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 .
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, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 1, 1, 3, 4, and 6, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 10,990,114. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 1, 1, 3, 4, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,990,114 “anticipate” Application claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25, respectively. Accordingly, Application claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25 are not patentably distinct from Patent claims 1, 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 1, 1, 3, 4, and 6, respectively.
Here, Patent claim 1 requires:
An in-line fluid mixing system positioned at a tank farm to admix hydrocarbon liquids from a plurality of tanks into a single pipeline, the in-line fluid mixing system comprising:
a first tank positioned in a tank farm and containing a first fluid therein, the first tank having a first output pipe connected to the first tank proximate a bottom portion thereof, the first output pipe in fluid communication with the first fluid to transport a flow of the first fluid from the first tank through the first output pipe at a first pressure;
a second tank positioned in the tank farm and containing a second fluid therein, the second tank having a second output pipe connected to the second tank proximate a bottom portion thereof, the second output pipe in fluid communication with the second fluid to transport a flow of the second fluid from the second tank through the second output pipe at a second pressure;
a first pump having an inlet and an outlet, the inlet of the first pump connected to the second output pipe to increase pressure of the flow of the second fluid from the second pressure to a pump pressure at the outlet;
a mixing booster pipe connected to the outlet of the first pump to transport the flow of the second fluid therethrough;
a blended fluid pipe connected to and in fluid communication with the first output pipe and the mixing booster pipe to admix the flow of first fluid at the first pressure and the flow of second fluid into a blended fluid flow;
a tank flow meter connected to the mixing booster pipe and positioned between the first pump and the blended fluid pipe to measure flow rate of the flow of the second fluid between the first pump and the blended fluid pipe;
a flow control valve connected to the mixing booster pipe between the tank flow meter and the blended fluid pipe to control flow of the second fluid between the first pump and the blended fluid pipe;
a second pump having an inlet in fluid communication with the blended fluid pipe and an outlet, the second pump having a greater horsepower than the first pump;
a booster flow meter in fluid communication with the blended fluid pipe to measure total flow rate of the blended fluid flow transported through the blended fluid pipe; and
a pipeline connected to the outlet of the second pump to transport the blended fluid flow therethrough and external to the tank farm.
While Application claim 1, requires:
An in-line fluid mixing system to admix fluids from a plurality of tanks into one or more pipelines, the in-line fluid mixing system comprising:
a first tank having a first fluid therein;
a first output pipe connected to the first tank and in fluid communication with the first fluid to transport a flow of the first fluid at a first pressure;
a second tank having a second fluid therein;
a second output pipe connected to the second tank and in fluid communication with the second fluid to transport a flow of the second fluid at a second pressure;
a pump positioned to increase pressure of the flow of the second fluid from the second pressure to a selected pump pressure;
a mixing pipe connected to the pump and positioned to transport the flow of the second fluid;
a blended fluid pipe connected to, positioned downstream inline with, and in fluid communication with the first output pipe and the mixing pipe to admix the flow of first fluid at the first pressure and the flow of second fluid into a blended fluid flow to the one or more pipelines; and
a flow control valve connected to the mixing pipe and positioned between the pump and the blended fluid pipe to control at least pressure of the flow of the second fluid in the mixing pipe between the pump and the flow control valve.
Thus, it is apparent that the more specific Patent claim 1 encompasses Application claim 1. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the above paragraph, where Applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, Applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since Application claim 1 is anticipated by Patent claim 1 and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then Application claim 1 is obvious over Patent claim 1.
Similarly, Application claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Patent claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 1, 1, 3, 4, and 6, respectively, for the same reason set forth above.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,416,012. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,416,012 “anticipate” Application claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25, respectively. Accordingly, Application claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25 are not patentably distinct from Patent claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25, respectively.
Here, Patent claim 1 requires:
An in-line fluid mixing system positioned at a tank farm to admix hydrocarbon liquids from a plurality of tanks into a single pipeline, the in-line fluid mixing system comprising:
a first tank positioned in a tank farm and containing a first fluid therein;
a first output pipe connected to the first tank proximate a bottom portion thereof, the first output pipe in fluid communication with the first fluid to transport a flow of the first fluid from the first tank through the first output pipe at a first pressure, the first pressure resulting from force of gravity on the first fluid;
a second tank positioned in the tank farm and containing a second fluid therein;
a second output pipe connected to the second tank proximate a bottom portion thereof, the second output pipe in fluid communication with the second fluid to transport a flow of the second fluid from the second tank through the second output pipe at a second pressure;
a pump having an inlet and an outlet, the inlet of the pump connected to the second output pipe to increase pressure of the flow of the second fluid from the second pressure to a pump pressure at the outlet;
a mixing pipe connected to the outlet of the pump to transport the flow of the second fluid therethrough;
a blended fluid pipe connected to and in fluid communication with the first output pipe and the mixing pipe to admix the flow of first fluid at the first pressure and the flow of second fluid into a blended fluid flow; and
a flow control valve connected to the mixing pipe and positioned between the pump and the mixing pipe to control flow of the second fluid between the pump and the mixing pipe.
While Application claim 1, requires:
An in-line fluid mixing system to admix fluids from a plurality of tanks into one or more pipelines, the in-line fluid mixing system comprising:
a first tank having a first fluid therein;
a first output pipe connected to the first tank and in fluid communication with the first fluid to transport a flow of the first fluid at a first pressure;
a second tank having a second fluid therein;
a second output pipe connected to the second tank and in fluid communication with the second fluid to transport a flow of the second fluid at a second pressure;
a pump positioned to increase pressure of the flow of the second fluid from the second pressure to a selected pump pressure;
a mixing pipe connected to the pump and positioned to transport the flow of the second fluid;
a blended fluid pipe connected to, positioned downstream inline with, and in fluid communication with the first output pipe and the mixing pipe to admix the flow of first fluid at the first pressure and the flow of second fluid into a blended fluid flow to the one or more pipelines; and
a flow control valve connected to the mixing pipe and positioned between the pump and the blended fluid pipe to control at least pressure of the flow of the second fluid in the mixing pipe between the pump and the flow control valve.
Thus, it is apparent that the more specific Patent claim 1 encompasses Application claim 1. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the above paragraph, where Applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, Applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since Application claim 1 is anticipated by Patent claim 1 and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then Application claim 1 is obvious over Patent claim 1.
Similarly, Application claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Patent claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25, respectively, for the same reason set forth above.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,197,238. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 12,197,238 “anticipate” Application claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, respectively. Accordingly, Application claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 are not patentably distinct from Patent claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, respectively.
Here, Patent claim 1 requires:
An in-line fluid mixing system to admix fluids from a plurality of tanks into one or more pipelines, the in-line fluid mixing system comprising:
a first tank having a first fluid therein;
a first output pipe connected to the first tank, the first output pipe in fluid communication with the first fluid to transport a flow of the first fluid from the first tank through the first output pipe at a first pressure based on the force of gravity on the first fluid;
a second tank having a second fluid therein;
a second output pipe connected to the second tank, the second output pipe in fluid communication with the second fluid to transport a flow of the second fluid from the second tank through the second output pipe at a second pressure;
a pump having an inlet and an outlet, the inlet of the pump connected to the second output pipe to increase pressure of the flow of the second fluid from the second pressure to a pump pressure at the outlet;
a mixing pipe connected to the outlet of the pump to transport the flow of the second fluid therethrough;
a blended fluid pipe connected to and in fluid communication with the first output pipe and the mixing pipe to admix the flow of first fluid at the first pressure and the flow of second fluid into a blended fluid flow to the one or more pipelines; and
a flow control valve connected to the mixing pipe and positioned between the pump and the blended fluid pipe to control at least pressure of the flow of the second fluid in the mixing pipe between the pump and the flow control valve.
While Application claim 1, requires:
An in-line fluid mixing system to admix fluids from a plurality of tanks into one or more pipelines, the in-line fluid mixing system comprising:
a first tank having a first fluid therein;
a first output pipe connected to the first tank and in fluid communication with the first fluid to transport a flow of the first fluid at a first pressure;
a second tank having a second fluid therein;
a second output pipe connected to the second tank and in fluid communication with the second fluid to transport a flow of the second fluid at a second pressure;
a pump positioned to increase pressure of the flow of the second fluid from the second pressure to a selected pump pressure;
a mixing pipe connected to the pump and positioned to transport the flow of the second fluid;
a blended fluid pipe connected to, positioned downstream inline with, and in fluid communication with the first output pipe and the mixing pipe to admix the flow of first fluid at the first pressure and the flow of second fluid into a blended fluid flow to the one or more pipelines; and
a flow control valve connected to the mixing pipe and positioned between the pump and the blended fluid pipe to control at least pressure of the flow of the second fluid in the mixing pipe between the pump and the flow control valve.
Thus, it is apparent that the more specific Patent claim 1 encompasses Application claim 1. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the above paragraph, where Applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, Applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since Application claim 1 is anticipated by Patent claim 1 and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then Application claim 1 is obvious over Patent claim 1.
Similarly, Application claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Patent claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, respectively, for the same reason set forth above.
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 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cadeo et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,964,732).
Regarding claim 1, Cadeo et al. disclose an in-line fluid mixing system (Figs. 1-3) to admix fluids from a plurality of tanks (1, 2, 3, and 4) into a one or more pipelines (cited below), the in-line fluid mixing system comprising: a first tank (2) having a first fluid therein; a first output pipe (cited below) connected to the first tank (2) and in fluid communication with the first fluid to transport a flow of the first fluid at a first pressure; a second tank (1) having a second fluid therein; a second output pipe (21, cited below) connected to the second tank (1) and in fluid communication with the second fluid to transport a flow of the second fluid at a second pressure; a pump (5, cited below) positioned to increase pressure of the flow of the second fluid from the second pressure to a selected pump pressure (Column 2 line 51-Column 3 line 6); a mixing pipe (cited below) connected to the pump (5) and positioned to transport the flow of the second fluid; a blended fluid pipe (cited below) connected to, positioned downstream (Fig. 3) inline with, and in fluid communication with the first output pipe and the mixing pipe (Fig. 3) to admix the flow of first fluid at the first pressure and the flow of second fluid into a blended fluid flow to the one or more pipelines (Fig. 3); and a flow control valve (15) connected to the mixing pipe (Fig. 3) and positioned between the pump (5) and the blended fluid pipe (Fig. 3) to control at least pressure of the flow of the second fluid in the mixing pipe between the pump (5) and the flow control valve (Column 2 line 51-Column 3 line 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
831
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Cadeo et al. disclose the in-line fluid mixing system (Figs. 1-3) wherein pressure of the second fluid is equal (once mixed in the mixer 13) to pressure of the first fluid at a portion of the blended fluid pipe (cited above) configured to admix the flow of first fluid and the flow of second fluid into a blended fluid flow (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Cadeo et al. disclose an in-line fluid mixing system (Figs. 1-3) to admix fluids from a plurality of tanks (Fig. 3) into one or more pipelines (cited above), the in-line fluid mixing system comprising: a first tank (2) containing a first fluid therein; a first output pipe (cited above) connected to the first tank (2) and to transport a gravity-fed flow (flow initially leaving the tank) of the first fluid from the first tank (2) at a first pressure; a second tank (1) containing a second fluid therein; a second output pipe (21, cited above) connected to the second tank (1) and positioned to transport a flow of the second fluid from the second tank (1) at a second pressure; a third tank (4) containing a third fluid therein; a third output pipe (21, cited above) connected to the third tank (4) and positioned to transport a flow of the third fluid from the third tank (4) at a third pressure therethrough; a second tank pump (5, cited above) connected to the second output pipe (21), thereby to increase pressure of the flow of the second fluid from the second pressure to a second pump pressure (Column 2 line 51-Column 3 line 6); a second tank mixing pipe (cited above) connected to the outlet of the second tank pump (5) and positioned to transport the flow of the second fluid; a third tank pump (5, cited above) connected to the third output pipe (21), thereby to increase pressure of the flow of the third fluid from the third pressure to a third pump pressure (Column 2 line 51-Column 3 line 6); a third tank mixing pipe (cited above) connected to the outlet of the third tank pump (5) and positioned to transport the flow of the third fluid; a blended fluid pipe (cited above) connected to and in fluid communication with the first output pipe (Fig. 3), the second tank mixing pipe (Fig. 3), and the third tank mixing pipe (Fig. 3) to admix a blended fluid flow to the one or more pipelines (Fig. 3); a second tank flow control valve (15) connected to the second tank mixing pipe (Fig. 3) between the second tank pump (5) and the blended fluid pipe (cited above) to control at least pressure of the flow (Column 2 line 51-Column 3 line 6) of the second fluid in the second tank mixing pipe (Fig. 3); and a third tank flow control valve (15) connected to the third tank mixing pipe (Fig. 3) between the third tank pump (5) and the blended fluid pipe (cited above) to control at least pressure of the flow (Column 2 line 51-Column 3 line 6) of the third fluid in the third tank mixing pipe (Fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadeo et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,964,732) in view of Heathman (Pub. No. US 2009/0154288).
Regarding claim 2, Cadeo et al. disclose the in-line fluid mixing system (Figs. 1-3) further comprising: a tank flow meter (10) connected to the mixing pipe (Fig. 3) and positioned between the pump (5) and the blended fluid pipe (Fig. 3) to measure flow rate (Column 2 line 51-Column 3 line 6) of the flow of the second fluid between the pump (5) and the blended fluid pipe (Fig. 3); but lacks disclosure of a booster flow meter directly connected to and in fluid communication with the blended fluid pipe to measure total flow rate of the blended fluid flow transported through the blended fluid pipe.
Heathman teach an in-line fluid mixing system (Figs. 1-2) comprising at least first and second fluid sources each connected to an output pipe (at the inlet of pump 120) that connects to a pump (120), the pump (120) connects to a mixing pipe (at the outlet of pump 120), wherein the mixing pipe of the first and second fluid source each include a pressure sensor (150), a valve (140), and a flow meter (160), and each mixing pipe is connected to a blended fluid pipe (110), wherein the blended fluid (110) includes a booster flow meter (190) to measure the flow rate of the blended fluid, and a controller (paragraph 27) electrically connected to each pump (120), sensor (150), valve (140), and flow meters (160 & 190) to control the system (paragraphs 26-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixing system of Cadeo et al. with a blended fluid flow meter as taught by Heathman for the advantage of measuring the flow rate of the blended fluid flow and enabling further adjustments to be made to maintain the correct mix ratio (paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 3, Heathman (modified above) teach a variable speed drive (drive of pump 120 receiving the drive signal disclosed in paragraph 28) connected to the pump (120) to control pump speed (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-28 disclose how the centrifugal pump controls the pressure and flow rate of the fluid flow and it is well known that a centrifugal pump controls the fluid pressure/flow rate by controlling the speed of the impeller of the centrifugal pump, hence the pump speed is inherently controlled to enable the pump to control the pressure/flow rate), thereby to adjust the flow of the second fluid (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-28) through the pump (120); and one or more controllers (control system disclosed in paragraph 27) in communication with the variable speed drive (paragraph 28), the tank flow meter (160), and the booster flow meter (190), the one or more controllers (paragraphs 26-30) configured to: determine a ratio (paragraphs 26-30) of the flow of second fluid to the flow of first fluid responsive to one or more signals (paragraphs 26-30) received from the tank flow meter (160) and the booster flow meter (190), and control the variable speed drive (paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 4, Heathman (modified above) teach wherein the one or more controllers (paragraph 27) further is configured to compare the ratio to a pre-selected set point ratio (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30), determine a modified flow of the second fluid to drive the ratio toward the pre-selected set point ratio (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30), and adjust the variable speed drive based on the determined modified flow of the second fluid (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30).
Regarding claim 5, Heathman (modified above) teach a pressure sensor (150) connected to the mixing pipe (Fig. 1) to measure pressure of the flow (paragraph 17) of the second fluid in the mixing pipe between the pump (120) and the flow control valve (140); and a programmable logic controller (paragraph 27) in communication with the flow control valve (140) and the pressure sensor (150) and configured to control (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30) the flow control valve (140), wherein the programmable logic controller (paragraph 27) governs the flow control valve (140) to maintain pressure of the flow (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30) of the second fluid in the mixing pipe between the pump (120) and the flow control valve (140), and wherein the one or more controllers (paragraph 27) further is configured to compare the ratio to a pre-selected set point ratio (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30), determine a modified flow of the second fluid to drive the ratio toward the pre-selected set point ratio (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30), and send a control signal to the programmable logic controller (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30), thereby to adjust the flow control valve (140) based on the determined modified flow of the second fluid, but lacks disclosure wherein the controller governs the flow control valve to maintain pressure between about 15 psi and about 25 psi.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the controller of Heathman to maintain the pressure between about 15 psi and about 25 psi, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative proportion of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative proportion would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentable distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
Regarding claim 11, Cadeo et al. disclose the in-line fluid mixing system (Figs. 1-3) further comprising: a second tank flow meter (10) connected to the second tank mixing pipe (cited above) to measure flow rate (Column 2 line 51-Column 3 line 6) of the flow of the second fluid between the second tank pump (5) and the blended fluid pipe (cited above); a third tank flow meter (10) connected to the third tank mixing pipe (Fig. 3) to measure flow rate (Column 2 line 51-Column 3 line 6) of the flow of the third fluid between the third tank pump (5) and the blended fluid pipe (Fig. 3); but lacks disclosure of one or more mixing flow meters directly connected to the blended fluid pipe to measure total flow rate of the blended fluid flow.
Heathman teach an in-line fluid mixing system (Figs. 1-2) comprising at least first, second, and third fluid sources each connected to an output pipe (at the inlet of pump 120) that connects to a pump (120), the pump (120) connects to a mixing pipe (at the outlet of pump 120), wherein the mixing pipe of the fluid sources each include a pressure sensor (150), a valve (140), and a flow meter (160), and each mixing pipe is connected to a blended fluid pipe (110), wherein the blended fluid (110) includes a blended flow meter (190) to measure the flow rate of the blended fluid, and a controller (paragraph 27) electrically connected to each pump (120), sensor (150), valve (140), and flow meters (160 & 190) to control the system (paragraphs 26-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixing system of Cadeo et al. with a blended fluid flow meter as taught by Heathman for the advantage of measuring the flow rate of the blended fluid flow and enabling further adjustments to be made to maintain the correct mix ratio (paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 12, Heathman (modified above) teach one or more controllers (paragraph 27) in communication with the second tank flow meter (160b), the third tank flow meter (160c), and the one or more mixing flow meters (190), the one or more controllers configured to (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30) determine percentages of first fluid flow rate, second fluid flow rate, and third fluid flow rate in the total flow rate (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30); a second tank variable speed drive (drive of pump 120 receiving the drive signal disclosed in paragraph 28) connected to the second tank pump (120b) to control pump speed (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-28 disclose how the centrifugal pump controls the pressure and flow rate of the fluid flow and it is well known that a centrifugal pump controls the fluid pressure/flow rate by controlling the speed of the impeller of the centrifugal pump, hence the pump speed is inherently controlled to enable the pump to control the pressure/flow rate) of the second tank pump (120b) to thereby adjust flow of the second fluid through the second tank pump (120b); a third tank variable speed drive (drive of pump 120 receiving the drive signal disclosed in paragraph 28) connected to the third tank pump (120c) to control pump speed (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30) of the third tank pump (120c), thereby to adjust flow of the third fluid through the third tank pump (120c); and one or more programmable logic controllers (paragraph 27) in communication with: a second tank pressure sensor (150b) connected to the second tank mixing pipe (Fig. 1) to measure pressure of the flow of the second fluid (paragraph 17) in the second tank mixing pipe between the second tank pump (120b) and the second tank flow control valve (140b), a third tank pressure sensor (150c) connected to the third tank mixing pipe (Fig. 1) to measure pressure of the flow of the third fluid (paragraph 17) in the third tank mixing pipe between the third tank pump (120c) and the third tank flow control valve (140c), the second tank variable speed drive and the third tank variable speed drive and configured to control the second tank variable speed drive and the third tank variable speed drive (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30), and the second tank flow control valve and the third tank flow control valve and configured to control the second tank flow control valve and the third tank flow control valve (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30), thereby to maintain pressure at the second tank pressure sensor (150b) and at the third tank pressure sensor (150c) but lacks disclosure wherein the pressure is maintained between about 15 psi and about 25 psi.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the controller of Heathman to maintain the pressure between about 15 psi and about 25 psi, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative proportion of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative proportion would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentable distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
Regarding claim 13, Heathman (modified above) teach wherein the one or more controllers (paragraph 27) further is configured to: (a) compare the percentages to pre-selected percentages (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30), (b) determine modified flows of the second and third fluids (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30), (c) drive the percentages toward the pre- selected percentages (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30), and (d) send a control signal to the one or more programmable logic controllers (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30), thereby to adjust at least one of the second tank variable speed drive or the third tank variable speed drive based on the determined modified flows of the second and third fluids (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30).
Regarding claim 14, Heathman (modified above) teach wherein the one or more controllers (paragraph 27) further is configured to: (a) compare the percentages to pre-selected percentages (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30), (b) determine modified flows of the second and third fluids (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30), (c) drive the percentages toward the pre- selected percentages (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30), and (d) send a control signal to the one or more programmable logic controllers (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30), thereby to adjust at least one of the second tank flow control valve or the third tank flow control valve based on the determined modified flows of the second and third fluids (paragraphs 17, 20, and 26-30).
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadeo et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,964,732) in view of Doerr et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0175511).
Regarding claim 16, Cadeo et al. disclose the in-line fluid mixing system (Figs. 1-3) wherein a portion (at 11) of a second tank recirculation pipe (12) is directly connected to and in fluid communication with the second tank mixing pipe (Fig. 3) downstream of the second tank pump (5) and wherein another portion of the second tank recirculation pipe (12) is connected to (connected via tank 1) and in fluid communication with the second output pipe (21) to recirculate the second fluid therethrough, thereby to maintain a minimum flow of second fluid through the second tank pump (5), but lacks disclosure wherein the another portion of the second tank recirculation pipe is directly connected to the second output pipe.
Doerr et al. teach a fluid mixing system (Figs 1-2) having a first and second fluid supply (22 and 52), wherein the second supply is connected a second output pipe (from 50 to 56, Fig. 1) which connects to a pump (58), the pump (58) connects to a mixing pipe (from 60 to 48, Fig. 1), and a recirculation pipe (67) having a first end directly connected to the second output pipe (Fig. 1) and a second end directly connected to the mixing pipe (Fig. 1) downstream of the pump (58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the recirculation line of Cadeo et al. with a recirculation line as taught by Doerr et al. since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 18, Cadeo et al. disclose the in-line fluid mixing system (Figs. 1-3) wherein an end portion (at 11) of a third tank recirculation pipe (12) is directly connected to and in fluid communication with the third tank mixing pipe (Fig. 3) downstream of the third tank pump (5), and another end portion of the third tank recirculation pipe (12) is connected to (connected via tank 4) and in fluid communication with the third output pipe (Fig. 3) to recirculate the third fluid therethrough, thereby to maintain a minimum flow of third fluid through the third tank pump (5), but lacks disclosure wherein the another portion of the third tank recirculation pipe is directly connected to the third output pipe.
Doerr et al. teach a fluid mixing system (Figs 1-2) having a first and second fluid supply (22 and 52), wherein the second supply is connected a second output pipe (from 50 to 56, Fig. 1) which connects to a pump (58), the pump (58) connects to a mixing pipe (from 60 to 48, Fig. 1), and a recirculation pipe (67) having a first end directly connected to the second output pipe (Fig. 1) and a second end directly connected to the mixing pipe (Fig. 1) downstream of the pump (58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the recirculation line of Cadeo et al. with a recirculation line as taught by Doerr et al. since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 8-9, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadeo et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,964,732) in view of Doerr et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0175511), and further in view of Pozniak et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,887,974).
Regarding claim 8, Cadeo et al. disclose the in-line fluid mixing system (Figs. 1-3) wherein a portion (at 11) of a recirculation pipe (12) is directly connected to and in fluid communication with the mixing pipe (cited above) downstream of the pump (5) and another portion (Fig. 3) of the recirculation pipe (12) is connected to (connected via tank 1) and in fluid communication with the second output pipe (21) to recirculate the second fluid therethrough to maintain a minimum flow of second fluid through the pump (5), but lacks disclosure wherein the another portion of the recirculation pipe is directly connected to the second output pipe, and a one-way valve is disposed in the recirculation pipe to prevent flow of the second fluid from the second output pipe to the mixing pipe.
In regards to the direct connection, Doerr et al. teach a fluid mixing system (Figs 1-2) having a first and second fluid supply (22 and 52), wherein the second supply is connected a second output pipe (from 50 to 56, Fig. 1) which connects to a pump (58), the pump (58) connects to a mixing pipe (from 60 to 48, Fig. 1), and a recirculation pipe (67) having a first end directly connected to the second output pipe (Fig. 1) and a second end directly connected to the mixing pipe (Fig. 1) downstream of the pump (58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the recirculation line of Cadeo et al. with a recirculation line as taught by Doerr et al. since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In regards to the check valve, Pozniak et al. teach a fluid mixing system (Figs. 1-2) having a recirculation line (36) with a one way valve (40) to prevent back flow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recirculation pipe of Cadeo et al. with a one way valve as taught by Pozniak et al. for the advantage of preventing back flow (Column 3 lines 23-38).
Regarding claim 9, Cadeo et al. disclose the in-line fluid mixing system (Figs. 1-3) wherein the recirculation pipe (12) is configured to permit flow therethrough only when a ratio (amount of second fluid flow towards the set first fluid flow) of the flow of second fluid to the flow of first fluid falls below a pre-selected threshold (Column 3 line 31-Column 4 line 40).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Cadeo et al. disclose the essential features of the claimed invention but lacks disclosure of one or more one-way valves disposed in second tank recirculation pipe or third tank recirculation pipe.
Pozniak et al. teach a fluid mixing system (Figs. 1-2) having a recirculation line (36) with a one way valve (40) to prevent back flow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recirculation pipe of Cadeo et al. with a one way valve as taught by Pozniak et al. for the advantage of preventing back flow (Column 3 lines 23-38).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 15 are 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.
Claims 20-25 are considered allowable if the double patenting rejection is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art references do not render obvious in combination with the rest of the claim limitations wherein the blended fluid pipe is connected to and in fluid communication with the gravity-fed first output pipe and the mixing pipe, thereby to admix the flow of first fluid at the first pressure and the flow of the second fluid into a blended fluid flow.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Panigrahi (Pub. No. US 2019/0121373) disclose an in-line fluid mixing system to admix a plurality of fluids comprising a plurality of pumps, valves, and meters controlled via a controller.
Wilmer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,923,568) disclose an in-line fluid mixing system to admix a plurality of fluids comprising a plurality of pumps, valves, and meters controlled via a controller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Reinaldo Sanchez-Medina, telephone number 571-270-5168, fax number 571-270-6168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-4:00PM 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 Kenneth 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 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.
/REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753