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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature wherein “the valve is biased into the first position”, as recited in claim 16, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, on lines 16-18, the recitation that the “sensor” is “to detect... a pressure level” is somewhat vague and unclear. When reading this recitation, one must ask, “to detect a pressure level of what”? As understood, in light of the specification, this recitation will be interpreted as “to detect... a pressure level of the fluid in the pipe insert”.
Further, regarding claim 1, the “wherein” clause on the last three lines of the claim regarding the valve moving from the open position to the closed position “when the sensor detects... the pressure level” is unclear and indefinite. The recitation, “the pressure level”, finds antecedent basis to “a pressure level” recited on lines 17-18 of the claim; and in that recitation, it can be assumed that the “sensor” detects any and all pressure levels within a range of undefined pressure levels, which could be virtually infinite. Thus, when reading the last three lines of claim 1, the claim can be interpreted in a manner whereby the valve moves from the open position to the closed position at any and all pressure levels detected by the “sensor”, which is both confusing and not consistent with the specification, as such an arrangement would essentially never allow fluid to flow through the insert, rendering the claimed “device” inoperable.
Regarding claim 2, it is noted that the last two lines of the claim again refer to “the pressure level”, and thus this claim is unclear for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the “wherein” clause on the last three lines of the claim regarding the valve moving from the open position to the closed position “when the sensor detects... the pressure level” is unclear and indefinite. The recitation, “the pressure level”, finds antecedent basis to “a pressure level” recited on lines 15-16 of the claim; and in that recitation, it can be assumed that the “sensor” detects any and all pressure levels within a range of undefined pressure levels, which could be virtually infinite. Thus, when reading the last three lines of claim 8, the claim can be interpreted in a manner whereby the valve moves from the open position to the closed position at any and all pressure levels detected by the “sensor”, which is both confusing and not consistent with the specification, as such an arrangement would essentially never allow fluid to flow through the insert, rendering the claimed “device” inoperable.
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that the last line of the claim again refers to “the pressure level”, and thus this claim is unclear for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, the “wherein” clause on the last three lines of the claim regarding the valve moving from the first position to the second position “when the sensor detects... the pressure level” is unclear and indefinite. The recitation, “the pressure level”, finds antecedent basis to “a pressure level” recited on lines 14-15 of the claim; and in that recitation, it can be assumed that the “sensor” detects any and all pressure levels within a range of undefined pressure levels, which could be virtually infinite. Thus, when reading the last three lines of claim 8, the claim can be interpreted in a manner whereby the valve moves from the first position to the second position at any and all pressure levels detected by the “sensor”, which is both confusing and not consistent with the specification, as such an arrangement would essentially never allow fluid to flow through the insert, rendering the claimed “device” inoperable.
Regarding claim 17, it is noted that the last line of the claim again refers to “the pressure level”, and thus this claim is unclear for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 15.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,964,176. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as set forth below, the claims of the aforementioned patent essentially include (or at least imply) all of the elements and interrelated details of the device claimed in the instant application.
As to claims 1, 8 and 15, see patented claims 1, 8 and 15. It is noted that the alternatively recited stipulations of the instant application claims regarding the response of the “valve” to “one of” detection of the “target compound and the pressure level”, renders the scope of the instant application claims broader than the aforementioned patented claims; and with one of the two stipulations being met by the patented claims, the compared claims at hand are thus not patentably distinct from each other.
As to claims 2, 9 and 17, see patented claims 3, 10 and 17.
As to claims 3 and 10, while the exact recitations of the claims are not expressly matched with limitations recited in the patented claims, it is clearly implied that the upstream end of the fire control system recited in the patented claims is coupled to a local water supply, as evidenced by the recitations in each of patented claims 1, 8 and 15, regarding the “fire department connection” and the associated “building” at the “upstream end” of the “system” recited in the patented claims.
As to claims 4 and 11, see patented claims 1, 8 and 15.
As to claims 5, 12 and 18, see patented claims 5, 12 and 18.
As to claims 6, 13 and 19, see patented claims 6, 13 and 19.
As to claims 7, 14 and 20, see patented claims 7, 14 and 20.
As to claim 16, see patented claims 2, 9 and 16.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,330,002. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as set forth below, the claims of the aforementioned patent essentially include (or at least imply) all of the elements and interrelated details of the device claimed in the instant application.
As to claims 1, 8 and 15, see patented claims 1, 8 and 15. It is noted that the alternatively recited stipulations of the instant application claims regarding the response of the “valve” to “one of” detection of the “target compound and the pressure level”, renders the scope of the instant application claims broader than the aforementioned patented claims; and with one of the two stipulations being met by the patented claims, the compared claims at hand are thus not patentably distinct from each other.
As to claims 2, 9 and 17, see patented claims 3, 10 and 17.
As to claims 3 and 10, while the exact recitations of the claims are not expressly matched with limitations recited in the patented claims, it is clearly implied that the upstream end of the fire control system recited in patented claim 1 is coupled to a local water supply, as evidenced by the recitations in patented claim 1, regarding the “fire control system” and the associated “building” at the “upstream end” of the “system” recited in the patented claim.
As to claims 4 and 11, while the exact recitations of the claims are not expressly matched with limitations recited in the patented claims, it is clearly implied that the upstream end of the fire control system recited in patented claim 1 is coupled to a fire department connection, as evidenced by the recitations in patented claim 1, regarding the “fire control system” and the associated “building” at the “upstream end” of the “system” recited in the patented claim. It should also be noted, Applicant’s own specification (see paragraph [0007]) clearly discloses that “building codes” require a “Fire Department Connection”, and thus for this reason, the limitations recited in claims 4 and 11 are also implicit from (at least) patented claim 1.
As to claims 5, 12 and 18, see patented claims 5, 12 and 18.
As to claims 6, 13 and 19, see patented claims 6, 13 and 19.
As to claims 7, 14 and 20, see patented claims 7, 14 and 20.
As to claim 16, see patented claims 2, 9 and 16.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/799,949 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as set forth below, the claims of the aforementioned copending application essentially include all of the elements and interrelated details of the device claimed in the instant application.
As to claims 1, 8 and 15, see copending application claims 1, 8 and 15.
As to claims 2, 9 and 17, see copending application claim 18.
As to claims 3 and 10, see copending application claims 3 and 10.
As to claims 4 and 11, see copending application claims 4 and 11.
As to claims 5, 12 and 18, see copending application claims 5, 12 and 15.
As to claims 6, 13 and 19, see copending application claims 6, 13 and 19.
As to claims 7, 14 and 20, see copending application claims 7, 14 and 20.
As to claim 16, see copending claim 17.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seo et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0017577.
As to claim 1, Seo shows (see Fig. 1) and describes a protective device comprising: a pipe insert (100; and note that Seo expressly states “housing 101” of device “100” is “placed in a pipe” between upstream and downstream portions of the pipe, and supports “all components”, thus making “100” a pipe insert; see paragraph [0030]) disposed within a fire control system (see paragraphs [0002]-[0007], which implicitly and/or expressly discloses incorporation of the insert in a fire control system) between upstream and downstream ends of the fire control system; a valve (see discussion of “valve seat 102” in paragraphs [0030]-[0033] and [0044]-[0046]) within the pipe insert (see again, Fig. 1), the valve moveable between open and closed positions, wherein the open position opens the pipe insert, enabling transmission of a flow of fluid through the pipe insert, and the closed position occludes the pipe insert, disabling transmission of the flow of the fluid through the pipe insert to the downstream end of the fire control system; and a sensor (105) for disposition within the flow of the fluid to detect one of a target compound in the pipe insert and a pressure level of the fluid in the pipe insert; wherein the valve moves from the open position to the closed position when the sensor detects the one of the target compound and a particular pressure level (see paragraph [0046]). As to the preamble recitation, of the claimed device being a “protective device for preventing tampering with a fire control system in a building, the fire control system for transmission of a flow of a fluid from an upstream end of the fire control system to a downstream end of the fire control system at sprinklers within the building”, such is afforded, at best, limited patentable weight, because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). However, it should also be noted that Seo implicitly and/or expressly discloses advantageous implementation of the protective device into water-based fire control systems having sprinklers in buildings (see, at least paragraphs [0002]-[0007]).
As to claim 3, as noted above, Seo implicitly and/or expressly discloses advantageous implementation of the protective device into water-based fire control systems having sprinklers in buildings (see, at least paragraphs [0002]-[0007]), including (at least) “high-rise buildings”, which implies that an upstream portion of the fire control system would be coupled to a local water supply.
As to claim 4, as noted above, Seo implicitly and/or expressly discloses advantageous implementation of the protective device into water-based fire control systems having sprinklers in buildings (see, at least paragraphs [0002]-[0007]), including (at least) “high-rise buildings”, which implies that an upstream portion of the fire control system would be coupled to a fire department connection, which Applicant expressly states in paragraph [0007] of the instant application is required by building codes.
As to claim 8, Seo shows (see Fig. 1) and describes a protective device comprising: a pipe insert (100; and note that Seo expressly states “housing 101” of device “100” is “placed in a pipe” between upstream and downstream portions of the pipe, and supports “all components”, thus making “100” a pipe insert; see paragraph [0030]) disposed within a pipe system between upstream and downstream ends of the pipe system; a valve (see discussion of “valve seat 102” in paragraphs [0030]-[0033] and [0044]-[0046]) within the pipe insert (see again, Fig. 1), the valve moveable between open and closed positions, wherein the open position opens the pipe insert, enabling transmission of a flow of fluid through the pipe insert, and the closed position occludes the pipe insert, disabling transmission of the flow of the fluid through the pipe insert; and a sensor (105) within the pipe insert for disposition within the flow of the fluid to detect one of a target compound and a pressure level in the pipe insert; wherein the valve moves from the open position to the closed position when the sensor detects the one of the target compound and a particular pressure level (see paragraph [0046]). As to the preamble recitation, of the claimed device being a “protective device for preventing tampering with a pipe system in a building, the pipe system for transmission of a flow of a fluid from an upstream end of the pipe system to a downstream end of the pipe system”, such is afforded, at best, limited patentable weight, because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). However, it should also be noted that Seo implicitly and/or expressly discloses advantageous implementation of the protective device into water-based pipe systems, including (at least) water-based fire control systems in buildings (see, at least paragraphs [0002]-[0007]).
As to claim 10, as noted above, Seo implicitly and/or expressly discloses advantageous implementation of the protective device into water-based pipe systems, including (at least) fire control systems in buildings (see, at least paragraphs [0002]-[0007]), including (at least) “high-rise buildings”, which implies that an upstream portion of such a fire control system would be coupled to a local water supply.
As to claim 11, as noted above, Seo implicitly and/or expressly discloses advantageous implementation of the protective device into water-based pipe systems, including (at least) fire control systems in buildings (see, at least paragraphs [0002]-[0007]), including (at least) “high-rise buildings”, which implies that an upstream portion of such a fire control system would be coupled to a fire department connection, which Applicant expressly states in paragraph [0007] of the instant application is required by building codes.
As to claim 15, Seo shows (see Fig. 1) and describes a protective device comprising: a pipe insert (100; and note that Seo expressly states “housing 101” of device “100” is “placed in a pipe” between upstream and downstream portions of the pipe, and supports “all components”, thus making “100” a pipe insert; see paragraph [0030]) disposed within a pipe system between upstream and downstream ends of the pipe system; a valve (see discussion of “valve seat 102” in paragraphs [0030]-[0033] and [0044]-[0046]) within the pipe insert (see again, Fig. 1), the valve moveable between first and second positions, wherein the first position enables transmission of a flow of fluid through the pipe insert, and the second position disables transmission of the flow of the fluid through the pipe insert; and a sensor (105) for disposition within the flow of the fluid to detect one of a target compound in the pipe insert and a pressure level in the pipe system; wherein the valve moves from the first position to the second position when the sensor detects the one of the target compound and a particular pressure level (see paragraph [0046]). As to the preamble recitation, of the claimed device being a “protective device for preventing tampering with a pipe system in a building, the pipe system for transmission of a flow of a fluid from an upstream end of the pipe system to a downstream end of the pipe system”, such is afforded, at best, limited patentable weight, because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). However, it should also be noted that Seo implicitly and/or expressly discloses advantageous implementation of the protective device into water-based pipe systems, including (at least) water-based fire control systems in buildings (see, at least paragraphs [0002]-[0007]).
Claims 8, 9 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al., KR 20210026501 A (see the English-language translation of Cho et al. for specifically cited locations within the written description thereof, as discussed below)
As to claim 8, Cho shows (see Figs. 1-4) and describes a protective device comprising: a pipe insert (10) disposed within a pipe system (P, P’) between upstream and downstream ends of the pipe system; a valve (200, 300) within the pipe insert (see again, Figs. 1-4), the valve moveable between open (see Figs. 1 and 3) and closed positions (see Figs. 2 and 4), wherein the open position opens the pipe insert, enabling transmission of a flow of fluid (W) through the pipe insert, and the closed position occludes the pipe insert, disabling transmission of the flow of the fluid through the pipe insert; and a sensor (400 in Figs. 1 and 2; and 410, 420 in Figs. 3 and 4) within the pipe insert for disposition within the flow of the fluid to detect one of a target compound and a pressure level in the pipe insert (see the sixth paragraph on page 3; and see the fourth and fifth paragraphs on page 4); wherein the valve moves from the open position to the closed position when the sensor detects the one of the target compound and a particular pressure level (see the seventh paragraph on page 3; and see the sixth paragraph on page 4; and see the fourth paragraph on page 5). As to the preamble recitation, of the claimed device being a “protective device for preventing tampering with a pipe system in a building, the pipe system for transmission of a flow of a fluid from an upstream end of the pipe system to a downstream end of the pipe system”, such is afforded, at best, limited patentable weight, because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). However, it should also be noted that Cho implicitly and/or expressly discloses advantageous implementation of the protective device into fluid-conveying pipe systems, including (at least) those which would be in buildings (see the first paragraph on page 2).
As to claim 9, the protective device of Cho, as shown in Figs. 3 and 4, includes a first sensor (410) upstream from the valve and a second sensor (420) downstream from the valve, wherein the valve moves from the open position to the closed position in response to either of the first or second sensors detecting the one of the target compound and the particular pressure level.
As to claim 15, Cho shows (see Figs. 1-4) and describes a protective device comprising: a pipe insert (10) disposed within a pipe system (P, P’) between upstream and downstream ends of the pipe system; a valve (200, 300) within the pipe insert (see again, Figs. 1-4), the valve moveable between first (see Figs. 1 and 3) and second positions (see Figs. 2 and 4), wherein the first position enables transmission of a flow of fluid (W) through the pipe insert, and the second position disables transmission of the flow of the fluid through the pipe insert; and a sensor (400 in Figs. 1 and 2; and 410, 420 in Figs. 3 and 4) for disposition within the flow of the fluid to detect one of a target compound in the pipe insert and a pressure level in the pipe system (see the sixth paragraph on page 3; and see the fourth and fifth paragraphs on page 4); wherein the valve moves from the first position to the second position when the sensor detects the one of the target compound and a particular pressure level (see the seventh paragraph on page 3; and see the sixth paragraph on page 4; and see the fourth paragraph on page 5). As to the preamble recitation, of the claimed device being a “protective device for preventing tampering with a pipe system in a building, the pipe system for transmission of a flow of a fluid from an upstream end of the pipe system to a downstream end of the pipe system”, such is afforded, at best, limited patentable weight, because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). However, it should also be noted that Cho implicitly and/or expressly discloses advantageous implementation of the protective device into fluid-conveying pipe systems, including (at least) those which would be in buildings (see the first paragraph on page 2).
As to claim 16, portion “200” of the valve shown by Cho is described as being an “elastic member”, and thus it is reasonable to expect that the valve exhibits an amount of bias into the first position.
As to claim 17, the protective device of Cho, as shown in Figs. 3 and 4, includes a first sensor (410) upstream from the valve and a second sensor (420) downstream from the valve, wherein the valve moves from the open position to the closed position in response to either of the first or second sensors detecting the one of the target compound and the particular pressure level.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al., in view of Cho et al.
Regarding each of claims 2, 9 and 17, Seo shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively. However, Seo shows and describes a single sensor, and is thus silent as to the sensor including a first sensor upstream from the valve and a second sensor downstream from the valve, wherein the valve moves from the open position to the closed position in response to either of the first or second sensors detecting the one of the target compound and the pressure level.
Cho (see Figs. 1-4) shows a protective device for a fluid-conveying pipe system having a similar design, function and effect as that of Seo; and Cho shows two different embodiments of the protective device, wherein a first thereof (see Figs. 1 and 2) includes a single pressure sensor (400), and wherein a second thereof (see Figs. 3 and 4) includes a first pressure sensor (410) upstream from the corresponding valve and a second pressure sensor (420) downstream from the corresponding valve. Cho expressly states that whether a pressure sensor is installed on one side, the other side, or both sides of the corresponding valve essentially matters very little, as in any instance, the pressure may be “quickly and accurately identified” (see the first paragraph on page 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sensor of Seo, to include a first sensor upstream from the valve and a second sensor downstream from the valve, as functionally-equivalently taught by Cho, since including first and second sensors in the manner taught by Cho will still quickly and accurately identify fluid pressure flowing through the device, as similarly required by the Seo system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Pending a complete reply (as discussed above in paragraph 5 of the instant Office action), including a timely-filed terminal disclaimer in response to the double patenting rejections set forth above in paragraphs 6-8 of the instant Office action, claims 5-7, 12-14 and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patents to McHugh and Harriss, US Patent Application Publications to Johnson and Klicpera, are cited as of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752