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 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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein a pressure output range of the first liquid path is continuous with a pressure output rage of the second liquid path” in lines 15 and 16; the phrase “is continuous” is unclear in this context since the generally accepted meaning of “continuous” is “something that occurs without interruption, cessation or a break”. The specification does not provide any explanation as to what is meant by the phrase. The claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner which is that the term “continuous” does not affect the structure of the apparatus being claimed and as such will ne be given any patentable weight.
In claim 3, line 7, the phrase “switching the first liquid path and the second liquid path are switched” is unclear.
Claim 6 recites the same “continuous” term as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 17, as best understood by the examiner, is/are, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho (US Patent 4,934,399).
With regard to claims 1 and 17, Cho discloses an apparatus comprising a liquid inlet port (far left “11”, fig. 1) for introducing pressurized liquid (title: liquid is pressurized), a liquid fluid outlet port for outputting pressurized liquid (at arrow after far right “11”), a first liquid path 14 having an input end (at left of valve 12) and an output end (right top vertical arrow) , wherein the input end is connected to the liquid pressure input port, and the output end of the first fluid path is connected to the liquid pressure outlet port (fig. 1), a second flow path 11 having an input end and an output end and arranged in parallel with the first liquid path, wherein the input end of the second liquid flow path is connected to the liquid pressure inlet port and the output end of the second flow path is connected the liquid pressure outlet port (fig. 1), a controller configured (discharge controller) to perform determining a target pressure that the apparatus needs to output, and comparing the target pressure with a pre-stored switching pressure, and selectively controlling the first liquid path or the second liquid path to supply pressure to the liquid pressure output port based on a comparison result, wherein a pressure output range of the first liquid path is continuous with a pressure output rage of the second liquid path, see col. 4, line 55 to col. 5, line 16 and col. 6, lines 22-46). Applicant should note that the “predetermined discharge pressure setpoint” would be a stored value as is known in the art which will correspond to the “switching pressure”. Further, the controller of Cho is capable to function as recited in the claim and the recited method steps will flow from using the apparatus of Cho. Further, the phrase “pressure calibration” not been given any patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. The recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim recites a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus the recited language is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Regarding claims 2-5 and 7, see col. 6, line 22 to col. 7, line 14.
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) 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Todsen et al. (US Patent 10,920,796).
Regarding claim 8, Cho discloses an apparatus as shown above including a pump 18 in the first flow path. Although Cho does not specifically disclose that pump 18 is a supercharger, however it is known to provide a supercharger in such fluid control apparatuses as taught by Todsen et al. who teaches a supercharger comprising a first compression chamber 3 and a second compression chamber 4, and wherein the first compression chamber and the second compression chamber are configured such that the first compression chamber and the second compression chamber are filled with liquid medium (hydraulic fluid), and when the pressure of the liquid medium in the first compression chamber changes by delta P, the pressure in the second compression chamber changes by N times delta P, where N is greater than 1, see col. 2 lines 32-35 and col. 4, lines 3-40. Applicant should note that it is obvious that N would be greater than 1 because that is how pressure intensifiers function. Therefore, nit would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a supercharger as claimed in the apparatus of Cho, in light of the teachings of Todsen et al., as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 9, see figure 1 of Todsen et al. Applicant should note that it is obvious that the first compression chamber would be connected to the liquid pressure inlet port and the second compression chamber would be connected to the liquid pressure outlet port as is conventional in the art.
Regarding claim 10, see col. 2, lines 55-60 and compression chambers 3 and 4 as shown in figure 2 of Todsen et al.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, see col. 2, lines 55-60 of Todsen et al. Applicant should note that the recited movement of the first and second piston is conventional in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant should note that it is obvious that M would be equal to N since the pressure is a function of a surface area on which a force is acting.
Regarding claim 14, Official Notice is taken in that electrically driven liquid pressure sources are old and well known in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant should note that it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to appropriately calibrate the desired flow outputs.
Regarding claim 16, see Todsen et al. abstract and col. 2, lines 55-60 and figure 1. Applicant should note that rotatable cylinders and pistons are old and well-known in the art.
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 ESSAMA OMGBA whose telephone number is (469)295-9278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday: 10:00 AM to 6:00 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, Alford Kindred can be reached at 571-272-4037. 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.
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746