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
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “with to the sensor” should read –with the sensor--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted process/method claims 18-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The originally-presented product/system claims and the newly-submitted process/method claims are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the newly-submitted process/method claims can be practiced with a product that does not require details of the base and housing, and the originally-presented product/system claims can be used in a process that does not require monitoring during transport of the hose by the operator.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 18-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification is not enabling for “a valve operable to open or close the fluid pathway defined in the hose”. The specification at para. 0022 states that the base defines a bore through which the hose extends. However, there appears to be no disclosure of how the valve works in combination with such a hose.
To control flow through a hose, the prior art valves define a distinct fluid pathway therethrough, which valve is connected to a hose (rather a hose that passes through a valve). Given the quantity of necessary experimentation, the lack of guidance or direction presented by Applicant, the absence of working examples, the nature of the invention and state/skill of the prior art and claim breadth, one of skill would be unable to make and use the invention as required of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 as understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by O’Brien (US 2018/0205102), which discloses:
1.A valve system, comprising:
a hose (the “hose” of para. 0077) configured to be held and controlled by an operator (it is so capable) and defining a fluid pathway terminating in a fluid outlet (the “nozzle” of para. 0077);
a valve (125, 126) operable to open or close the fluid pathway defined in the hose to control flow through the fluid outlet (as understood, the valve is functionally connected to the hose and therefore opens and closes the fluid pathway defined in the hose; para. 0073, 0074);
a sensor (202) operable to sense an operator safety condition; and
a controller (208, 210) in communication with to the sensor and operable to determine occurrence of the operator safety condition,
wherein the controller is programmed to direct the valve to close the fluid pathway upon determining occurrence of the operator safety condition (para. 0080, 0084).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 9-11, 13, 14 and 17 as understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reyman (US 5,960,807) in view of Palmer (US 4,624,390).
Regarding claim 1, Reyman discloses a valve system, comprising:
a valve (20) operable to open or close a fluid pathway
a sensor (26) operable to sense an operator safety condition (e.g., an earthquake); and
a controller (22) in communication with to the sensor and operable to determine occurrence of the operator safety condition,
wherein the controller is programmed to direct the valve to close the fluid pathway upon determining occurrence of the operator safety condition (when the “two conditions” are met; see step 120 of FIG 4).
Reyman does not disclose a hose configured to be held and controlled by an operator and defining part of the fluid pathway terminating in a fluid outlet. Palmer teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to connect, to a similar gas line, a hose (40) configured to be held and controlled by an operator and defining part of a fluid pathway terminating in a fluid outlet. To allow natural gas to be dispensed from Reyman’s gas line (16), it would have been obvious to connect thereto (e.g., at Reyman’s “consumer location 18”), a hose as claimed by Applicant and as taught by Palmer. (As understood, the valve would be functionally connected to the hose and would therefore open and close the fluid pathway defined in the hose.)
Regarding claim 2, Reyman discloses wherein the sensor is at least one of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer (col. 2 lines 40-50), and the valve system further comprises a memory (30) storing instructions that, when executed by the controller, compare data captured by the sensor to a threshold value and cause the valve to close the fluid pathway if the data captured by the sensor exceeds the threshold value (e.g., col. 6 lines 2-23).
Regarding claim 7, Reyman discloses the valve system of claim 1, wherein the valve is a normally closed valve (e.g., col. 3 lines 14-17).
Regarding claim 9, Reyman discloses a housing within which the sensor and the controller are disposed (e.g., 40a in FIG 1, 40b in FIG 5; also see claim 12 which states that the flow control unit 20 couples the housing to the pipeline 12, where FIG 5 makes clear that member 20 couples pipeline 12 to the housing 40b).
Regarding claim 10, Reyman discloses a base (the top of 40a, 40b; alternatively 20) mountable (at least indirectly) to an exterior surface of the hose (just as it is mounted to the pipe 12).
Regarding claim 11, Reyman discloses a display (58) electronically connected to the controller and configured to display operational data about the valve (“58 may preferably display other control elements such as LED's or LCD's that indicate the status of the operation of system unit 40 (b)”).
Regarding claim 13, see the analyses of claims 1, 9 and 10 above.
Regarding claims 14 and 17, wherein the operator safety condition is selected from the group consisting of a fall condition, an unsafe temperature condition, a time interval condition, and any combination thereof (the vibration sensor could sense a fall condition, as it includes an accelerometer just as in Applicant’s invention, and the vibrations from the fall would could cause the valve to close).
Claim(s) 8 as understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reyman in view of Palmer and further in view of Castor (US 2017/0018928).
Reyman and Palmer render obvious the invention as claimed with exception to the power supplies and relays. Castor teaches that it was known to use separate power supplies for a controller and valve, where the controller opens a relay to power the valve. To provide a larger actuation power to the valve than is required of the controller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use two power supplies and a relay, as claimed.
Claim(s) 12 as understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reyman in view of Palmer, and further in view of Di Martini (US 2008/0177678).
Regarding claim 12, Reyman and Palmer render obvious the claimed invention with exception to the GPS transceiver. However DiMartini teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to use GPS transceivers within similar metering hardware to provide the utility with location information of the specific meter (e.g., para. 0113). It would have been obvious to use a GPS transceiver as claimed for the purpose of providing Reyman’s utility with location information..
Claim(s) 15 and 16 as understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reyman in view of Palmer, and further in view of Toth (US 2020/0342985).
Reyman discloses the valve actuator to be located in the housing with the controller, however Toth teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to form a controller separate from an actuator and connected thereto by a bridge containing electrical wiring within a flexible coupling (e.g., para. 0304). To locate the valve actuator away from the controller housing, for example where geometric environmental constraints require as much, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a bridge as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The rejection over Olaya is withdrawn in view of the amendments. Amended claim 1 as understood reads on O’Brien, and Palmer is provided to show that the amended claim language would have been an obvious modification of Reyman. Castor, Di Martini and Toth are provided as references in response to Applicant’s traverse of official notice.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WILLIAM M MCCALISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7am to 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CRAIG SCHNEIDER, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, 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.
/WILLIAM M MCCALISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
3/19/26