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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 15/510,830, filed on 03/13/2017.
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 6, 11, 16, and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,070,765. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differing language found in this application amounts to functional recitations in which the device claimed in the patent of above are inherently capable of performing.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voskuil (US Patent No. 8,240,513), and further in view of Boboltz (US Patent No. 8,813,793).
Re: Claim 1, Voskuil discloses the claimed invention including an apparatus for dispensing a plurality of liquids, the apparatus comprising a plurality of dispenser assemblies comprising:
a container (4) (Fig. 2);
a pump (1) (Fig. 2);
a valve (9, 33) having a valve housing (33) and a valve member (9) in the valve housing, the valve member comprising an inlet channel (43) (Depicted in Figs. 4A-4B) and a dispense channel (46) (Depicted in Fig. 4B); and
a controller (5) arranged to operate the pump and the valve of a selected one of the dispenser assemblies to move the valve member into (Depicted in Fig. 2, Col. 3, lines 29-31, controller operates both pump and valve to dispense fluid);
an intake position connecting the container to the pump via the inlet channel to withdraw liquid from the container to the pump via the inlet channel (Depicted in Fig. 4A, Col. 4, lines 48-50, intake position);
a dispense position connecting the pump to a dispense opening (8) in a bottom part of the valve housing via the dispense channel to dispense liquid from the pump via the dispense channel (Depicted in Fig. 3A-3C, Col. 4, lines 11-15, dispense channel); and
a position connecting the pump to the container via the dispense channel (Depicted in Fig. 4A, Col. 5, lines 48-50, pump in communication with container) except for expressly stating a purge position for returning fluid to the container function. However, Boboltz teaches a controller moving a valve to a purge position connecting the pump to the container to purge liquid from the pump to the container (Depicted in Fig. 6, Col. 5, lines 37-44, return to container).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a purge position as taught by Boboltz, since such a modification conserves unused paint by placing it back in the container from the pump for later use.
Re: Claim 2, Voskuil as modified by Boboltz in the rejection of claim 1 above discloses the claimed invention including at least one further dispense channel (44, 45) having a diameter different from the diameter of the first dispense channel, wherein the controller is arranged to operate the pump and the valve to purge liquid from the pump to the container sequentially via the first and further dispense channels.
Re: Claim 3, Voskuil discloses the claimed invention including the valve member is a rotatable valve member and the dispense channels and the inlet channel are radial channels (Figs. 4A-4B, radial channels, that the valve member rotates).
Re: Claim 4, Voskuil discloses the claimed invention including at least one dispense channel located 120 degrees from another except for all of them. However, The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Voskuil by causing every dispense channel to be at 120-degree angle from one another. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular angle (see Specification wherein the angle be “preferably” be at 120 degrees) and it appears that the device of Voskuil would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of angle.
Re: Claim 5, Voskuil discloses the claimed invention including the controller is arranged to move the valve into a closing position, to close at least the pump, the inlet channel and the dispense channels (Fig. 4A, valve capable of being rotated into a position to close pump, inlet and dispense channels).
Re: Claim 7, Voskuil discloses the claimed invention including the valve housing comprises a pump inlet opening (41) communicating with a pump inlet channel (32) of the pump (Depicted in Figs. 4A-4B).
Re: Claim 8, Voskuil discloses the claimed invention including the pump inlet opening of the valve housing and the dispense opening of the valve housing are at diametrically opposite sides of the valve member (Depicted in Figs. 4A-4B).
Re: Claim 9, Voskuil discloses the claimed invention including the inlet channel and the dispense channels of the valve member and the pump inlet opening and the dispense opening of the valve housing are arranged such that the dispense opening is closed when the pump inlet opening communicates with the inlet channel of the valve (Depicted in Fig. 4A-4B) or with the first or further dispense channels of the valve and the pump inlet opening is closed when the dispense opening of the valve housing communicates with the inlet channel of the valve or with the first or further dispense channels of the valve (Depicted in Fig. 4A-4B).
Re: Claim 10, Voskuil discloses the claimed invention including the inlet channel and the dispense channels of the valve member and the pump inlet opening and the dispense opening of the valve housing are arranged such that when a selected one of the first or further dispense channels communicates with the pump inlet opening, the other ones of the first or further dispense channels and the inlet channel are closed (Depicted in Fig. 4A-4B).
Re: Claim 13, Voskuil discloses the claimed invention including the pump is a positive displacement pump (Depicted in Fis. 3A-3C).
Re: Claim 14, Voskuil discloses the claimed invention including the positive displacement pump is a piston pump (15) (Depicted in Fis. 3A-3C).
Re: Claim 15, Voskuil discloses the claimed invention including an apparatus for dispensing a plurality of liquids, the apparatus comprising a plurality of dispenser assemblies comprising:
a container (4) (Fig. 2);
a pump (1) (Fig. 2);
a valve (9, 33) comprising:
a valve housing (33) comprising a dispense opening (8) in a bottom of the valve housing and a pump inlet opening (41) communicating with a pump inlet channel (32) of the pump (Figs. 4A-4B); and
a rotatable valve member (9) in the valve housing between the pump inlet opening and the dispense opening, the valve member comprising an inlet channel (43), a first dispense channel (46) and at least one further dispense channel (44, 45) having a diameter different from the diameter of the first dispense channel, wherein the first and further dispense channels are radial channels within 120 degrees of rotation of the valve member from each other (Depicted in Fig. 4A at least one dispenser channel to another dispense channel at 120 degrees);
wherein the apparatus further comprises a controller (5) arranged to operate the pump and the valve of a selected one of the dispenser assemblies to rotate the valve member (Depicted in Fig. 2, Col. 3, lines 29-31, controller operates both pump and valve to dispense fluid) into:
an intake position aligning the inlet channel of the valve member with the pump inlet opening to withdraw liquid from the container to the pump (Depicted in Fig. 4A, Col. 4, lines 48-50, intake position);
a dispense position for each one of the first or further dispense channels, aligning the respective dispense channel with the dispense opening in the bottom part of the valve housing to allow dispensing of liquid from the pump via the respective dispense channel (Depicted in Fig. 3A-3C, Col. 4, lines 11-15, dispense channel); and
a position for each one of the first or further dispense channels connecting the pump to the container via the respective dispense channel and to purge liquid from the pump to the container via the respective dispense channel, while the inlet channel is closed (Depicted in Fig. 4A, Col. 5, lines 48-50, pump in communication with container) except for expressly stating a purge position for returning fluid to the container function. However, Boboltz teaches a controller moving a valve to a purge position connecting the pump to the container to purge liquid from the pump to the container (Depicted in Fig. 6, Col. 5, lines 37-44, return to container). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a purge position as taught by Boboltz, since such a modification conserves unused paint by placing it back in the container from the pump for later use.
Voskuil as modified by Boboltz above is capable of the controller being arranged to purge the first and further dispense channels sequentially (Boboltz: Depicted in Fig. 6, Col. 5, lines 37-44, return to container).
Claim(s) 6, 11, 12, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voskuil (US Patent No. 8,240,513) and Boboltz (US Patent No. 8,813,793) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schutze (US 2014/0326322 A1).
Re: Claim 6, Voskuil discloses the claimed invention except for the controller establishing a fluids compressibility or expandability. However, Schutze teaches a controller is arranged to establish whether the medium inside the pump is compressible or expandable, while the valve is in the closing position (Para. 27, pump is closed to the environment, and the controller establishes what the medium is).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to including establish whether the medium is compressible or expandable as taught by Schutze, since Schutze states in paragraph 14 that such a modification has the advantages of gravimetric metering and is superior to the latter in terms of accuracy since temperature fluctuations and gas inclusions in the medium to be metered are taken into account.
Re: Claim 11, Voskuil as modified by Schutze in the rejection of claim 6 above discloses the claimed invention including the controller is arranged to establish flow resistance in the liquid over the dispense channels (Schutze: Fig. 1, Para. 27, valve closed, moving the material piston downwards, the compressibility of the fluid is then checked and measured via the travel/stroke of the piston ascertaining if air is inside).
Re: Claim 12, Voskuil discloses the claimed invention including the dispense channels include a variable opening (Depicted in Fig. 4A-4B).
Re: Claim 16, Voskuil discloses the claimed invention including an apparatus for dispensing a plurality of liquids, the apparatus comprising a plurality of dispenser assemblies comprising:
a container (4) (Fig. 2);
a pump (1) (Fig. 2);
a valve (9, 33) comprising:
a valve housing (33) comprising a dispense opening (8) in a bottom of the valve housing and a pump inlet opening (41) communicating with a pump inlet channel (32) of the pump (Figs. 4A-4B); and
a valve member (9) in the valve housing between the pump inlet opening and the dispense opening, the valve member comprising an inlet channel (43), a first dispense channel (46) and at least one further dispense channel (44, 45) (Figs. 4A-4B);
wherein the apparatus further comprises a controller arranged to operate the pump and the valve of a selected one of the dispenser assemblies to move the valve member (Depicted in Fig. 2, Col. 3, lines 29-31, controller operates both pump and valve to dispense fluid) into:
an intake position aligning the inlet channel of the valve member with the pump inlet opening to withdraw liquid from the container to the pump (Depicted in Fig. 4A, Col. 4, lines 48-50, intake position);
;
a dispense position for each one of the first or further dispense channels, aligning the respective dispense channel with the dispense opening in the bottom part of the valve housing to allow dispensing of liquid from the pump via the respective dispense channel (Depicted in Fig. 3A-3C, Col. 4, lines 11-15, dispense channel);
a position for each one of the first or further dispense channels connecting the pump to the container via the respective dispense channel and to purge liquid from the pump to the container via the respective dispense channel, while the inlet channel is closed (Depicted in Fig. 4A, Col. 5, lines 48-50, pump in communication with container) except for expressly stating a purge position for returning fluid to the container function. However, Boboltz teaches a controller moving a valve to a purge position connecting the pump to the container to purge liquid from the pump to the container (Depicted in Fig. 6, Col. 5, lines 37-44, return to container). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a purge position as taught by Boboltz, since such a modification conserves unused paint by placing it back in the container from the pump for later use;
a closing position closing the pump, the inlet channel and the dispense channels (Fig. 4A, valve capable of being rotated into a position to close pump, inlet and dispense channels); and
Voskuil discloses the claimed invention except for the controller establishing a fluids compressibility or expandability. However, Schutze teaches a controller is arranged to establish whether the medium inside the pump is compressible or expandable, while the valve is in the closing position (Para. 27, pump is closed to the environment, and the controller establishes what the medium is).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to including establish whether the medium is compressible or expandable as taught by Schutze, since Schutze states in paragraph 14 that such a modification has the advantages of gravimetric metering and is superior to the latter in terms of accuracy since temperature fluctuations and gas inclusions in the medium to be metered are taken into account.
Re: Claim 17, the rejection from claim 9 above covers the limitations recited in this claim.
Re: Claim 18, the rejections from claim 4-5 above cover the limitations recited in this claim.
Re: Claim 19, the rejection from claim 10 above covers the limitations recited in this claim.
Re: Claim 20, the rejections from claims 6-7 above cover the limitations recited in this claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References cited on the PTO-892 teach dispensers with rotatable valves for accurate dispensing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754