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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in French Republic on 11/15/2025. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR2312501 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
It is noted that, per the correspondence to the applicant on 4/15/2025, an attempt was made by the Office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program (PDX), the foreign application 2312501 to which priority is claimed. However, that retrieval failed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 11/13/2024 has been received and considered.
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 limitation “memory means” in claim 6 has been interpreted under 112(f) with the corresponding structure described on page 3, lines 20-21.
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) 1-2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fliess et al. (U.S. 2022/0034698).
Fliess discloses a pulse generating system for a pulsed working fluid supply, wherein the system comprises: a pipe (62), comprising an inlet end (the end near 63) and an outlet end (72) through which pulsed working fluid is delivered (see the end of para. 76, additionally and/or alternatively, the pulses being when the fluid exiting 72 is stopped and started, see also figs. 1 and 2 showing the open and closed positions); a source of pressurized working fluid (64), fluidly connected to the inlet end of the pipe; an angle-seat valve (80, which is at an angle with respect to the housing and the channel 62), fluidly connected to the pipe between the inlet end and the outlet end, the angle-seat valve comprising a piston (80) movable between a first end-of-stroke position, in which the piston completely closes the pipe (fig. 2), and a second end-of-stroke position, in which the piston opens the pipe with a maximum opening of the angle-seat valve (fig. 1, see also para. 138-139); a source of pressurized control fluid (37, 36, 32); a pressure regulator (35), fluidly connected to the source of pressurized control fluid and configured to regulate a pressure of the control fluid (fig. 7, para. 160); a three-port, two-position control valve (20, para. 124), a first port of the control valve is connected to the pressure regulator (25, fluidly connected to the pressure regulator, see fig. 7, alternatively throttle device 28 that regulates the flow of the pressure medium, see para. 163), a second port (17, 23) of the control valve is connected to the angle-seat valve (see fig. 2, operatively connected to the angle-seat valve in order to actuate the valve, similar to the applicant’s device) and a third port (24, 26) of the control valve is connected to a control fluid outlet, the three-port, two-position control valve being configured to control displacement of the piston of the angle-seat valve to any position between the first end-of-stroke position and the second end-of-stroke position, including the first end-of-stroke position and the second end-of-stroke position, by means of the control fluid (para. 124, 131, and 155; the valve 20 switches to different positions to supply fluid to the top side of the membrane to close the piston or vent the fluid to allow the piston to open), the pressure of the control fluid being regulated by the pressure regulator (see para. 163 describing the operation of the regulator 28; see also paras. 160 and 162 describing the operation of the regulator 35); and a control device (43) in communication with the pressure regulator and the three-port, two-position control valve, the control device being configured to control the pressure regulator as a function of desired pulse amplitudes and to control the three-port, two-position control valve as a function of desired pulse frequencies, so as to proportionally displace the piston of the angle-seat valve and generate pulses of pulsed working fluid (para. 160-163 and also para. 76 describing pulses, the control device controls 20, 35, and 28 to move the piston of the valve to various speeds and pressures which will affect the frequency and amplitude).
Regarding claim 2, Fliess further discloses wherein the three-port, two-position control valve is one from among a three-port on/off valve and a 3/2 distribution valve (para. 124 and 131, as it opens or closes (on/off) the ports or distributes the fluid to the various outlets).
Regarding claim 9, Fliess further discloses wherein at least one from among the working fluid and the control fluid is air (the fluid handled is seen to be an intended use that has not been given patentable weight, MPEP2115, but see also para. 124 describing compressed air).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fliess in view of Sneh (U.S. 7,744,060).
Fliess discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose wherein the valve is of the normally closed type and is controlled in opening by means of the control fluid, in such a way that the first end-of-stroke position of the piston is a rest position.
Rather, the spring (84) of Fliess biases the valve to the open position and fluid pressure from the actuator maintains the closed position (paras. 154-155).
Sneh teaches it was known to have a valve that has a normally closed position by means of a spring (col. 17, ll. 58-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biasing of Fliess such that the valve is biased normally closed by the spring and the actuator is de-pressurized and pressurizing the actuator opens the valve as taught by Sneh in order to not require fluid pressure to maintain the valve in the closed position, saving on costs as the actuator would not need to be operational in order to maintain closure of the valve.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fliess in view of Fukano et al. (U.S. 9,410,639).
Regarding claims 4-5, Fliess discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose a pressure sensor arranged at the outlet end of the pipe with the pressure sensor configured to measure a pressure of the working fluid and to be in communication with the control device with the system being a feedback system with the control device configured to regulate the control of the pressure regulator as a function of the pressure measurements received from the pressure sensor.
Fukano teaches it was known in the art to have a pressure sensor (80, 84) that is at the end of a pipe (see fig. 6, at the outlet end) that measures pressure and is in communication with a control device to provide a feedback system to regulate control of various valves (col. 7, ll. 9-18).
As Fukano teaches having a pressure sensor that provides feedback to control a valve based on a pressure, and Fliess discloses the control of a valve via a pressure regulator in an actuation system, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fliess by having a pressure sensor that measures a pressure of the working fluid at the outlet of the valve and provide feedback control that is configured to regulate the control of the pressure regulator as a function of the pressure measurements received from the pressure sensor as taught by Fukano in order to be able to monitor the pressure downstream of the valve and adjust the actuation accordingly via the actuation components including the pressure regulator so that a desired pressure, flow, pulse duration, etc. is achieved and especially as desired by Fliess (see para. 162).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fliess in view of Girvin et al. (U.S. 2019/0240688).
Fliess discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the control device being a programmable logic controller (PLC).
Girvin teaches it was known to have a control device that is a programmable logic controller (controller 18 is a PLC, see para. 15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fliess by having the control device be a PLC as taught by Girvin as a PLC is a known, relatively inexpensive, and reliable device for a control device.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fliess in view of Schuler et al. (U.S. 9,092,038).
Fliess discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the pressure regulator being an analog pressure regulator.
Schuler teaches it was known to have a pressure regulator that is an analog pressure regulator (col. 3, ll. 21-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fliess by having the regulator be an analog regulator as taught by Schuler in order to have the pressure regulator have high accuracy and integration into the control system.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fliess in view of Funseth et al. (U.S. 10,773,271).
Fliess discloses the claimed invention and further discloses a washing machine comprising a system according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above, further to the extent the preamble recites “a washing machine”, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951)).
Fliess does not appear to disclose a spray bar fluidly connected to the outlet end of the system so as to be supplied with pulsed working fluid.
Funseth teaches it was known to have, in a similar manufacturing setting (col. 35, ll. 23-27 and col. 1, ll. 38-41, similar to the use in Fliess as described in para. 3) either a single nozzle (like the single nozzle of Fliess) or multiple nozzles used together in a spray bar type arrangement (col. 1, ll. 54-58, col. 21, ll. 42-47, with multiple nozzles 100 shown in a spray bar type arrangement in fig. 2 and 28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fliess to include any number of nozzles, including multiple nozzles together in a spray bar type arrangement as taught by Funseth in order to have the fluid be ejected out of multiple nozzles if so desired by a user for a particular application, such as applying the fluid to multiple components at the same time, and especially as it has been held that the mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP2144.04.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Regarding claim 6, it is not seen to be obvious to further modify Fliess by having a memory means configure to perform automatic learning regarding the control of the pressure regulator as a function of the pressure measurements from the pressure sensor in order to predict a more accurate control of the pressure regulator for a desired pulse amplitude, especially as this would involve modifying the teaching reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yie (U.S. 5,927,329) discloses a high-speed pulsed fluid jet apparatus that is fluid actuated.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm est.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. 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.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753