not have any welds or welded components ([0053] and [0055] disclose multiple different way of joining and that welds are only one of many methods and that instead of welding that brazing, soldering, etc. may be used for joining).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the single unitary body further comprises:
a second pressure reducing mechanism, which is contained within the housing, and is disposed between the pressure reducing mechanism and the outlet, and
wherein the pressure reducing mechanism is configured to receive the fluid from the pressure reducing mechanism having the second pressure, and then direct the flow of the fluid towards the outlet at a third pressure (See Figs. 1, 5 and 10-11).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the first pressure is higher than subatmospheric pressure ([0040]-[0041], [0081]-[0082], “In the aforementioned fluid supply package, the pressure-regulated vessel may comprise a series arrangement of pressure regulators in the interior volume of the vessel, e.g., two or more regulators in series. The set point of the pressure regulators may have any suitable value”, thus the first pressure is higher than subatmospheric pressure).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the second pressure is subatmospheric pressure ([0040]-[0041], [0081]-[0082], “In the aforementioned fluid supply package, the pressure-regulated vessel may comprise a series arrangement of pressure regulators in the interior volume of the vessel, e.g., two or more regulators in series. The set point of the pressure regulators may have any suitable value”, thus the second pressure is subatmospheric pressure).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the second pressure is lower than the first pressure ([0040]-[0041], [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 10, Despres discloses a fluid supply system comprising:
a container body 212, which defines an internal cavity for storing a fluid at a first pressure; and
a pressure regulator device 242, 260, which is disposed in the internal cavity, and is a single unitary body,
wherein the single unitary body includes:
a housing, which includes:
an inlet (INLET), and
an outlet (OUTLET); and
a pressure reducing mechanism, which is contained within the housing, and is disposed between the inlet and the outlet,
wherein the pressure reducing mechanism includes a diaphragm portion connected to a valve, and wherein the pressure reducing mechanism is configured to receive the fluid having the first pressure which enters via the inlet, direct a flow of the fluid to the outlet at a second pressure a pressure reducing mechanism (see Figs. 4-5, pressure sensing assembly), which is contained within the housing, and is disposed between the inlet and the outlet,
wherein the pressure reducing mechanism includes a diaphragm portion (see Figs. 4-5, multiple diaphragms) connected to a valve (see Figs. 4-5, poppet), wherein the pressure reducing mechanism is configured to receive a fluid having a first pressure which enters via the inlet, direct a flow of the fluid towards the outlet at a second pressure (see Figs. 4, 5 and 11, [0043], [0078], [0083], [0094]),
wherein the second pressure is lower than the first pressure ([0040]-[0041], [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the pressure reducing mechanism further comprises a stem,
wherein the valve includes a poppet valve (POPPET, 404),
wherein a first end of the stem is connected to one side of the diaphragm portion, a second end of the stem is connected to the poppet valve (see Fig. 12),
wherein the pressure reducing mechanism operates such that the poppet valve is in an open state when the diaphragm portion flexes towards the inlet, and the poppet valve is in a closed state when the diaphragm portion is at rest or flexes towards the outlet (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 12, a second pressure regulator device,
wherein an inlet of the second pressure regulator device is connected to the outlet of the pressure regulator device (see paragraphs [0054], [0062] and figure 1, the upper regulator (242) is arranged in series relationship with the lower regulator (260), wherein the fluid from dispensing vessel (212) is flowed through the lower regulator (260) and then though the upper regulator (242) to a valve head to a discharge port (22)).
Regarding claim 13,
wherein the second pressure regulator device is another single unitary body,
wherein the another single unitary body includes: a second housing, including: a second inlet, and a second outlet; and a second pressure reducing mechanism, which is contained within the second housing, and is disposed between the second inlet and the second outlet,
wherein the second pressure reducing mechanism is configured to receive the fluid having the second pressure which enters via the second inlet, direct a flow of the fluid to the second outlet at a third pressure,
wherein the third pressure is lower than the second pressure (see paragraphs [0054], [0062], [0078], [0083] and figures 1, 4: the upper regulator (242) is arranged in series relationship with the lower regulator (260), wherein the upper regulator (242) comprises: a central housing having an inlet passage and an outlet passage; and a pressure sensing assembly contained within the central housing, and disposed between the inlet passage and the outlet passage, wherein a high-pressure fluid is contained in a safe and effective manner in the fluid storage and dispensing vessel, and pressure of such fluid in dispensing is reduced by a lower regulator (260) to an intermediate pressure, and by an upper regulator (242) from such intermediate pressure to the lower discharge pressure determined by the set point of the upper regulator (242)).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the second pressure reducing mechanism comprises:
a second diaphragm portion (see Figs. 1, 5, and 10-11);
a second stem (see Figs. 1, 5, and 10-11); and
a second poppet valve (see Figs. 1, 5, and 10-11),
wherein a first end of the second stem is connected to one side of the second diaphragm portion, a second end of the second stem is connected to the second poppet valve (see Fig. 12 and Figs. 1, 5, and 10-11),
wherein the second pressure reducing mechanism operates such that the second poppet valve is in an open state when the second diaphragm portion flexes towards the inlet, and the second poppet valve is in a closed state when the second diaphragm portion is at rest or flexes towards the outlet (see Fig. 12 and Figs. 1, 5, and 10-11).
Regarding claim 15, a filter device connected to the inlet of the pressure regulator device (see paragraph [0056] and figure 1: a filter (246) is connected to the lower regulator (260)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despres et al. US 2018/0180225 in view of Hasaka et al. US 6,910,602.
Regarding claims 4-5, Despres is silent as to the material of the single unitary body of whether it is made of a metal, specifically stainless steel. Hasaka discloses the valve body 12 made of stainless steel (col.6, lines 5-8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the single unitary body of Despres out of stainless steel as disclosed by Hasaka as a matter of simple substitution of materials and/or because stainless steel is well known to be inexpensive, strong and corrosive resistant.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despres et al. US 2018/0180225.
Regarding claims 7-9, Despres lacks specifically stating that the first pressure is higher than subatmospheric pressure, the second pressure is subatmospheric pressure, and the second pressure is lower than the first pressure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the first pressure is higher than subatmospheric pressure, the second pressure is subatmospheric pressure, and correspondingly the second pressure is lower than the first pressure as a matter of simple substitution of pressures and/or obvious to try these pressures with a reasonable expectation of success as Despres already states that any setpoint pressures may be used [0040] and the pressure regulators will work accordingly.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despres et al. US 2018/0180225 in view of Kotliar US 2016/0061381.
Regarding claims 16-17, Despres lacks the single unitary body is made by an additive manufacturing process. Kotilar discloses the single unitary body is made by an additive manufacturing process ([0007], [0024], [0040-0042], etc). The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the single unitary body of Despres by additive manufacturing process as disclosed by Kotilar as a matter of simple substitution of manufacturing processes and/or to reduce cost and to make manufacturing of the body easier.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has fixed the 112 rejection. Regarding applicant’s argument to the 102 rejection that “As used herein, the term "single unitary body" means a device which has been formed or constructed unitarily via an additive manufacturing process(es) (e.g., 3D printing) according to paragraph [0053] of Applicant's specification, "all of the structural portions shown in FIGs. 3A- 3C are formed together via, e.g., additive manufacturing process.”, the applicant is reminded that claims are examined using the broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a single unitary body” is that the body is a single unit (not two or more) which it is as it can be picked up as a single unitary body. Applicant appears to be reading limitations into the claim that are not there. Perhaps the applicant means to say that the single unitary body is “integrally formed in one piece”, but again that is not stated in the current claims 1 and 10. Also, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113). Applicant has added new claims 16-17 (which were not in the previous claims), which are product-by-process claims and the applicant is reminded of how a product is made has little patentable weight in apparatus claims. The 103 rejection arguments are just based off of the 102 rejections to claims 1 and 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zajac disclose additive manufacturing.
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 JOHN BASTIANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-4921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-4921 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/John Bastianelli/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
571-272-4921