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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on April 24, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claim 1 was amended. Claim 3 was cancelled previously. Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) concerning support for “open-close valve upstream of the orifice” in claim 6 having support in Fig. 9 is withdrawn based on paragraph 59 of the printed publication and Applicant’s arguments submitted on 8/22/25.
Specification
The previous objection to the specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter: “gas passing from the pressure control valve through the first flow line” is withdrawn based on Applicant’s arguments.
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.
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: “open-close mechanism” in claims 6 and 8-9 and “moving device” in claim 14..
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 Objections
The previous objection to claim 1 based on :
“the pressure control valve” in paragraph 5. This should be “pressure regulator”.
“fist” should be “first”
“flow of compressed gas” should be “a flow of compressed gas”
is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1-6,10-11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 1-2, 4, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20060043102 A1 to Keller et al (hereinafter Keller) .
Regarding claim 1, Ikushima teaches a liquid material discharge device comprising: a storage container (8) in which a liquid material is stored; a discharge port (13) through which the liquid material is discharged; a pressure regulator (11) that adjusts a pressure of a compressed gas supplied from a compressed gas source (1) ; a discharge valve (9) that establishes or cuts off communication between the pressure regulator (11) and the storage container (8);
a controller (10) that controls operation of the discharge valve;
a first flow line (6) connecting the pressure regulator (11) and the inlet port of the discharge valve (9); and a second flow line (7) connecting the outlet port of the discharge valve (9) and the storage container (8). (See Ikushima, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 4, and paragraphs 33-42.)
Ikushima does not teach the liquid discharge device further comprises a leak orifice which vents, to the outside, part of the compressed gas adjusted by the pressure regulator passing through the first flow line.
Keller teaches applicators for dispensing a viscous fluid. (See Keller, paragraph 2) .
Keller teaches teach the liquid discharge device further comprises a leak orifice (132) which vents, to the outside, part of the compressed gas passing through the first flow line (between regulator 130 and proportional 144). (See Keller, Fig. 1 and paragraphs 20 and 24-29.) Examiner is considering a relief valve to be equivalent to a leak valve.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the liquid discharge device further comprises a leak orifice which vents, to the outside, part of the compressed gas adjusted by the pressure regulator passing through the first flow line; because Keller teaches this would location of the relief valve reduces the occurrence of supply line burst due to over pressurizing and protects components downstream of the pressure regulator. (See Keller, Fig. 1 and paragraphs 20 and 24-29.)
Ikushima does not teach the leak valve or leak orifice is provided downstream of the pressure regulator with respect to flow of the compressed gas.
Keller teaches teach the liquid discharge device further comprises a leak orifice (132) which vents, to the outside, part of the compressed gas passing through the first flow line (between regulator 130 and proportional 144). (See Keller, Fig. 1 and paragraphs 20 and 24-29.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the leak valve or leak orifice is provided downstream of the pressure regulator with respect to flow of the compressed gas; because Keller teaches this would location of the relief valve reduces the occurrence of supply line burst due to over pressurizing and protects components downstream of the pressure regulator. (See Keller, Fig. 1 and paragraphs 20 and 24-29.)
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Ikushima teaches the discharge valve (9 ) changes over a first position at which the inlet (6) and the outlet (on 9 facing 7) are communicated with each other such that the pressure regulator and the storage container are communicated with each other. (See Ikushima, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 4, and paragraphs 33-42.)
Additionally regarding claim 1, Ikushima does not teach the discharge valve comprises an exhaust port (port on 16 leading to exhaust).
Kanarvogel is directed to a liquid dispenser.
Kanarvogel teaches the discharge valve comprises an exhaust port (96 leading to exhaust). (See Kanarvogel, Fig. 1, Abstract, col. 13, lines 1-5.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the discharge valve comprising an exhaust port.; because Kanarvogel teaches this would allow the air space of the syringe dispenser to be exhausted in a known manner. (See Kanarvogel, Fig. 1, Abstract, col. 13, lines 1-5.)
Additionally regarding claim 1, Ikushima does not teach the discharge valve changes … a second position at which the communication between the inlet port and the outlet port is cut off, and the outlet port is communicated with the exhaust port such that the storage container and the atmosphere are communicated with each other.
Kanarvogel teaches the discharge valve changes … a second position at which the communication between the inlet port (92) and the outlet port (94) is cut off, and the outlet port (94) is communicated with the exhaust port (96) such that the storage container (168) and the atmosphere are communicated with each other. (See Kanarvogel, Fig. 1, Abstract, col. 13, lines 1-5.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the discharge valve changes … a second position at which the communication between the inlet port and the outlet port is cut off, and the outlet port is communicated with the exhaust port such that the storage container and the atmosphere are communicated with each other; because Kanarvogel teaches this would allow the air space of the syringe dispenser to be exhausted in a known manner. (See Kanarvogel, Fig. 1, Abstract, col. 13, lines 1-5.)
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. storage container in which a liquid material is stored; port … the liquid material is discharged; pressure control valve that adjusts , discharge valve that establishes, controller that controls, leak valve … which vents, to the outside, a part of the compressed gas passing from the pressure control valve through the first flow line). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ikushima in view of Kanarvogel and Keller, would be capable of this intended use and as a result meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Ikushima teaches the liquid material discharge device (20) is an air type dispenser. (See Ikushima, Figs.1, 4; Abstract, and paragraphs 3-4, 34, and 56.)
Regarding claim 4, Ikushima does not teach the liquid discharge device further comprises a third flow linne branched from the first flow line, and the leak valve or orifice provided on the third flow line.
Keller teaches the liquid discharge device further comprises a third flow line (line between 124 and 132 in Fig. 1) branched from the first flow line, and a leak valve or orifice (132) provided on the third flow line. (See Keller, Fig. 1, Abstract, paragraphs 20, 29, and 32.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the liquid discharge device further comprises a third flow linne branched from the first flow line, and the leak valve or orifice provided on the third flow line; because Keller teaches this would provide increased reliability. (See Keller, Fig. 1, Abstract, paragraphs 20, 29, and 32.)
Regarding claim 11, Ikushima teach the pressure control valve is an electropneumatic regulator of which operation is controlled by the control device. (See Ikushima, Figs. 1, 4 and paragraph 63.) Examiner is considering a solenoid to be the equivalent of an electropneumatic regulator and timer to be equivalent of a control device.
Regarding claim 13, Ikushima teaches further comprising a buffer tank (21, 22) disposed in the first flow line (6). (See Ikushima, Figs. 1 and 4.)
Claims 5-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20060043102 A1 to Keller et al (hereinafter Keller) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner).
Regarding claim 5, Ikushima does not explicitly teach the leak valve or the leak orifice is constituted by one orifice.
Conner teaches the leak mechanism includes an exhaust. Examiner is considering an exhaust to be the equivalent of an orifice.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the leak valve or the leak orifice is constituted by one orifice, because Conner teaches this would allow the air space of the syringe dispenser to be exhausted in a known manner. (See Conner, Abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 4-5 and 11.)
Regarding claim 6, Ikushima does not explicitly teach an open- close valve disposed downstream or upstream of the one orifice, wherein the one orifice and the open-close valve (16) constitute an orifice open-close mechanism.
Conner teaches the leak mechanism includes an orifice open-close mechanism that is constituted by connecting the orifice and an open-close valve (16) upstream of the orifice. (See Conner, paragraph 11.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an open- close valve disposed downstream or upstream of the one orifice, wherein the one orifice and the open-close valve constitute an orifice open-close mechanism, because Conner teaches this would allow the air space of the syringe dispenser to be exhausted in a known manner. (See Conner, paragraph 11.)
Regarding claim 10, Ikushima does not teach the leak mechanism includes a flow control valve providing a flow rate that is controllable by the control device.
Conner the leak mechanism includes a flow control valve providing a flow rate that is controllable by the control device. (See Conner, Fig. 1 and paragraphs 4-5 and 11.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an orifice open-close mechanism that is constituted by connecting the orifice and an open-close valve disposed downstream or upstream of the orifice, because Conner teaches this would allow the air space of the syringe dispenser to be exhausted in a known manner. (See Conner, paragraph 11.)
The previous rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20070068974 A1 to Robert Tourigny (hereinafter Tourigny) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20060043102 A1 to Keller et al (hereinafter Keller) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20070068974 A1 to Robert Tourigny (hereinafter Tourigny).
Regarding claim 7, Ikushima does not explicitly teach wherein the open-close valve is an automatic open-close valve that is opened and closed by the control device, and the control device opens and closes the open-close valve in accordance with open-close condition information stored in advance.
Tourigny is directed to a pneumatic fluid dispenser.
Tourigny teaches a control (80) includes memory (80) programs and data allows an user to control an operation of a fluid dispensing cycle. (See Tourigny, paragraph 18 and Fig. 2.) Examiner is considering memory (80) to be equivalent to control device which opens and closes the open-close valve in accordance with open-close condition information stored in advance and a solenoid valve to be the equivalent to an automatic open-close valve that is opened and closed by the control device.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the open-close valve as an automatic open-close valve that is opened and closed by the control device, and the control device opens and closes the open-close valve in accordance with open-close condition information stored in advance, because Tourigny teaches this allows the fluid dispensing cycle to be controlled. (See Tourigny, paragraph 18 and Fig. 2.)
The previous rejection of claims 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,277,333 to Ichiro Shimano (hereinafter Shimano) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20060043102 A1 to Keller et al (hereinafter Keller) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,277,333 to Ichiro Shimano (hereinafter Shimano) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Ikushima does not explicitly teach the leak mechanism includes an orifice open-close mechanism that is constituted by connecting the orifice and an open-close valve disposed downstream or upstream of the orifice.
Shimano is directed to an apparatus for metering and discharging a liquid.
Shimano teaches the leak mechanism includes an orifice open-close mechanism (10, 13) that is constituted by connecting the orifice and an open-close valve (13) upstream of the orifice. (See Shimano, Figs. 1-5, Abstract , col. 1, lines 35-40, col. 4, lines 26-44.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an orifice open-close mechanism that is constituted by connecting the orifice and an open-close valve disposed downstream or upstream of the orifice, because Shimano teaches this would quickly reduce the internal pressure in the space 30 and the syringe and prevent dripping at end of dispensing. (See Shimano,Figs. 1-5, Abstract , col. 1, lines 35-40, col. 4, lines 26-44.)
Regarding claim 5, Ikushima does not explicitly teach wherein the open-close valve is an automatic open-close valve that is opened and closed by the controller, and the control device opens and closes the open-close valve in accordance with open-close condition information stored in advance.
Shimano teaches a controller (23) includes preset data allows a user to control an operation of a fluid dispensing cycle. Examiner is considering preset data to be equivalent to control device which opens and closes the open-close valve in accordance with open-close condition information stored in advance and a solenoid valve to be the equivalent to an automatic open-close valve that is opened and closed by the control device.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the open-close valve is an automatic open-close valve that is opened and closed by the controller, because Shimano teaches this would quickly reduce the internal pressure in the space 30 and the syringe. (See Shimano,Figs. 1-5, Abstract , col. 1, lines 35-40, col. 4, lines 26-44.)
The previous rejection of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) as applied to claim 4 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,277,333 to Ichiro Shimano (hereinafter Shimano) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 4,759,477 to Gelinas et al (hereinafter Gelinas) is being maintained.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20060043102 A1 to Keller et al (hereinafter Keller) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) as applied to claim 4 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,277,333 to Ichiro Shimano (hereinafter Shimano) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 4,759,477 to Gelinas et al (hereinafter Gelinas).
Regarding claim 8, Ikushima does not explicitly teach the liquid material discharge device includes the orifice open-close mechanism in plural sets connected in parallel.
Gelinas is directed to a material dispensing valve.
Gelinas teaches the leak mechanism includes the orifice open-close mechanism in plural sets (77,78) connected in parallel (70,72) . (See Gelinas, Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the leak mechanism having the orifice open-close mechanism in plural sets connected in parallel, because Gelinas teaches this would selectively exhaust the material application system (19, 20). (See Gelinas, col. 3, lines 18-20, col 7 , lines 30-40.)
Regarding claim 9, Ikushima does not explicitly teach the plural sets of orifice open-close mechanisms include a first orifice open-close mechanism, and a second orifice open-close mechanism providing a different flow rate from that provided by the first orifice open-close mechanism
Gelinas teaches the ports can be alternatively exhausted. (See Gelinas, col. 2, lines 60-62.) Examiner is considering alternative exhaust or pressurization to be the equivalent of different flow rate from that provided by the first orifice open-close mechanism.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the plural sets of orifice open-close mechanisms include a first orifice open-close mechanism, and a second orifice open-close mechanism providing a different flow rate from that provided by the first orifice open-close mechanism, because Gelinas teaches this would selectively exhaust the material application system (19, 20). (See Gelinas, col. 3, lines 18-20, col 7 , lines 30-40.)
The previous rejection of claims 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,031,805 to Siegfried Rohmann (hereinafter Rohmann) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20060043102 A1 to Keller et al (hereinafter Keller) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,031,805 to Siegfried Rohmann (hereinafter Rohmann).
Regarding claim 6, Ikushima does not explicitly teach the leak mechanism includes an orifice open-close mechanism that is constituted by connecting the orifice and an open-close valve disposed downstream or upstream of the orifice.
Rohmann is directed to an apparatus for metering and discharging a liquid.
Rohmann teaches the leak mechanism includes an orifice open-close mechanism that is constituted by connecting the orifice and an open-close valve (12, 13) upstream of the orifice. (See Rohman, Figs. 1-8, Abstract, col. 3, lines 29-39, col. 5, lines 52-56, and col. 6, lines 1-10. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an orifice open-close mechanism that is constituted by connecting the orifice and an open-close valve disposed downstream or upstream of the orifice, because Rohmann teaches this would quickly reduce overpressure. (See Rohman, Figs. 1-8, Abstract, col. 3, lines 29-39.)
Regarding claim 7, Ikushima does not explicitly teach wherein the open-close valve is an automatic open-close valve that is opened and closed by the controller.
Rohmann teaches a controller (4) includes reference dosing pressure allows the gas filling rate to be considered and that the control unit can be designed as a process control system. (See Rohman, col. 6, lines 1-10.) Examiner is considering a process control system to be equivalent to the open-close valve is an automatic open-close valve that is opened and closed by the controller.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the open-close valve as an automatic open-close valve that is opened and closed by the controller, because Rohmann teaches this would enable the desired dosing pressure to be achieved. (See Rohman, col. 5, lines 52-56.)
Regarding claim 8, Ikushima does not explicitly teach the leak mechanism includes the orifice open-close mechanism in plural sets connected in parallel.
Rohmann teaches the leak mechanism includes the orifice open-close mechanism in plural sets (12, 13) connected in parallel. (See Rohmann, Figs. 1 and 4.)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the leak mechanism having the orifice open-close mechanism in plural sets connected in parallel, because Rohmann teaches this would reduce the pressure in the vessel. (See Rohmann, col. 5, lines 40-47.)
Regarding claim 9, Ikushima does not explicitly teach the plural sets of orifice open-close mechanisms include a first orifice open-close mechanism, and a second orifice open-close mechanism providing a different flow rate from that provided by the first orifice open-close mechanism
Rohmann teaches the plural sets of orifice open-close mechanisms include a first orifice open-close mechanism, and a second orifice open-close mechanism providing a different flow rate from that provided by the first orifice open-close mechanism. (See Rohmann, Figs. 2, 5, and 7-8.)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the plural sets of orifice open-close mechanisms include a first orifice open-close mechanism, and a second orifice open-close mechanism providing a different flow rate from that provided by the first orifice open-close mechanism, because Rohmann teaches this would enable the desired pressure in the vessel to be obtained. (See Rohmann, Fig. 8.)
The previous rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,277,333 to Ichiro Shimano (hereinafter Shimano) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20060043102 A1 to Keller et al (hereinafter Keller) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,277,333 to Ichiro Shimano (hereinafter Shimano).
Regarding claim 12, Ikushima does not explicitly teach the vacuum for the discharge valve, the vacuum generating a negative pressure in a flow passage in the discharge valve.
Shimano teaches the vacuum mechanism generating a negative pressure in a flow passage in the discharge valve. (See Shimano, col. 2, lines 23-33.)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vacuum for the discharge valve, the vacuum generating a negative pressure in a flow passage in the discharge valve, because Shimano teaches this vacuum generator would prevent dripping from the syringe tip. (See Shimano, col. 2, lines 59-63.)
The previous rejection of claims 1-2, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Num. 5,881,914 A1 A1 to Tsuda et al (hereinafter Tsuda) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 1-2, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20060043102 A1 to Keller et al (hereinafter Keller) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) .
Regarding claim 1, Ikushima teaches a liquid material discharge device comprising: a storage container (8) in which a liquid material is stored; a discharge port (13) through which the liquid material is discharged; a pressure control valve (11) that adjusts a pressure of a compressed gas supplied from a compressed gas source (1) to a desired level; a discharge valve (9) that establishes or cuts off communication between the pressure control valve and the storage container;
a controller (10) that controls operation of the discharge valve; a first flow line (6) connecting the pressure control valve (11) and the discharge valve (9); and a second flow line (7) connecting the discharge valve (9) and the storage container (8). (See Ikushima, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 4, and paragraphs 33-42.)
Ikushima does not teach the liquid discharge device further comprises a leak orifice which vents, to the outside, part of the compressed gas adjusted by the pressure regulator passing through the first flow line.
Keller teaches teach the liquid discharge device further comprises a leak orifice (132) which vents, to the outside, part of the compressed gas passing through the first flow line (between regulator 130 and proportional 144). (See Keller, Fig. 1 and paragraphs 20 and 24-29.) Examiner is considering a relief valve to be equivalent to a leak valve.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the liquid discharge device further comprises a leak orifice which vents, to the outside, part of the compressed gas adjusted by the pressure regulator passing through the first flow line; because Keller teaches this would location of the relief valve reduces the occurrence of supply line burst due to over pressurizing and protects components downstream of the pressure regulator. (See Keller, Fig. 1 and paragraphs 20 and 24-29.)
Ikushima does not teach the leak valve or leak orifice is provided downstream of the pressure regulator with respect to flow of the compressed gas.
Keller teaches teach the liquid discharge device further comprises a leak orifice (132) which vents, to the outside, part of the compressed gas passing through the first flow line (between regulator 130 and proportional 144). (See Keller, Fig. 1 and paragraphs 20 and 24-29.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the leak valve or leak orifice is provided downstream of the pressure regulator with respect to flow of the compressed gas; because Keller teaches this would location of the relief valve reduces the occurrence of supply line burst due to over pressurizing and protects components downstream of the pressure regulator. (See Keller, Fig. 1 and paragraphs 20 and 24-29.)
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Ikushima teaches the discharge valve (9 ) changes over a first position at which the inlet (6) and the outlet (on 9 facing 7) are communicated with each other such that the pressure regulator and the storage container are communicated with each other. (See Ikushima, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 4, and paragraphs 33-42.)
Additionally regarding claim 1, Ikushima does not teach the discharge valve comprises an exhaust port (port on 16 leading to exhaust).
Conner is directed to a liquid dispenser.
Conner teaches the discharge valve (16) comprises an exhaust port ( valve leading to exhaust in Fig. 1). (See Conner, Fig. 1, Abstract, paragraph 11.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the discharge valve comprising an exhaust port.; because Conner teaches this would allow the air space of the syringe dispenser to be exhausted in a known manner. (See Conner, Fig. 1, Abstract, paragraph 11.)
Additionally regarding claim 1, Ikushima does not teach the discharge valve changes … a second position at which the communication between the inlet port and the outlet port is cut off, and the outlet port is communicated with the exhaust port such that the storage container and the atmosphere are communicated with each other.
Conner teaches the discharge valve changes … a second position at which the communication between the inlet port (port on 16 facing 14) and the outlet port (port on 16 adjacent 26) is cut off, and the outlet port (port on 16 adjacent 26) is communicated with the exhaust port (port on 16 connected to exhaust) such that the storage container (22) and the atmosphere are communicated with each other. (See Conner, Fig. 1, Abstract, paragraph 11.) Examiner is considering the connection in Kanarvogel to be an example of exhausting in a known manner.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the discharge valve changes … a second position at which the communication between the inlet port and the outlet port is cut off, and the outlet port is communicated with the exhaust port such that the storage container and the atmosphere are communicated with each other; because Conner teaches this would allow the air space of the syringe dispenser to be exhausted in a known manner. (See Conner, Fig. 1, Abstract, paragraph 11.)
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. storage container in which a liquid material is stored; port … the liquid material is discharged; pressure control valve that adjusts , discharge valve that establishes, controller that controls, leak valve … which vents, to the outside, a part of the compressed gas passing from the pressure control valve through the first flow line). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ikushima in view of Conner and Keller and Kanarvogel, would be capable of this intended use and as a result meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Ikushima teaches the liquid material discharge device (20) is an air type dispenser. (See Ikushima, Figs.1, 4; Abstract, and paragraphs 3-4, 34, and 56.)
Regarding claim 11, Ikushima teach the pressure control valve is an electropneumatic regulator of which operation is controlled by the control device. (See Ikushima, Figs. 1, 4 and paragraph 63.) Examiner is considering a solenoid to be the equivalent of an electropneumatic regulator and timer to be equivalent of a control device.
Regarding claim 13, Ikushima teaches further comprising a buffer tank (21, 22) disposed in the first flow line (6). (See Ikushima, Figs. 1 and 4.)
Previous rejection of claims 3-6 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Num. 5,881,914 A1 A1 to Tsuda et al (hereinafter Tsuda) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Conner withdrawn based on amendment to claim 1 and cancellation of claim 3.
Claims 4-6 and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20060043102 A1 to Keller et al (hereinafter Keller) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Ikushima does not teach the liquid discharge device further comprises a third flow line (exhaust line) branched from the first flow line, and a leak mechanism (16) provided on the third flow line.
Conner is directed to an apparatus for dispensing liquid.
Conner teaches the liquid discharge device further comprises a third flow line (exhaust line) branched from the first flow line, and a leak mechanism (16) provided on the third flow line. (See Conner, Fig. 1, Abstract, paragraphs 4-5 and 11.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the liquid discharge device further comprises a third flow line (exhaust line) branched from the first flow line, and a leak mechanism (16) provided on the third flow line; because Conner teaches this would allow the air space of the syringe dispenser to be exhausted in a known manner. (See Conner, Fig. 1, Abstract, paragraphs 4-5 and 11.)
Regarding claim 5, Ikushima does not explicitly teach the leak valve or the leak orifice is constituted by one orifice.
Conner teaches the leak mechanism includes an exhaust. Examiner is considering an exhaust to be the equivalent of an orifice.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the leak valve or the leak orifice is constituted by one orifice, because Conner teaches this would allow the air space of the syringe dispenser to be exhausted in a known manner. (See Conner, Abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 4-5 and 11.)
Regarding claim 6, Ikushima does not explicitly teach an open- close valve disposed downstream or upstream of the one orifice, wherein the one orifice and the open-close valve (16) constitute an orifice open-close mechanism.
Conner teaches the leak mechanism includes an orifice open-close mechanism that is constituted by connecting the orifice and an open-close valve (16) upstream of the orifice. (See Conner, paragraph 11.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an open- close valve disposed downstream or upstream of the one orifice, wherein the one orifice and the open-close valve constitute an orifice open-close mechanism, because Conner teaches this would allow the air space of the syringe dispenser to be exhausted in a known manner. (See Conner, paragraph 11.)
Regarding claim 10, Ikushima does not teach the leak mechanism includes a flow control valve providing a flow rate that is controllable by the control device.
Conner the leak mechanism includes a flow control valve providing a flow rate that is controllable by the control device. (See Conner, Fig. 1 and paragraphs 4-5 and 11.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an orifice open-close mechanism that is constituted by connecting the orifice and an open-close valve disposed downstream or upstream of the orifice, because Conner teaches this would allow the air space of the syringe dispenser to be exhausted in a known manner. (See Conner, paragraph 11.)
Previous rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Num. 5,881,914 A1 A1 to Tsuda et al (hereinafter Tsuda) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20070068974 A1 to Robert Tourigny (hereinafter Tourigny) is withdrawn based on amendment to claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20060043102 A1 to Keller et al (hereinafter Keller) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20070068974 A1 to Robert Tourigny (hereinafter Tourigny).
Regarding claim 7, Ikushima does not explicitly teach wherein the open-close valve is an automatic open-close valve that is opened and closed by the control device, and the control device opens and closes the open-close valve in accordance with open-close condition information stored in advance.
Tourigny is directed to a pneumatic fluid dispenser.
Tourigny teaches a control (80) includes memory (80) programs and data allows a user to control an operation of a fluid dispensing cycle. (See Tourigny, paragraph 18 and Fig. 2.) Examiner is considering memory (80) to be equivalent to control device which opens and closes the open-close valve in accordance with open-close condition information stored in advance and a solenoid valve to be the equivalent to an automatic open-close valve that is opened and closed by the control device.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the open-close valve as an automatic open-close valve that is opened and closed by the control device, and the control device opens and closes the open-close valve in accordance with open-close condition information stored in advance, because Tourigny teaches this allows the fluid dispensing cycle to be controlled. (See Tourigny, paragraph 18 and Fig. 2.)
Previous rejection of claims 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Num. 5,881,914 A1 A1 to Tsuda et al (hereinafter Tsuda) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,277,333 to Ichiro Shimano (hereinafter Shimano) withdrawn based on amendment to claim 1.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20060043102 A1 to Keller et al (hereinafter Keller) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,277,333 to Ichiro Shimano (hereinafter Shimano).
Regarding claim 4, Ikushima does not explicitly teach the leak mechanism includes an orifice open-close mechanism that is constituted by connecting the orifice and an open-close valve disposed downstream or upstream of the orifice.
Shimano is directed to an apparatus for metering and discharging a liquid.
Shimano teaches the leak mechanism includes an orifice open-close mechanism (10, 13) that is constituted by connecting the orifice and an open-close valve (13) upstream of the orifice. (See Shimano, Figs. 1-5, Abstract , col. 1, lines 35-40, col. 4, lines 26-44.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an orifice open-close mechanism that is constituted by connecting the orifice and an open-close valve disposed downstream or upstream of the orifice, because Shimano teaches this would quickly reduce the internal pressure in the space 30 and the syringe and prevent dripping at end of dispensing. (See Shimano,Figs. 1-5, Abstract , col. 1, lines 35-40, col. 4, lines 26-44.)
Regarding claim 5, Ikushima does not explicitly teach wherein the open-close valve is an automatic open-close valve that is opened and closed by the controller, and the control device opens and closes the open-close valve in accordance with open-close condition information stored in advance.
Shimano teaches a controller (23) includes preset data allows a user to control an operation of a fluid dispensing cycle. Examiner is considering preset data to be equivalent to control device which opens and closes the open-close valve in accordance with open-close condition information stored in advance and a solenoid valve to be the equivalent to an automatic open-close valve that is opened and closed by the control device.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the open-close valve is an automatic open-close valve that is opened and closed by the controller, because Shimano teaches this would quickly reduce the internal pressure in the space 30 and the syringe.
Previous rejection of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Num. 5,881,914 A1 A1 to Tsuda et al (hereinafter Tsuda) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,277,333 to Ichiro Shimano (hereinafter Shimano) as applied to claim 6 and US Pat. Num. 4,759,477 to Gelinas et al (hereinafter Gelinas) withdrawn based on amendment to claim 1.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20060043102 A1 to Keller et al (hereinafter Keller)) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,277,333 to Ichiro Shimano (hereinafter Shimano) as applied to claim 6 and US Pat. Num. 4,759,477 to Gelinas et al (hereinafter Gelinas).
Regarding claim 8, Ikushima does not explicitly teach the liquid material discharge device includes the orifice open-close mechanism in plural sets connected in parallel.
Gelinas is directed to a material dispensing valve.
Gelinas teaches the leak mechanism includes the orifice open-close mechanism in plural sets (77,78) connected in parallel (70,72). (See Gelinas, Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the leak mechanism having the orifice open-close mechanism in plural sets connected in parallel, because Gelinas teaches this would selectively exhaust the material application system (19, 20). (See Gelinas, col. 3, lines 18-20, col 7 , lines 30-40.)
Regarding claim 9, Ikushima does not explicitly teach the plural sets of orifice open-close mechanisms include a first orifice open-close mechanism, and a second orifice open-close mechanism providing a different flow rate from that provided by the first orifice open-close mechanism
Gelinas teaches the ports can be alternatively exhausted. (See Gelinas, col. 2, lines 60-62.) Examiner is considering alternative exhaust or pressurization to be the equivalent of different flow rate from that provided by the first orifice open-close mechanism.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the plural sets of orifice open-close mechanisms include a first orifice open-close mechanism, and a second orifice open-close mechanism providing a different flow rate from that provided by the first orifice open-close mechanism, because Gelinas teaches this would selectively exhaust the material application system (19, 20). (See Gelinas, col. 3, lines 18-20, col. 7, lines 30-40.)
Previous rejection of claims 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Num. 5,881,914 A1 A1 to Tsuda et al (hereinafter Tsuda) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,031,805 to Siegfried Rohmann (hereinafter Rohmann) withdrawn based on amendment to claim 1.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20060043102 A1 to Keller et al (hereinafter Keller) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,031,805 to Siegfried Rohmann (hereinafter Rohmann).
Regarding claim 6, Ikushima does not explicitly teach the leak mechanism includes an orifice open-close mechanism that is constituted by connecting the orifice and an open-close valve disposed downstream or upstream of the orifice.
Rohmann is directed to an apparatus for metering and discharging a liquid.
Rohmann teaches the leak mechanism includes an orifice open-close mechanism that is constituted by connecting the orifice and an open-close valve (12, 13) upstream of the orifice. (See Rohman, Figs. 1-8, Abstract, col. 3, lines 29-39, col. 5, lines 52-56, and col. 6, lines 1-10. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an orifice open-close mechanism that is constituted by connecting the orifice and an open-close valve disposed downstream or upstream of the orifice, because Rohmann teaches this would quickly reduce overpressure. (See Rohman, Figs. 1-8, Abstract, col. 3, lines 29-39.)
Regarding claim 7, Ikushima does not explicitly teach wherein the open-close valve is an automatic open-close valve that is opened and closed by the controller.
Rohmann teaches a controller (4) includes reference dosing pressure allows the gas filling rate to be considered and that the control unit can be designed as a process control system. (See Rohman, col. 6, lines 1-10.) Examiner is considering a process control system to be equivalent to the open-close valve is an automatic open-close valve that is opened and closed by the controller.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the open-close valve as an automatic open-close valve that is opened and closed by the controller, because Rohmann teaches this would enable the desired dosing pressure to be achieved. (See Rohman, col. 5, lines 52-56.)
Regarding claim 8, Ikushima does not explicitly teach the leak mechanism includes the orifice open-close mechanism in plural sets connected in parallel.
Rohmann teaches the leak mechanism includes the orifice open-close mechanism in plural sets (12, 13) connected in parallel. (See Rohmann, Figs. 1 and 4.)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the leak mechanism having the orifice open-close mechanism in plural sets connected in parallel, because Rohmann teaches this would reduce the pressure in the vessel. (See Rohmann, col. 5, lines 40-47.)
Regarding claim 9, Ikushima does not explicitly teach the plural sets of orifice open-close mechanisms include a first orifice open-close mechanism, and a second orifice open-close mechanism providing a different flow rate from that provided by the first orifice open-close mechanism
Rohmann teaches the plural sets of orifice open-close mechanisms include a first orifice open-close mechanism, and a second orifice open-close mechanism providing a different flow rate from that provided by the first orifice open-close mechanism. (See Rohmann, Figs. 2, 5, and 7-8.)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the plural sets of orifice open-close mechanisms include a first orifice open-close mechanism, and a second orifice open-close mechanism providing a different flow rate from that provided by the first orifice open-close mechanism, because Rohmann teaches this would enable the desired pressure in the vessel to be obtained. (See Rohmann, Fig. 8.)
Previous rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Num. 5,881,914 A1 A1 to Tsuda et al (hereinafter Tsuda) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,277,333 to Ichiro Shimano (hereinafter Shimano) withdrawn based on amendment to claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20120132671 A1 to Kazumasa Ikushima (hereinafter Ikushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20060043102 A1 to Keller et al (hereinafter Keller) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100176161 A1 to Conner et al (hereinafter Conner) and US Pat. Num. 4,634,027 to Kanarvogel (hereinafter Kanarvogel) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,277,333 to Ichiro Shimano (hereinafter Shimano).
Regarding claim 12, Ikushima does not explicitly teach the vacuum for the discharge valve, the vacuum generating a negative pressure in a flow passage in the discharge valve.
Shimano teaches the vacuum mechanism generating a negative pressure in a flow passage in the discharge valve. (See Shimano, col. 2, lines 23-33.)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vacuum for the discharge valve, the vacuum generating a negative pressure in a flow passage in the discharge valve, because Shimano teaches this vacuum generator would prevent dripping from the syringe tip. (See Shimano, col. 2, lines 59-63.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-13 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.
US Pat. Pub. No. 20060043102 A1 to Keller et al (hereinafter Keller) is being used to address the leak valve or leak orifice is provided downstream of the pressure regulator with respect to a flow of the compressed gas in both the first rejection and the second rejection along with Kanarvogel being used to address the new limitation “second position at which the communication between the inlet port and the outlet port is cut off, and the outlet port is communicated with the exhaust port” in the first set of rejections and Conner in the second set of rejections.
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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KARL KURPLE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights