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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 11 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11 March 2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“pressure equalization device” in Claim 6 (generic placeholder: “device,” functional language: “pressure equalization”), associated with ventilation opening, lines, valve (Specification, pp. 18-19).
“return device for returning fluid” in Claims 9-10 (generic placeholder: “device,” functional language: “for returning fluid”), associated with a tank or pump (Specification, p. 21).
“energy recovery device” in Claims 9-10 (generic placeholder: “device,” functional language: “energy recovery”), associated with a turbine (Specification, p. 21).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-13 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 1 recites the limitation “the at least one treatment chamber” in lines 7 and 8 (two separate branches, each including the limitation). The limitation is indefinite, because it has insufficient antecedent basis, and raises a question about a possible ambiguity in the limitation “a plurality of treatment stations each including a treatment container which surrounds a treatment chamber.” If the limitation “at least one treatment chamber” is accepted, then one treatment chamber is permitted, so that it is not clear whether the limitation “a plurality of treatment stations each including a treatment container which surrounds a treatment chamber” should be read as including a treatment container all of which surround possibly a single treatment chamber or whether the limitation “the at least one treatment chamber” is meant to refer to at least one of a plurality of treatment chambers or to a plurality of treatment chambers of the plurality of treatment stations each including a treatment container, each of which surrounds its own treatment chamber. Examiner considers the limitation to include any of the above possible meanings.
Claim 3 recites the combination of limitations, “wherein a plurality of treatment stations are each arranged on one or more of the treatment levels, and wherein the treatment chambers of the treatment stations arranged together on one of the treatment levels are connected by the fluid guide to one another and/or to a treatment chamber or a plurality of treatment chambers of one or more of the treatment stations which are arranged on one or more other treatment levels.” The limitation is indefinite as ambiguous, because it is not clear whether the configuration includes a single treatment station arranged one more than one treatment level or whether it requires multiple stations on a single level. The combination of limitations is interpreted to require a plurality of treatment stations, which are arranged to have at least one treatment station on each of at least some of a plurality of treatment levels, wherein if two or more treatment stations are arranged together on the same treatment level, they are connected either to each other or to at least one treatment chamber on a different treatment level.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “in particular to achieve” A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation which is the remainder of the claim, and the claim also recites “in particular . . . levels” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Examiner considers the claim not to require the narrower statement.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “optionally a counter tank.” The limitation is indefinite as ambiguous, because it is not clear whether it is reciting an example of a return device or a fluid tank or whether it is reciting an optional tank in addition to a return device or a fluid tank. Examiner considers the limitation to include any of the above possible meanings.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “optionally an intermediate tank.” The limitation is indefinite as ambiguous, because it is not clear whether it is reciting an example of a return device or a fluid tank or whether it is reciting an optional tank in addition to a return device or a fluid tank. Examiner considers the limitation to include any of the above possible meanings.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “for example a reservoir tank.” A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation which is the remainder of the claim, and the claim also recites “for example . . . tank” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Examiner considers the claim not to require the narrower statement.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “approximately continuously.” The limitation is indefinite, because the term “approximately” is a relative term and neither the claim nor the specification provides adequate definition or guidance to determine how close or far away from “continuously” the limitation must or can be to be considered approximately continuous. Examiner considers the limitation not to require continuous return.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “approximately constant.” The limitation is indefinite, because the term “approximately” is a relative term and neither the claim nor the specification provides adequate definition or guidance to determine how close or far away from “constant” the limitation must or can be to be considered approximately continuous. Examiner considers the limitation not to require constant flow.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “approximately one tenth.” The limitation is indefinite, because the term “approximately” is a relative term and neither the claim nor the specification provides adequate definition or guidance to determine how close or far away from “one tenth” the limitation must or can be to be considered approximately continuous. Examiner considers the limitation not to require one tenth.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “in particular . . . one fiftieth.” A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation which is the remainder of the claim, and the claim also recites “in particular . at most . . . one fiftieth” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Examiner considers the claim not to require the narrower statement.
Claims 2-13 are rejected as depending from other rejected claims
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, 6, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rives (US 2018/0195191).
Regarding Claim 1, Rives (US’191) teaches a treatment system for treating workpieces, optionally for cleaning and/or coating vehicle bodies, the treatment system comprising: a) a plurality of treatment stations each including a treatment container (102a,102b) which surrounds a treatment chamber (the “treatment chamber,” as described in Applicant’s specification, is the cavity (the interior) of the container, see description of “treatment chamber 108” and Fig. 2) capable of receiving the workpieces (Abstract; Figs. 1-2; [0057]); b) one or more fluid tanks 18-21 for receiving a fluid (Figs. 1-2; [0056]; and c) a fluid guide (“supply circuit” pipes) (Figs. 1-2; [0059-0060]), by which the fluid i) can be guided from the one or more fluid tanks into the at least one treatment chamber to flood at least one of the treatment chambers and/or ii) from the at least one treatment chamber into the one or more fluid tanks to empty the at least one treatment chamber.
Alternatively, US’191 teaches a treatment system for treating workpieces, optionally for cleaning and/or coating vehicle bodies, the treatment system comprising: a) a plurality of treatment stations each including a treatment container (18,19,20,21) which surrounds a treatment chamber (the “treatment chamber,” as described in Applicant’s specification, is the cavity (the interior) of the container, see description of “treatment chamber 108” and Fig. 2) capable of receiving the workpieces (Abstract; Figs. 1-2; [0056,0059));b) one or more fluid tanks 102a,b for receiving a fluid [0057]; and c) a fluid guide (“supply circuit” pipes) (Figs. 1-2; [0059-0060], by which the fluid i) can be guided from the one or more fluid tanks into the at least one treatment chamber to flood at least one of the treatment chambers and/or ii) from the at least one treatment chamber into the one or more fluid tanks to empty the at least one treatment chamber.
Regarding Claim 6, US’191 teaches a pressure equalization device (i.e. supply lines, valves) by which a plurality of fluid tanks (i.e. at least two) are fluidically connected to one another (Fig. 1; Claim 1; Abstract; [0016]).
Regarding Claim 12, US’191 teaches that at least one or more fluid tanks can be sealed by seals 8 (Fig. 1; [0027-0029, 0058]) and thus capable of performing the recited intended use. The recited intended use is not given patentable weight for the claimed apparatus, capable of performing the recited intended use.
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.
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.
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) 2-5,7,9, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rives (US 2018/0195191).
Regarding Claims 2-3, US’191 teaches that the treatment chambers of the treatment stations are coupled to one another by the fluid guide in such a way that the fluid can be guided from one treatment chamber into the next. US’191 fails to teach expressly that the plurality of the treatment stations are arranged at height levels different from each other. US’191 teaches pumps 33 for conveying fluid to treatment products (Fig. 1; [0050]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of US’191 by providing the treatment stations at different height levels (including vertically) as a prima facie obvious change in configuration (including slight changes in height) with a reasonable expectation of success in conveying fluid through the system with pumps. Additionally, it would have been obvious to modify the apparatus to provide the treatment stations at different height levels (including vertically) to permit gravity to aid in flow fluid through the system so that pumps 33 do not have to work as hard and also to save space.
Regarding Claim 4, US’191 teaches more than two treatment stations connected to one another by the fluid guide (pipes) and a control device, capable of partially filling one of the treatment chambers by the fluid guide connecting the treatment chambers to each other so that fluid can be guided from one treatment chamber to another one (Abstract; Fig. 1; [0059-0060]). The arrows in Fig. 1 show that fluid can flow either from a container to a bath enclosure or from the bath enclosure to a container. Therefore, valves and pumps can be controlled to move fluid from one container to another container (102,102b) via 18,19,20, or 21 (or alternatively among containers 18-21 through bath enclosure(s) 102a, b) the fluid guide (system of supply and discharge pipes).
Regarding Claim 5, US’191 teaches at least four containers (18-21). At least one of them can be considered a reservoir or intermediate storage tank from which fluid can selectively be supplied to one of the other three containers. Because it would have been obvious to arrange the tanks vertically to save space (see rejection of Claim 2-3 above), it would have been obvious to have a highest container, which can be considered a reservoir or intermediate storage tank, which is capable of being used as a reservoir or intermediate storage tank in an intended use, not given patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 7, US’191 teaches fluid guide (supply circuit pipes 9a, 9b, for example, [0060]) and also pipes 14-17 which branch off the supply circuit pipes (Fig. 1; [0059]). Even if US’191 does not strictly teach a vertical configuration of tanks, Figure 1 would have suggested a vertical configuration as a possibility. Figure 1 suggests a configuration wherein a main set of supply/discharge pipes (fluid guid) run vertically past some tanks before they feed another tank (e.g. pipe 16). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of US’191 with a fluid guide including one or more bypass lines by which fluid can be guided downwards in a vertical direction past one or more fluid tanks and/ or refilled into one or more fluid tanks lower in the vertical direction, because US’191 suggests a set of supply/discharge pipes which branch at lower levels than supply/ discharge pipes (e.g. 9a) to feed containers at lower levels.
Regarding Claim 9, US’191 teaches a return device (pump 33) capable of returning fluid from a fluid tank 18, which Figure 1 would have suggested is lowermost in a vertical configuration into a fluid tank which is higher or uppermost in the vertical direction, whether by returning the liquid from 18 to a main line (9a,9b), or through 9c with filter 9c before reinjection back into the system, or via the bath enclosure (Fig. 1; [0059-060]).
Regarding Claim 10, US’191 teaches a pump capable of returning liquid so that the fluid is returned in such a way that fluid is capable of being returned (“approximately continuous” read “not necessarily continuous”). The specific process limitations are an intended use recitation, not given patentable weight for the claimed apparatus, which is capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding Claim 13, US’191 teaches a pump 33 associated with tank 12, which Fig. 1 of US’191 would have suggested is lowermost, but fails to teach any of processing circuit for processing a fluid a lowermost fluid tank located on the lowermost tank, a heat exchanger, or a cleaning device. A heat exchanger and cleaning device (e.g. scraper, brush) are conventional components which would have been obvious modifications of the tank at the time of invention, and it would have been obvious to include fluid processing circuitry of the tank being controlled on the tank being controlled (in this case what Fig. 1 suggests is lowermost). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify a tank, including what US’191 suggests is lowermost, with conventional accessories for heat exchange (to control the process temperature) and cleaning as well as control circuitry for controlling flow of fluids into and out of that tank.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 8, US’191 fails to teach more than one treatment station (each including its own treatment container surrounding a treatment chamber) or an intermediate storage tank between at least two treatment stations.
Regarding Claim 11, US’191 fails to teach a turbine.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights