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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Phrases that can be implied, such as “Provided in this disclosure is” (see line 1) should not be present therein.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because various figures have rough and blurred lines rendering at least portions thereof difficult to read. A set of formal drawings should be submitted with any response to this Office Action.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0038, on the last two lines, “outlet port 20” should be “outlet port 10”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horak (U.S. Patent 4,284,210)
In regard to claim 1, the Horak reference discloses a dosing pump assembly 10 (see Figure 1 and column 3, line 40) comprising:
a dosing pump head 10 having an inlet port 18 connected to a liquid reservoir 14, an outlet port 46 for dispensing a predetermined dose of liquid from the reservoir and a fluid passage between the inlet and outlet ports;
a vertical tube 48 fluidly connected to the passageway and configured to indicate liquid level of the reservoir; and
a sensor array 62, 64 vertically affixed to the vertical tube, the sensor array comprising a plurality of sensors 62, 64 at a respective plurality of dispensing positions along the vertical tube indicative of the liquid level of the reservoir.
In regard to claim 2, the vertical tube is mounted to a vertical height of the reservoir such that a level of liquid in the vertical tube corresponds to the liquid level of the reservoir.
In regard to claim 8, the sensor array comprises a plurality of reed switches 62, 64 that turn on or off in response to a position of a floating magnet 52 which floats atop liquid in the vertical tube and thereby raises or lowers with a changing liquid level in the vertical tube.
In regard to claim 9, the Horak device further includes an intermediate liquid level sensing chamber (defined by the chamber between tube 48 and reservoir 14) for enclosing an electrical conducting structure for supporting the plurality of reed switches and an interface to an electrical controller 74.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horak in view of Griffiths et al. (U.S. Patent 7,127,943, hereinafter Griffiths).
In regard to claim 4, although the fluid level sensor array in the Horak reference is not structured as claimed, the Horak reference does disclose any suitable and known liquid level control device can be used (see column 4, lines 28-34). Attention is directed to the Griffiths reference, which discloses another liquid level control device wherein the liquid level sensor comprises a capacity type sensor array having a plurality of sensing pads (see column 6, lines 14-16) in order to effectively control the liquid level. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the Horak device can include such an capacitive type sensor array in order to effectively control the liquid level wherein such a modification would amount to the mere substitution of one functionally equivalent fluid level controller for another and the selection of either arrangement would work equally well on the Horak device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-7, 10-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15 and 16 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Saich and Giezendanner et al. references are cited as being directed to the state of the art as teachings of other pump device having a fluid level sensor built therein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
DJW
3/26/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights