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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-18 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Paragraph 75 (Publication) provides for how the device operates to obtain determination of accuracy as called for in each of claims 1 (device) and 16 (method). All below will relate to such;
Paragraph 75 calls for “calculations” (line 19 of lines 19-24) to identify pressure differential to deliver mean concentrate flow to device 104; but any manner/way of “calculating” such is not apparent. Such is necessary to ultimately determine “accuracy” (claims 1,16). There are no examples, no reference provides for such, no manner of experimenting is apparent.
Paragraph 75 calls for “calculations” (lines 24-27) to determine identify pressure requirements; but no manner to doing so is apparent. Such is necessary to ultimately determine “accuracy” (claims 1,16). There are no examples, no reference provides for such, no manner of experimenting is apparent.
Paragraph 75 calls for “calculations” (line 28) to identify surrogate flow rates that are equivalent to “minimum, mean … flowrates” (line 31 Para 75); but no manner to calculating is apparent. There are no examples, no reference provides for such, no manner of experimenting is apparent. Such is necessary to ultimately determine “accuracy” (claims 1,16). There are no examples, no reference provides for such, no manner of experimenting is apparent.
Paragraph 74 calls for manipulating primary and surrogate flows until either a first step 602 or second step 604 have been satisfied (lines 35-39), but does not suggest what qualifies as being satisfied. Such is necessary to ultimately determine “accuracy” (claims 1,16). There are no examples, no reference provides for such, no manner of experimenting is apparent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-18 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As to claim 1, lines 4-7 are confusing because the “or” is not following the term - - either - - . As such, it’s not clear what the 2 alternatives are.
As to claim 1, lines 8-11 (which include “the proportioning device” (line 10) are not consistent with the “or a liquid flow … outlet” (lines 6-7) which do NOT include the proportioning device.
As to claim 1, “the removal of a transition piece or the transition piece” (line 8) is confusing because the transition piece was never introduced at being in/of the “system” (line 1). Does the “system” include a transmission piece (for at least one of the alternatives in lines 4-7, or doesn’t it?
As to claim 1, “a transition piece gap” (line 8) is confusing because a gap is empty space (i.e. nothing). No claimed structure defines the ”gap”. What is to be made of a system that claims empty space?
As to claim 1, “and/or” (underlining added, line 13) is confusing because the “or” (lines 4-7) provides 2 alternatives, and as such all 3 fluids (line 13) in each of the 2 alternatives. It’s the “and” that is terribly problematic.
As to claim 1, is “a proportioning device” (line 15) the same as “a proportioning device” (lines 5-6), and thus twice claimed, or is it - - a second proportioning device - - of the first alternative (of lines 4-6), or is it the first “proportioning device” of the second alternative (of lines 6-7)? Alternatives (such as lines 4-7) potentially create many uncertainties.
As to claim 1, is “a proportioning device” the same as that of lines 5-6 and 10, or it is a second such device? (Is the same device twice claimed?)
As to claim 1, the wherein clause (last 4 lines) is confusing because the claimed structure of the remaining lines lack anything that is so “configured” (line 26). As such, the claim is indefinite to that extent. Note that Para 80 (Pub) refers to a “computer, tablet, smart phone”.
As to claim 7, what is the system “temporary” with respect to? All of the testing system is in claim 1.
As to claim 8, what is the system installed with respect to? Everything is the testing system in claim 1. Like a hole, a gap by itself if merely empty space (i.e. nothing), and may be claimed inferentially (as a body having a hole).
As to claim 16, “the concentrate pipe” (line 11) and “the concentrate source” were not initially introduced. Does the “concentrate supply” (line 4) comprise both to those items?
As to claim 16, is the “a proportioning device” (line 23) the same structure as “a proportioning device” (lines 5,6,12-13,15), or is the same proportioning device twice claimed?
As o claim 16, replace “the surrogate source” (line 23) with - - a surrogate source - - ?
As to claim 16, the last 4 lines are confusing because the claimed structure of the remaining lines lack anything that is so “configured” (line 24). As such, the claim is indefinite to that extent. Note that Para 80 (Pub) refers to a “computer, tablet, smart phone”.
References Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crabtree et al EP 1163931 teach a system for self-proportioning of foam concrete into a fluid flow conduit.
Baeck et al EP 0647568 teach a device that maintains an accurate mixture ration between liquid 14 and additive 25 in a fire fighting vehicle.
Shively et al 20180221697 teaches a surrogate foam test system that performs a testing mode of an agent distribution system in a fire extinguishing system. Water is used as a surrogate to provide cleaner and less expensive testing. The test calls for measuring flow of surrogate into a proportioning device, an measuring flow of mix solution downstream of the proportioning device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. 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 to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
