DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This is in response to the amendments filed 4/20/2026.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages filed 4/20/2026, with respect to the previous rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of the prior action have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Drawings
The drawing objections would have been accepted, however upon further consideration, the assembly for numeral 116 in Figure 5 is different than in figure 7, as well as numerals 146 and 148. The numerals in Figure 7 should be changed to 116’,146’ and 148’, as an example, to distinguish the difference between these components, with additional changes in the specification, as required.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “116”, 146, and 148 has been used to designate both different components in Figures 5 and 7.
The drawings remain objected to because; the lines and numbers have poor quality, see 37CFR 1.84. (l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines, however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning. (p)(3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
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
Applicant’s amendment overcome the prior objection, and the amendment to the specification has been entered.
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 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) 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):
(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), 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: “internal drive mechanism”, “control module” in claim 1.
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 intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments and arguments overcome the prior rejections.
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, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al. (US 11041748) in view of Fujiwara (US 3632925).
Regarding claim 1, Koch et al. disclose a dump valve system (100, see Fig. 1) for controlling the level of a liquid inside a vessel (106) that includes a liquid discharge (col.3, lns. 60-61), the dump valve system comprising:
an automatic dump valve (116) connected to the upstream liquid line and configured to adjust the flow rate of the liquid through the liquid inlet;
a float assembly (108,202), wherein the float assembly comprises: a float (108) inside the vessel (106); and a float arm (214) connected to the float;
a level controller (104,222), wherein the level controller comprises:
a linear position sensor assembly (312) configured to output an electric signal; and an internal drive mechanism (302) between the float arm (214) and the linear position sensor assembly (312), wherein the internal drive mechanism translates a rotational movement of the float arm into a linear movement of the linear position sensor assembly (col.5, lns. 29-31); and a control module (111,112,600,602,610) configured to adjust the operation of the automatic dump valve based on the output from the position sensor assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
597
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Koch et al. disclose an automatic dump valve (116) connected to the liquid inlet and configured to adjust the flow rate of the liquid through the liquid inlet, but is silent that the automatic dump valve is connected downstream from the liquid discharge and configured to adjust the flow rate of the liquid through the liquid discharge.
Fujiwara teaches the use of an automatic dump valve (27, see Fig. 8) is connected downstream from the liquid discharge (at the outlet of the line 26 connected to tank 25) and configured to adjust the flow rate of the liquid through the liquid discharge.
PNG
media_image2.png
962
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a valve as taught by Fujiwara into the device of Koch et al. to have the automatic dump valve is connected downstream from the liquid discharge and configured to adjust the flow rate of the liquid through the liquid discharge, in order to have less danger of repeated breakdowns for ease of maintenance and repairs (Fujiwara, col. 1,lns. 27-30).
Regarding claim 4, Koch et al. when combined with Fujiwara disclose the control module is configured to adjust the automatic dump valve to change a dump rate of fluids passing through the automatic dump valve based on the output from the linear position sensor assembly (para. .0042).
Regarding claim 5, Koch et al. disclose a housing (218) attached to the vessel, wherein the float arm extends through the vessel into the housing (see Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 2,3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al. 748 and Fujiwara 925 and further in view of Pesek et al. (US 20130032217).
Regarding claims 2,3 and 12, Koch et al. and Fujiwara disclose, all of the features of the claimed invention although are silent to having;
a flow meter configured to measure the flow rate of liquids discharged from the automatic dump valve and output a signal representative of the measured flow rate, wherein the control module is also configured to adjust the operation of the automatic dump valve based on the output from the flow meter.
Pesek et al. teach a flow meter (136, in Fig. 1) configured to measure the flow rate of liquids discharged from the automatic dump valve and output a signal representative of the measured flow rate, wherein the control module is also configured to adjust the operation of the automatic dump valve based on the output from the flow meter(para.0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a flowmeter as taught by Pesek et al. into the combined device of Koch et al. and Fujiwara to have a flow meter configured to measure the flow rate of liquids discharged from the automatic dump valve and output a signal representative of the measured flow rate, wherein the control module is also configured to adjust the operation of the automatic dump valve based on the output from the flow meter, in order to act as a backup device to measure flow coming out of the vessel and to determine when to control the valve based on the amount of liquid released (para.0035, Pesek et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 -11 and 13-16 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 17-20 are allowed.
None of the prior art of record disclose or renders as obvious, “a flapper bar in contact with the plunger of the linear position sensor assembly; and a sensitivity fulcrum positioned between the flapper bar and the torque bar” in combination with the rest of the limitations in claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
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) Form at Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
