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 .
Summary
Claims 1-28 are pending. Claims 1-28 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 9-13, 18-20, 23-26 and 28 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1: Change “con-figured” to --configured--.
Regarding claim 3: Delete “designed to be.”
Regarding claim 7: Change “comprising” to --further comprises--.
Regarding claim 9: Insert “wherein” after “claim 8.”
Regarding claim 9: Change “comprising” to --comprises--.
Regarding claim 10: Change “sensor” to --sensors--.
Regarding claim 11: Change “comprising” to --comprises--.
Regarding claim 11: Change “the second end” to --a second end--.
Regarding claim 12: Change “comprising” to --comprises--.
Regarding claim 12: Change “the second end” to --a second end--.
Regarding claim 13: Insert “wherein” after “claim 12.”
Regarding claim 13: Change “comprising” to --further comprises--.
Regarding claim 18: Change “pre-determined” to --predetermined-- (2x).
Regarding claim 18: Change “closing of the bypass valve” to --closing the bypass valve--.
Regarding claim 19: Change “pre-determined” to --predetermined--.
Regarding claim 20: Change “the second end” to --a second end--.
Regarding claim 23: Change “an absolute pressure sensor” to --the absolute pressure sensor--.
Regarding claim 23: Change “pre-determined” to --predetermined--.
Regarding claim 24: Change “pre-determined” to --predetermined--.
Regarding claim 25: Change “the second end” to --a second end--.
Regarding claim 26: Change “the second end” to --a second end--.
Regarding claim 28: In step i, delete “of.”
Regarding claim 28: In step ii, delete “of.”
Regarding claim 28: In step iii, change “opening of” to --opening--.
Regarding claim 28: In step iv, change “an absolute pressure sensor” to --the absolute pressure sensor--.
Regarding claim 28: In step vi, change “recording of” to --recording--.
Regarding claim 28: Change “absolute pressure sensor” to --the absolute pressure sensor--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1-28 is/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.
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 is missing essential structure and is therefore indefinite. The device as recited in claim 1 sounds like it has the container as the endpoint of the fluid circuit. This is not correct. The whole purpose of the invention is to precisely dispense fluid FROM the container. Therefore an outlet of the container needs to included within the scope of claim 1.
Regarding claim 1: It is unclear what points the “at least one differential pressure sensor” connects to in the fluid circuit. Claim 1 recites “over the first restriction and the output.” This is further indefinite because there could be more than one differential pressure sensor and it is not clear if one is measuring the pressure difference over the first restriction and one is measuring the pressure difference over the outlet. It appears from the figures that the differential pressure sensor connects into the fluid circuit immediately upstream of the first restriction and immediately downstream of the first restriction.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 9: Claim 1 recites “at least one first differential pressure sensor” and then claims 7 and 9 recite “further comprising a second differential pressure sensor.” This language does not agree. The Examiner recommends using “at least one differential pressure sensor” in claim 1 or even “a differential pressure sensor” since this does not preclude a plurality of differential pressure sensors. Then it would be definite in claim 9 to recite “a second differential pressure sensor.” “At least one first differential pressure sensor” sounds like there could be multiple first differential pressure sensors (and perhaps later multiple second differential pressure sensors).
Regarding claim 11: The phrase “preferably the second end is fluidically coupled to a vent silencer” is indefinite because it is unclear if this limitation is within the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 12: It is unclear where the vent valve couples to the container (inlet or outlet).
Regarding claim 13: It is unclear what the language “among others” means. Does this mean that the flow channel must bypass an outlet of the output and at least two other fluid components?
Regarding claims 14, 18, 19, 23, and 24: These claims use the term "and/or." This term is indefinite and the Examiner recommends using "or" which avoids ambiguity and has the same patentable scope as that sought to be covered by "and/or." The Applicant may also consider using phrasing such as "at least one of."
Regarding claim 15: The pressure control unit (2 in FIG. 2) is the entire apparatus and has various fluid components (restrictions, valves, etc.) therefore it is unclear where the absolute pressure is being measured.
Regarding claim 16: The phrase “preferably the outlet port” is indefinite because it is unclear if this limitation is supposed to be within the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 18: The phrase “in particular a pre-determined amount of liquid fluid being dispensed and/or a pre-determined dispensing time being reached” is indefinite. The “and” part of “and/or” in this case could not be true because both of those conditions could not be predetermined to occur at the same time. The phrase is further indefinite because the use of “in particular” makes it unclear if this limitation is supposed to be within the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 21: The phrase “preferably, via an additional flow channel and with the second end to the surrounding atmosphere” is indefinite because it is unclear if this limitation is supposed to be within the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 23: The structures “system and cartridge” are indefinite because they are not used anywhere else in the claims and it is unclear what they refer to.
Regarding claim 26: It is unclear where on the container (inlet or outlet) the vent is fluidically connected.
Regarding claim 26: The phrase “preferably, via an additional flow channel and with the second end to a surrounding atmosphere” is indefinite because it is unclear if this limitation is meant to be within the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 28: “Preferably the bypass valve” and “if applicable, the bypass valve” are indefinite because it is unclear if these limitations are supposed to be within the scope of the claim.
Regarding claims 2-28: These claims are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independent claim 1 appears to contain allowable subject matter. The Examiner declines to make a more definitive statement on allowable subject matter until the substantial 112 issues are resolved. However, none of the prior art of record appears to have the configuration of claim 1 as best illustrated in FIG. 4 of the present application.
The closest prior art of record is the gas-based dispenser of GOLDOWSKY which uses a differential pressure senor around a restriction, but does not teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Also pertinent is SCHMID et al. (US 20180036760), which teaches a gas-based dispenser and has a restriction and valves (best seen in FIG. 2). US 20160193615, US 20200393282, and EP 1150105 also teach gas-based dispensers that have some of the structure recited in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights