DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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.
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 "both ends" in line 16, where it is noted that there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hunt (US 1850879);
Claim(s) 4-6, 10 (in the alternative) is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt as applied to claims 1-3 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Halltorp (US 6196477);
Claim(s) 11-13, 15 (in the alternative) is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt as applied to claims 1-3, 7 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Fish (US 1471690);
Claim(s) 14 and 16 (in the alternative) is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt (and/or in view of Halltorp) as applied to claims 1-4 and 10 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Fish (US 1471690);
Hunt discloses in claim 1: A reciprocating switch for high-pressure fluid lines (see for example comparison between figures 2 and 7 (between open and closed positions), and page 1 ln 1-10) comprising at least: an inlet switch body (40 considered the inlet side), one end of which has an inlet (inlet via 58) and other end of which is a closed end (wall of 42 at 40 side), an inlet chamber (at 44 chamber) communicating with the inlet being formed between the inlet and the closed end (as shown), and the inlet being used to connect and communicate with a fluid supply component (41’); an outlet switch body (at 45), extending outwardly from the closed end of the inlet switch body and featuring an outlet (via 59) at its outer end, an outlet chamber (at 44 of 45 side) communicating with the outlet being formed between the outlet and the closed end, and the outlet being used to connect and communicate with a fluid-driven device (at 48’ such as a pneumatic tool etc…(id)); a first communication port (ports 43), formed by at least one aperture (apertures at the openings and discharge of the ports 43) near the closed end penetrating the inlet switch body (transversely), and used to communicate the inlet chamber with an exterior (surrounded by 54) of the inlet switch body; a second communication port (ports 43’), formed by at least one aperture (apertures at the openings and discharge of the ports 43’) near the closed end penetrating (transversely) the outlet switch body, and used to communicate the outlet chamber with an exterior of the outlet switch body; and a sleeve (51), having inner edge shapes (52/53 grooves, and also groove 54 that extends…) at both ends corresponding to outer edge shapes of the inlet switch body (i.e. cylindrical annular grooves) and the outlet switch body (and see pg. 4 ln 23-45), allowing the sleeve to fit and slide over outer surfaces of the inlet switch body and the outlet switch body between a first position (figure 2 open fluid flow) and a second position (figure 7 closed fluid flow), and inner wall of the sleeve having an annular groove (as discussed 54) in a middle section; wherein, inner wall surfaces at the both ends of the sleeve abut against the outer surfaces of the inlet switch body (as shown they traverse the bodies) and the outlet switch body, respectively; when the sleeve is in the first position, the both ends of the sleeve encircle the first communication port and the second communication port (for open fluid flow figure 2), but the annular groove communicates the first communication port and the second communication port, allowing fluid to enter through the inlet and flow out from the outlet; and when the sleeve is in the second position, the both ends of the sleeve encircle the first communication port but do not encircle the second communication port (figure 7), thereby preventing the annular groove from communicating with the second communication port, allowing the fluid to enter through the inlet but not flow out of the outlet.
Hunt discloses in claim 2: The reciprocating switch for high-pressure fluid lines according to claim 1, wherein the first communication port is formed by the series of apertures (as discussed 43) arranged in a spaced annular pattern (a radiating pattern.)
Hunt discloses in claim 3: The reciprocating switch for high-pressure fluid lines according to claim 1, wherein the second communication port (43’) is formed by the series of apertures arranged in a spaced annular pattern (the same as 43.)
Hunt discloses in claims 4, 5, 6: The reciprocating switch for high-pressure fluid lines; wherein the inner wall surfaces at the both ends of the sleeve are additionally respectively fitted with an anti-leakage washer (the packing rings), so that when the sleeve is in the first position, the first and second communication ports are positioned between the two anti-leakage washers, and when the sleeve is in the second position, only the first communication port is positioned between the two anti-leakage washers; if it could be persuasively argued that Hunt does not explicitly disclose: anti-leakage o-ring washers; Halltorp teaches: anti-leakage o-ring washers (11, o-ring, Col 3 ln 40-45, and provided for the purpose of sealing capability for long term use high pressure use.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to in lieu of packing rings, provide Hunt as taught in Halltorp with anti-leakage o-ring washers, and all provided for the purpose of sealing capability for long term use high pressure use.
Hunt discloses in claims 7, 8, 9: The reciprocating switch for high-pressure fluid lines, wherein the fluid supply component is a cylinder containing high-pressure gas (41’ is cylindrical, and the air pressure lines for pneumatic tools and the like are high pressure.)
Hunt discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 10: The reciprocating switch for high-pressure fluid lines, wherein the fluid supply component is a cylinder containing high-pressure gas (41’ is cylindrical, and the air pressure lines for pneumatic tools and the like are high pressure.)
Hunt discloses in claims 11, 12, 13, 15, 16: The reciprocating switch for high-pressure fluid lines, wherein the fluid-driven device is (the use of or considered an alternative grouping under MPEP 2131) a gun, an air gun (for the spray painting), a paintball gun, or a riot control gun;
if it could be persuasively argued at some future unforeseen date that Hunt does not explicitly disclose: using an air gun for the spray painting; Fish (US 1471690) teaches: using a spray paint air gun for application of paint;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to use with the high pressure line of Hunt as taught in Fish, a spray paint air gun for application of paint, all for the purpose of for example, applying paint more evenly.
Hunt discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claims 14: The reciprocating switch for high-pressure fluid lines according to claim 4, wherein the fluid-driven device is (the use of or considered an alternative grouping under MPEP 2131) a gun, an air gun (for the spray painting), a paintball gun, or a riot control gun;
if it could be persuasively argued at some future unforeseen date that Hunt/Halltorp does not explicitly disclose: using an air gun for the spray painting; Fish teaches: using a spray paint air gun for application of paint;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to use with the high pressure line of Hunt as taught in Fish, a spray paint air gun for application of paint, all for the purpose of for example, applying paint more evenly.
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 MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753