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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “the wall” which should be revised to read -the walls- as it was understood this was in reference to “the walls” recited in claim 1 and not introducing a different structural element. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hapgood (GB 557379 A) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hapgood in view of Rudle (US 3759226 A).
Regarding claim 1: Hapgood discloses a milking device, comprising; a milking unit (discusses milking in page 1 lines 13-28); at least one vacuum component (pulsator page lines 13-14) which is connected to the milking unit and has an inlet port (h) and an outlet port (k,k’); a housing (a) which has an interior space delimited by walls (Fig. 1), wherein the housing has first and second openings (Fig. 1, openings require for i,m,m’); an inlet sleeve (i) which has a channel and extends partially into the interior space through the first opening (Fig. 1); and an outlet sleeve (m,m’) which has a channel and extends partially into the interior space through the second opening (Fig. 1), wherein the vacuum component is arranged in the interior space (Fig. 1), and wherein the inlet port (h) projects into the inlet sleeve (i) and the outlet port (k,k’) projects into the outlet sleeve (m,m’ Fig. 1).
Should Applicant interpret Hapgood to not disclose a milking unit, then the prior art of Rudle teaches a milking device comprising a milking unit (teat cup 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the pulsator as disclosed by Hapgood with the teat cups as taught by Rudle with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a pulsator for teat cups would allow for the pressure in a milking system be actuated on command which would achieve the predictable result of collecting a greater amount of milk during the extraction process.
Regarding claim 9: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Hapgood as modified further teaches wherein the outlet port (k,k’) passes through an imaginary plane that is defined by a surface, facing the interior space, of the wall (as seen in Fig. 1, ports k,k’ pass through an imaginary plane of the walls of housing a).
Regarding claim 10: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Hapgood as modified further teaches wherein the vacuum component comprises a pulsator (page 1 lines 13-14 discuss an automatic pneumatic pulsator).
Regarding claim 11: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the vacuum component is a vacuum distributor having an inlet port and at least two outlet ports (Fig. 1, page 1 lines 13-28 discuss the pulsator transmitting pulsations to teat cups).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hapgood and Rudle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Care (EP 1174653 A2).
Regarding claim 2: Hapgood as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Hapgood as modified fails to teach wherein the inlet sleeve and/or the outlet sleeve has a groove into which a rim of the first opening or of the second opening projects.
However, Care teaches wherein the inlet sleeve and/or the outlet sleeve has a groove (circumferential groove 16) into which a rim (connecting edge 18) of the first opening or of the second opening projects (para 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the nozzles as disclosed by modified Hapgood with the groove as taught by Care with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a groove on the nozzles would allow the nozzles to achieve click-in insertion which would allow for achieve greater connection between the pulsator components and additionally allow for quicker or easier assembly.
Regarding claim 3: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Care further teaches wherein the groove is delimited by an encircling inner collar (collar 8) that extends in a radial direction and by an encircling outer collar (body 7) that extends in a radial direction, wherein the inner collar (collar 8) is arranged in the interior space of the housing (bush 5, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the nozzles as disclosed by modified Hapgood with the inner and outer collars as taught by Care with a reasonable expectation of success because providing collars to delimit the groove of the nozzles would assist a worker in determining whether the connection is secured by comparing the positioning of the collars with respect to the housing.
Regarding claim 4: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 3 as shown above, and further teaches wherein a ratio of a the radial extent of the outer collar (body 7) to a radial extent of the inner collar (collar 8) is greater than 1.0 (Care discusses body 7 being larger than collar 8 in para 7, best illustrated in Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the limitations of “wherein the outer collar has an annular portion which is inclined in direction of the inner collar.” as recited in claim 5 or the limitations of “ wherein the channel has, at least on the second portion, a radially inwardly directed encircling bead.” as recited in claim 6. These limitations are described as providing a certain bracing of the outer collar and security in regard to the connection between the sleeve and port. As such, these limitations would not be mere change in shape due to their significant importance as described in the disclosure. Claims 7-8 are reliant on claim 6 and thus also allowable as a result of the dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art not relied upon are within applicant’s related field of pulsators or pressure-related mechanisms for milking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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 supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/EDGAR REYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
