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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: "A expansion device" should read "An expansion device". 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-14, 17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wideman et. al. (US 20190113054), hereinafter Wideman.
Regarding claim 11, Wideman teaches: A expansion device having an expansion housing, which has a separating membrane (separating membrane 7 [Fig. 7 and Para. 23, lines 2-5]), which separates the expansion housing into two media chambers, of which a first media chamber can be filled with liquid via a liquid connection in the expansion housing (expansion housing comprises two media chambers, one liquid and one air [Fig. 7 and Para. 23, lines 2-5]), wherein a second media chamber of the two media chambers is permanently connected to the environment via at least one opening in the expansion housing, even during operation of the device, in such a way that ambient pressure prevails in the second media chamber (With respect to the media chamber connected to environment, expansion housing 5 comprises an opening 9 to a media chamber which can be filled with air [Fig. 7 and Para. 23, lines 2-5] and thus provides a permanent connection between the environment on the other side and the media chamber. While features of an apparatus may be recited, either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQD 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Thus, while Wideman does not explicitly teach the function of ambient pressure entering the media chamber during operation, the structure would reasonably be seen to be capable of performing the intended use).
Regarding claim 12, Wideman teaches: The expansion device of claim 11, wherein the liquid connection and the at least one opening for the ambient air to pass into the second media chamber are arranged on opposing end faces of the expansion housing (tank 11 has opposing openings 9 and 10 [Fig. 7]).
Regarding claim 13, Wideman teaches: The expansion device of claim 11, wherein the at least one opening in the expansion housing for the passage of air is used to accommodate an air filter (As described, the air filter is seen to not be positively recited and thus the opening in the reference should only be capable of accommodating an air filter. Opening 9 could be used to accommodate a filter as taught by Wideman [Para. 26, lines 21-25] and therefore is capable of accommodating a filter for the passage of air [Para. 23, lines 2-5]).
Regarding claim 14, Wideman teaches: The expansion device of claim 11, wherein the expansion housing consists of a first and a second shell-like housing part which housing parts are bonded together and consist of plastic materials (first shell 5 and second shell 6 bonded together and made of plastic material [Para. 24 and Para. 25, lines 1-12]).
Regarding claim 17, Wideman teaches: The expansion device of claim 14, wherein an axial gap is present at the point of overlap between the second housing part with the retaining ring and the first housing part (axial gap in region of overlap of retaining ring 3 with second housing part 6 and first housing part 1 [encircled in marked Fig. 7B below]), and wherein the second housing part rests on the retaining ring with a protruding contact surface (second housing part 6 with the protruding contact surface 8 which retaining ring 3 contacts [encircled in marked Fig. 7B below]).
PNG
media_image1.png
608
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Wideman teaches: The expansion device of claim 12, wherein the at least one opening in the expansion housing for the passage of air is used to accommodate an air filter (As described, the air filter is seen to not be positively recited and thus the opening in the reference should only be capable of accommodating an air filter. Opening 9 could be used to accommodate a filter as taught by Wideman [Para. 26, lines 21-25] and therefore is capable of accommodate a filter for the passage of air [Para. 23, lines 2-5]).
Regarding claim 22, Wideman teaches: The expansion device of claim 12, wherein the expansion housing consists of a first and a second shell-like housing part which housing parts are bonded together and consist of plastic materials (first shell 5 and second shell 6 bonded together and made of plastic material [Para. 24 and Para. 25, lines 1-12]).
Regarding claim 23, Wideman teaches: The expansion device of claim 13, wherein the expansion housing consists of a first and a second shell-like housing part which housing parts are bonded together and consist of plastic materials (first shell 5 and second shell 6 bonded together and made of plastic material [Para. 24 and Para. 25, lines 1-12]).
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 15-16, 19, 24-26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wideman et. al. (US 20190113054) in view of Weber (US 20120037253).
Regarding claim 15, Wideman teaches: The expansion device of claim 14, wherein the first housing part with the at least one opening engages over the second housing part with the liquid connection (first shell 5 opening engages over second shell 6 [Fig. 5]) wherein a retaining ring is inserted on the inner circumference of the second housing part with the liquid connection in the region of the overlap (retaining ring 3 inserted on inner circumference of second shell 6 in the overlap region [Fig. 6]).
Wideman fails to teach: which retaining ring presses the separating membrane into an annular recess of the second housing part.
Weber teaches: wherein a retaining ring is inserted on the inner circumference of the second housing part with the liquid connection in the region of the overlap (retaining ring 17 inserted on inner circumference of second shell 2 in general region of overlap [Fig. 1]), which retaining ring presses the separating membrane into an annular recess of the second housing part (retaining ring 17 presses separating membrane into annular recess 23 [Fig. 1 and Para. 19, 1-7]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the expansion device of Wideman with the retaining ring configuration of Weber in order to provide secure and safe manufacturing of the expansion device without damaging any elements so that they function effectively (Weber - Para. 6, lines 8-13 and Para. 19).
Regarding claim 16, Wideman teaches: The expansion device of claim 14.
Wideman fails to teach: wherein the first housing part with the opening protrudes inwards in the region of the retaining ring and engages over the second housing part and the retaining ring.
Weber teaches: wherein the first housing part with the opening protrudes inwards in the region of the retaining ring and engages over the second housing part and the retaining ring (When viewed in the vertical direction, the first housing part 3 protrudes inward at region 6 and engages vertically over second shell 2 and retaining ring 17 [Fig. 1]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the expansion device of Wideman with the retaining ring configuration of Weber in order to provide security and support for the functionality of the support ring (Weber - Para. 6, lines 8-13 and Para. 19).
Regarding claim 19, Wideman teaches: The expansion device of claim 14
Wideman fails to teach: wherein the separating membrane has a bead-like thickening which, with a radially protruding lip, engages in an associated annular gap in the second housing part
Weber teaches: wherein the separating membrane has a bead-like thickening which, with a radially protruding lip, engages in an associated annular gap in the second housing part (retaining ring has bead-like thickening which engages in annular groove 23 of second shell 2 [encircled in marked Fig. 1 below]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the expansion device of Wideman with the features of the membrane configuration of Weber in order to provide greater axial and radial securement of the membrane with the housing (Weber - Para. 10, lines 5-11).
PNG
media_image2.png
225
260
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Wideman and Weber teaches: The expansion device of claim 15, wherein the first housing part with the opening protrudes inwards in the region of the retaining ring and engages over the second housing part and the retaining ring (When viewed in the vertical direction, the first housing part 3 protrudes inward at region 6 and engages vertically over second shell 2 and retaining ring 17 [Fig. 1]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Wideman and Weber teaches: The expansion device of claim 14, wherein an axial gap is present at the point of overlap between the second housing part with the retaining ring and the first housing part (Wideman - axial gap in region of overlap of retaining ring 3 with second housing part 6 and first housing part 1 [encircled in marked Fig. 7B shown in rejection of claim 17]), and wherein the second housing part rests on the retaining ring with a protruding contact surface (Wideman - second housing part 6 with the protruding contact surface 8 which retaining ring 3 contacts [encircled in marked Fig. 7B shown in rejection of claim 17]).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Wideman and Weber teaches: The expansion device of claim 14, wherein an axial gap is present at the point of overlap between the second housing part with the retaining ring and the first housing part (Wideman - axial gap in region of overlap of retaining ring 3 with second housing part 6 and first housing part 1 [encircled in marked Fig. 7B shown in rejection of claim 17]), and wherein the second housing part rests on the retaining ring with a protruding contact surface (Wideman - second housing part 6 with the protruding contact surface 8 which retaining ring 3 contacts [encircled in marked Fig. 7B shown in rejection of claim 17]).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Wideman and Weber teaches: The expansion device of claim 15
The combination as previously described fails to teach: wherein the separating membrane has a bead-like thickening which, with a radially protruding lip, engages in an associated annular gap in the second housing part
Weber further teaches: wherein the separating membrane has a bead-like thickening which, with a radially protruding lip, engages in an associated annular gap in the second housing part (retaining ring has bead-like thickening which engages in annular groove 23 of second shell 2 [Weber – encircled in marked Fig. 1 for rejection of claim 19 above]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the expansion device of Wideman with the features of the membrane configuration of Weber in order to provide greater axial and radial securement of the membrane with the housing (Weber - Para. 10, lines 5-11).
Claims 18 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wideman et. al. (US 20190113054) in view of Takamatsu et. al. (US 5618629).
Regarding claim 18, Wideman teaches: The expansion device of claim 14, wherein the separating membrane consists of a shell-like elastomer body (separating membrane 7 consists of elastomer body [Para. 28, lines 1-3])
Wideman fails to teach: which has a closing part on the bottom for sealing the liquid connection when the second housing part is completely evacuated on its liquid side.
Takamatsu teaches: separating membrane which has a closing part on the bottom for sealing the liquid connection when the second housing part is completely evacuated on its liquid side (separating membrane 22 has poppet valve 121 [Fig. 7]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the expansion device of Wideman with the closing part of Takamatsu in order to improve durability and service life of the diaphragm in the expansion device (Takamatsu – Col. 4, lines 31-33).
Regarding claim 29, Wideman teaches: The expansion device of claim 17, wherein the separating membrane consists of a shell-like elastomer body (separating membrane 7 consists of elastomer body [Wideman - Para. 28, lines 1-3])
Wideman fails to teach: which has a closing part on the bottom for sealing the liquid connection when the second housing part is completely evacuated on its liquid side.
Takamatsu teaches: separating membrane which has a closing part on the bottom for sealing the liquid connection when the second housing part is completely evacuated on its liquid side (separating membrane 22 has poppet valve 121 [Fig. 7]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the expansion device of Wideman with the closing part of Takamatsu in order to improve durability and service life of the diaphragm in the expansion device (Takamatsu – Col. 4, lines 31-33).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wideman et. al. (US 20190113054) in view of Lane (US 5386925).
Regarding claim 18, Wideman teaches: The expansion device of claim 14
Wideman fails to teach: wherein the liquid connection in the second housing part has two connection parts which engage through the liquid connection and, secured together, clamp the second housing part between them in an edge region of the liquid connection
Lane teaches: wherein the liquid connection in the second housing part has two connection parts which engage through the liquid connection and, secured together, clamp the second housing part between them in an edge region of the liquid connection (Insert 170 and fitting 130 joined to tank at orifice 118 of second shell 104 [Fig. 1 and Col. 4, line 67 – Col. 5, line 13])
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the expansion device of Wideman with the closing part of Lane in order to improve fluid tightness in the connection region of the second housing part (Lane – Col. 4, line 67 – Col 5, line 13).
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wideman et. al. (US 20190113054) in view of Weber (US 20120037253) as applied to claims 15 and 16, respectively, above, and further in view of Takamatsu et. al. (US 5618629), hereinafter Takamatsu.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Wideman and Weber teaches: The expansion device of claim 15, wherein the separating membrane consists of a shell-like elastomer body (separating membrane 7 consists of elastomer body [Wideman - Para. 28, lines 1-3])
Wideman and Weber fail to teach: which has a closing part on the bottom for sealing the liquid connection when the second housing part is completely evacuated on its liquid side.
Takamatsu teaches: separating membrane which has a closing part on the bottom for sealing the liquid connection when the second housing part is completely evacuated on its liquid side (separating membrane 22 has poppet valve 121 [Fig. 7]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the expansion device of Wideman and Weber with the closing part of Takamatsu in order to improve durability and service life of the diaphragm in the expansion device (Takamatsu – Col. 4, lines 31-33).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Wideman and Weber teaches: The expansion device of claim 16, wherein the separating membrane consists of a shell-like elastomer body (separating membrane 7 consists of elastomer body [Wideman - Para. 28, lines 1-3])
Wideman and Weber fail to teach: which has a closing part on the bottom for sealing the liquid connection when the second housing part is completely evacuated on its liquid side.
Takamatsu teaches: separating membrane which has a closing part on the bottom for sealing the liquid connection when the second housing part is completely evacuated on its liquid side (separating membrane 22 has poppet valve 121 [Fig. 7]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the expansion device of Wideman and Weber with the closing part of Takamatsu in order to improve durability and service life of the diaphragm in the expansion device (Takamatsu – Col. 4, lines 31-33).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Haaren et. al. (US 20150345802) teaches an expansion tank with two half shells and further comprising a diaphragm and retaining clip (abstract and Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DENNIS LEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. If Craig Schneider cannot be reached, please contact Kenneth Rinehart 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.
/JOSHUA D LEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/MICHAEL R REID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights