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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the claims filed 11/7/2024. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in this application.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: paragraph 165 cites reference numbers 1904, 1902 which are not present on any of the drawings, it not clear what applicant is describing in paragraph 181, paragraph 230 references a mesh/foam filter 3302 which is not shown in any of the drawings.
Examiner maintains the ENTIRE SPECIFICATION is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “Magnetically operated water supply valve”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 26A – 38D do not have hatching to differentiate various elements in sectional views. 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.
Sectional views: The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. Hatching should not impede the clear reading of the reference characters and lead lines. If it is not possible to place reference characters outside the hatched area, the hatching may be broken off wherever reference characters are inserted. Hatching must be at a substantial angle to the surrounding axes or principal lines, preferably 45°. A cross section must be set out and drawn to show all of the materials as they are shown in the view from which the cross section was taken. The parts in cross section must show proper material(s) by hatching with regularly spaced parallel oblique strokes, the space between strokes being chosen on the basis of the total area to be hatched. The various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and should accurately and graphically indicate the nature of the material(s) that is illustrated in cross section. The hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way. In the case of large areas, hatching may be confined to an edging drawn around the entire inside of the outline of the area to be hatched. Different types of hatching should have different conventional meanings as regards the nature of a material seen in cross section. See 37 CFR (h)(3).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 10 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, 7 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,228,216 in view of US Patent to Sitz (11,144,076).
Claim 1 requires a valve, comprising an actuator, the actuator actionable to control a fluid flow through the valve; a container coupled to the valve and shaped to receive a fluid, the container comprising: an inlet configured to allow fluid into the container; an outlet allowing fluid out of the container; and a first magnetic material positioned proximate to a top of the container; and a float positioned within the container and comprising: a second magnetic material positioned proximate to a top of the float; and a reservoir configured to receive fluid, wherein the actuator is actuated to open the valve at a first position and close the valve at a second position based on a magnetic interaction between the first and second magnetic material, a fluid level within the container, and a fluid level within the reservoir, claim 1 of US Patent 12,222,216 discloses “a valve, comprising: an actuator, the actuator actionable to control a flow of a fluid through the valve; and a first magnetic material disposed on the actuator, the first magnetic material operable to control a position of the actuator; and a container coupled to the valve and shaped to receive a fluid, the container comprising: an inlet configured to allow fluid into the container; and a float assembly positioned within the container according to a level of the fluid within the container, the float assembly comprising a second magnetic material, wherein the actuator is actuated to one of open the valve at a first position and close the valve at a second position responsive to a magnetic force between the second magnetic material and the first magnetic material based on a position of the float assembly within the container, and wherein the valve further comprises a third magnetic material disposed opposite the first magnetic material, the third magnetic material configured to actuate the actuator to a position opposite the first position or opposite the second position associated with the float assembly responsive to a magnetic force between the first magnetic material and the third magnetic material.
Claim 1 of US Patent 12,222,216 does not disclose “a reservoir configured to receive fluid wherein the actuator is actuated to open the valve at a first position and close the valve at a second position based on a magnetic interaction between the first and second magnetic material, a fluid level within the container, and a fluid level within the reservoir”.
However, US Patent to Sitz (11,144,076) teaches a reservoir (208, Fig. 3) used to house the container.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified valve disclosed by claim 1 of US Patent 12,222,216 with the reservoir taught by US Patent to Sitz (11,144,076) to have a valve assembly that can be placed or removed from the reservoir.
Similarly, claims 3, 10 and 15 are rejected over claims 12, 7 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,2228,216 in view of US Patent to Sitz (11,144,076).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 – 8, 13 – 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
Claims 5 and 19 require an actuator comprising a first magnetic material on the container and a second magnetic material on the float to control the fluid flow through a valve. The claims further require “a second actuator” to “force the float downward”.
Paragraph 218 references figure 28 having two actuators but does not describe how the second actuator forces the float downward.
Applicant does not provide sufficient direction as to how the second actuator forces the float downward nor are working examples provided. The amount of experimentation required by a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed subject matter would be significant. Further, Applicant does not disclose the claimed subject matter with sufficient detail to enable a person having ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention.
Upon the weight of all of these factors, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been enabled by the originally filed disclosure to make and/or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation and therefore claims 5 – 6 and 19 are not enabled.
Similarly, regarding claims 13 – 14, Applicant does not provide sufficient direction as to how the distance between the first and second material or the strength of the magnetic attraction between the first and second magnetic material can be adjusted. The amount of experimentation required by a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed subject matter would be significant. Further, Applicant does not disclose the claimed subject matter with sufficient detail to enable a person having ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention.
Upon the weight of all of these factors, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been enabled by the originally filed disclosure to make and/or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation and therefore claims 13 - 14 are not enabled.
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites the limitation "an outlet", claim 1 upon which claim 18 depends requires “an outlet”, it is not clear if the “an outlet” claimed in claim 18 is the same outlet claimed in claim 1. Examiner for this office action is interpreting the “an outlet” in claim 18 to be same outlet in claim 1.
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 - 4, 9, 11 – 12, 15 – 17, 18 as far as it is definite, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent to Sitz (11,144,076) in view of US Patent to De Rycke et al. (5,080,126).
Regarding claim 1, Sitz discloses a valve (108, Fig. 3), comprising an actuator, the actuator actionable to control a fluid flow through the valve (108, Fig. 3); a container (106, Fig. 3) coupled to the valve and shaped to receive a fluid, the container comprising: an inlet (104, Fig. 3) configured to allow fluid into the container; an outlet (102, Fig. 3) allowing fluid out of the container; and a float (110, Fig. 3) positioned within the container (106, Fig. 3) and a reservoir (208, Fig. 3) configured to receive fluid.
Sitz does not disclose a first magnetic material disposed on the actuator and the float assembly comprising a second magnetic material.
However, De Rycke et al. teach a float-controlled valve assembly (10, Fig. 1) comprising a first magnet (92, Fig. 1) operable to control a position of the actuator and the float assembly comprising a second magnet (90, Fig. 1) to actuate the actuator based on the position of the float.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified the assembly disclosed by Sitz with the magnetic actuator taught by De Rycke et al. as a means of positively operating the valve. The assembly disclosed by Sitz and modified by the magnetic elements taught by De Rycke et al. will retain their respective properties. Examiner maintains the first magnet (92, Fig. 1) taught by De Rycke et al. is at the top of the container (12, 16, Fig. 1) and the second magnet (90, Fig. 1) taught by De Rycke et al. is proximate the top of the float (30, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, in the combination Sitz discloses the fluid flow is directed to the container and one or more locations (116, Fig. 3) outside the container when the valve is open.
Regarding claim 3, in the combination, Sitz discloses the fluid flow that is directed to the container and the one or more locations outside the container is adjustable – by means of valve 216 (Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, the valve disclosed by Sitz and modified by the magnetic actuator teaching of De Rycke et al. will have the magnetic attraction between the first magnetic material and the second magnetic material broken in response to a fluid level within the reservoir reaching a threshold level and have the first magnetic material is magnetically coupled to the second magnetic material when the float is in a top position.
Regarding claim 11, in the combination, Sitz discloses the fluid within in the container (106, Fig. 3) is drawn out of the container (106, Fig. 3) based on a fluid level of an area surrounding the container .
Regarding claim 12, in the combination, Sitz discloses the valve (108, Fig. 3) is closed in response to the fluid level within the container (106, Fig. 3) reaching a threshold level regardless of the fluid level of an area surrounding the container (208, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, in the combination, De Rycke et al. teach a lever (28, Fig. 2) configured to house the second magnetic material (90, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, in the combination, Sitz discloses a plurality of openings (306, Fig. 3) – permeable material - along a length of the container to allow fluid to enter and exit the container.
Regarding claim 17, in the combination, Sitz discloses the reservoir (208, Fig. 3) comprises a chamber located around an outside of the float (110, Fig. 3) .
Regarding claim 18, as far as it is definite, in the combination, Sitz discloses the reservoir (208, Fig. 3) comprises an outlet (102, Fig. 3) configured to release fluid from the reservoir (208, Fig. 3) at a predetermined rate.
Regarding claim 20, Sitz discloses providing a valve (108, Fig. 3), comprising an actuator, the actuator actionable to control a fluid flow through the valve; providing a container (106, Fig. 3) shaped to receive a fluid, the container comprising: an inlet (104, Fig. 3) configured to allow fluid into the container, an outlet (102, Fig. 3) allowing fluid out of the container; and providing a float (110, Fig. 1); and a reservoir configured to receive fluid; installing the float within the container; and coupling the container to the valve.
Sitz does not disclose providing a first magnetic material disposed on the actuator and the float assembly comprising a second magnetic material.
However, De Rycke et al. teach a float-controlled valve assembly (10, Fig. 1) comprising a first magnet (92, Fig. 1) operable to control a position of the actuator and the float assembly comprising a second magnet (90, Fig. 1) to actuate the actuator based on the position of the float.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified the assembly disclosed by Sitz with the magnetic actuator taught by De Rycke et al. as a means of positively operating the valve. The assembly disclosed by Sitz and modified by the magnetic elements taught by De Rycke et al. will retain their respective properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisors Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607 or Ken 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753