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 .
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “a supply unit for outputting a fluid according to a pulsed control signal specifying a preset pressure and a preset flow rate” and a “fluid receiving device is configured to receive, through the switching unit, the fluid output by the supply unit” in claims 1 and 12.
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 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 1-3 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorfler et alia (US Patent Application Publication US 2020/0368092 A1), hereinafter “Dorfler” in view of Skendzel (US Patent Number 9,248,073).
Re claim 1, Dorfler discloses a pulsed pressure control system, comprising: a supply unit (upper left pump in Fig. 1) for outputting a fluid according to a pulsed control signal specifying a preset pressure and a preset flow rate; a switching unit (any of valves 14) in a form of a switch; a first path (shown in Fig. 1 between pump and valve 14) connected between the supply unit and the switching unit; a second path (16) having an end connected to the switching unit; a fluid receiving device (6) connected to an opposite end of the second path, the switching unit being located between the first path and the second path (see Fig. 1), wherein the fluid receiving device is configured to receive, through the switching unit, the fluid output by the supply unit (see para [0021]); and a return path (that starts in the supply and return valve 14 with the return shown as the diagonal path in valve 14); wherein after the switching unit is used to cut off communication between the first path and the second path, turning on the supply unit allows the fluid to be supplied to the first path, increases a volume of the fluid on the first path, and eventually pressurizes the fluid on the first path; when the switching unit is subsequently switched on to allow the communication between the first path and the second path, the pressurized fluid is instantaneously released to the fluid receiving device through the second path such that an interior volume of the fluid receiving device is changed (see Fig. 1 and para [0021]).
PNG
media_image1.png
614
1110
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dorfler is silent as to where the return path goes to when the fluid receiving device is releasing pressure when the valves (14) are in the position shown in Fig. 1.
Skendzel discloses a similar pulsed pneumatic pressure control device (see Figs. 1 and 4). Fig. 1 shows the pump (102). The first path is 108 (or 410 in Fig. 4). The second path is 114 (or leading from 424 in Fig. 4) leading to the pressurized device that receives the air. Fig. 4 discloses a return path that starts at port 418 leading to line 412 (110 in Fig. 1) which leads back to the pump 102.
PNG
media_image2.png
686
926
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
704
984
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the return line (110 or 412) of Skendzel in the pulsed pressure control system of Dorfler in order to have a closed system for the air as opposed to venting the air to atmosphere. Such a combination discloses a return path connecting the switching unit to the supply unit and when the switching unit is subsequently used to allow communication between the second path and the return path, the fluid receiving device releases a pressure therein by allowing the fluid in the fluid receiving device to flow to the supply unit through the second path, the switching unit, and the return path.
Re claim 2, the modified Dorfler discloses the pulsed pressure control system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the supply unit is a pump, and the fluid receiving device (6 in Dorfler) is an air bag or an air pocket.
Re claim 3, the modified Dorfler discloses the pulsed pressure control system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the switching unit is a solenoid valve, an electromagnet, a motor-controlled distribution valve, or a piezoelectric valve (Skendzel explicitly discloses the valve as a solenoid valve, see Figs. 1 and 4).
Re claim 9, the modified Dorfler discloses the pulsed pressure control system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the supply unit has an output end and an input end, the output end is connected to the first path (see Dorfler, Fig. 1 or Skendzel, Figs. 1 and 4), and the input end is connected to a gas supply (i.e. the air in the return line in the modification as set forth with respect to claim 1).
Re claim 10, the modified Dorfler discloses the pulsed pressure control system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first path, the second path, and the return path are defined by tube-based communication devices (the air lines shown in both references are considered tube-based as air flow through them). Alternatively, or additionally, the examiner takes official notice that fluid lines being tube-based is old and well in the art and one would use tube-based communication devices in order to pass air through the system.
Re claim 11, the modified Dorfler discloses the pulsed pressure control system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first path has a tube pressure greater than a tube pressure of the second path during a pressurization stage (before the valve is open in the supply mode, the pressure from the pump has the first path at a greater pressure than the second path), and the tube pressure of the second path is greater than a tube pressure of the return path during a pressure release stage (until the valve is moved to the return position, the pressure in the second path is greater than the pressure in the return path).
Re claim 12, the modified Dorfler discloses a pulsed pressure control method, applied to a pulsed pressure control system comprising: a supply unit for outputting a fluid according to a pulsed control signal specifying a preset pressure and a preset flow rate; a switching unit; a first path connected between the supply unit and the switching unit; a second path having an end connected to the switching unit; a fluid receiving device connected to an opposite end of the second path, the switching unit being located between the first path and the second path, wherein the fluid receiving device is configured to receive, through the switching unit, the fluid output by the supply unit; and a return path connecting the switching unit to the supply unit; the pulsed pressure control method comprising the steps of: cutting off communication between the first path and the second path, by the switching unit; turning on the supply unit in order for the fluid to be supplied to the first path, thereby increasing a volume of the fluid on the first path and eventually pressurizing the fluid on the first path; switching on the switching unit to allow the communication between the first path and the second path, in order for the pressurized fluid to be instantaneously released to the fluid receiving device through the second path to change an interior volume of the fluid receiving device; and allowing communication between the second path and the return path, by the switching unit; and releasing a pressure in the fluid receiving device by allowing the fluid in the fluid receiving device to flow to the supply unit through the second path, the switching unit, and the return path. Note that the method is the use of the apparatus as set forth in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kern, Fox, and Kishi disclose similar pulsed pressure control system where pumped air is pulsed to air bags with a switch valve controlling the flow.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Keasel whose telephone number is (571) 272-4929. The examiner works a part-time schedule and can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday.
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 supervisors, Kenneth Rinehart and Craig Schneider can be reached on 571-272-4881 and 571-272-3607, respectively. 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.
/ERIC KEASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
