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
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 26 (2nd instance) and 28 have been renumbered as claims 28 and 29.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19-24 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bauer (US 4,331,514).
Regarding claim 19, Bauer discloses a fluid sensor adapter comprising: a first chamber, wherein the first chamber comprises a first segment 4b, a third segment 15 and a second segment 4 between the first and the third segments (see Figure); wherein the third segment 15 comprises at least one vent (17,17a), an O-ring 15b, and a plug 13; and wherein the first segment comprises an O-ring 4c.
Regarding claim 20, Bauer discloses that the first segment comprises a shoulder that facilitates a decrease in diameter from the first segment 4b to the second segment 4 (see Figure, segment 4b has a sloped shoulder that narrows to segment 4).
Regarding claim 21, Bauer discloses that the second segment 4 comprises a shoulder (at entrance to duct 14, the periphery of the opening to 14 is a rim or shoulder) that facilitates a narrowing at an entrance to the third segment 15 from the second segment 4 (see Figure).
Regarding claim 22, Bauer discloses that the plug 13 and the O-ring 15b are located at a top of the third segment 15 (see Figure).
Regarding claim 23, Bauer discloses that the at least one vent 17,17a is located at a bottom of the third segment 15 (see Figure).
Regarding claim 24, Bauer discloses that an entrance (at duct 15a) to the third segment 15 from the second segment is adjacent an inlet of the at least one vent 17,17a (see Figure, inlet to vent next to entrance duct 15a along the same side of segment 15 with nothing or no openings in between).
Regarding claim 26, Bauer discloses that the at least one vent 17,17a has a substantially horizontal portion (see Figure, portion at top of U bend in pipe 17 is horizontal, also top opening of vent part 17a is horizontal in that the opening is aligned along the horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 27, Bauer disclose that the third segment 15 includes two vents (vent 17,17a and vent 13) that each vent to opposite sides of the fluid sensor adapter and each vent has a substantially horizontal portion (see Figure, vents are located at opposite ends of segment 15, and both have some portion or surface that is “horizontal”).
Regarding claim 28 (as renumbered), Bauer discloses that the third segment 15 includes two vents that are spaced apart 180° from each other (vent 17,17a and vent 13 are spaced such that fluid direction travel toward one from entrance 15a is 180º from the fluid direction travel to get to the other one, see Figure).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heath (US 1,366,382).
Regarding claim 1, Heath discloses a fluid sensor adapter comprising: a first chamber (2,3,24) comprising an inlet (shown at lower left of element 2 in Fig. 1, not labeled) configured to receive diesel exhaust fluid (see Fig. 1, chamber with inlet on part 2 is capable of receiving any fluid, including a diesel exhaust fluid); wherein the first chamber includes a first segment 2 at a proximal end of the fluid sensor adapter, a third segment 24 at a distal end of the sensor adapter and a second segment 3 in between the first and the third segments; wherein a diameter of the second segment 3 is less than a diameter of the first segment 2 (see Fig. 1); and wherein the decrease in diameter from the first segment to the second segment and an entrance to the third segment from the second segment comprise a tortuous vent pathway configured to prevent air in a fluid from reaching a sensor 25 (see Fig. 1, the path from space 2 to 3 to 24 is tortuous and necessarily would function to prevent any air in the fluid from reaching sensor 25).
Heath does not disclose a controller in communication with a vehicle’s electronic control circuit to communicate a warning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included together with the fluid sensor adapter of Heath, a conventional vehicle such as an automobile, which are and have been known to include a controller of some kind in communication with an electronic control unit that communicates warnings, i.e. all modern automobiles include some type of controller in communication with an electronic control unit that communicate warnings like tire pressure and check engine notifications. It would have been obvious because it would allow the fluid sensor adapter device to be easily transported by the vehicle/automobile. Note that the claim language does not require any type of relationship between the controller/vehicle and the fluid sensor adapter other than that they are part of the same “assembly.”
Regarding claim 2, Heath discloses the entrance to the third segment 24 from the second segment 3 is more narrow than the diameter of the second segment (see Fig. 1, narrow passage that leads from part 3 to part 24).
Regarding claim 9, Heath does not disclose that the first segment includes an O-ring, but does disclose there is a connection between the first segment 2 and the narrow tubular passage to the entrance to the second segment 3 (see Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have known that o-rings are known and routinely used to facilitate a seal on a tubular connection such as this. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an o-ring between the upper opening of Heath’s first segment space 2 and the tubular connected passage at the lower end of the second segment 3, because it would ensure a fluid seal at the connection.
Regarding claim 11, Heath discloses the sensor adapter further including a second chamber 13, wherein the second chamber is positioned adjacent the first chamber but is fluidly isolated from the first chamber (see Fig. 1, chamber 13 is next to first chamber and fluidly isolated).
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.
Claim 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,321. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent each fully include all of the limitations of the claims of the application (with claim 1 of the patent corresponding to claims 1-3 of the application and claims 2-9 of the patent corresponding to claims 4-11 of the application, respectively), except that claim 1 of the application also requires the additional limitation of a controller in communication with a vehicle’s electronic control circuit to communicate a warning. A vehicle with some type of controller communicating with its electronic control circuit to communicate a warning is characteristic of nearly all modern automobiles that include any type of sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included a modern vehicle as part of an assembly with the fluid sensor adapter of the claims of the patent because these types of vehicle control elements allow a user to know when errors are present, such as items that would trigger a check-engine light.
Claims 12-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,321. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 includes or requires of all of the limitations of claims 12-15 of the application except that claim 12 of the application also requires the additional limitation of a controller in communication with a vehicle’s electronic control circuit to communicate a warning. A vehicle with some type of controller communicating with its electronic control circuit to communicate a warning is characteristic of nearly all modern automobiles that include any type of sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included a modern vehicle as part of an assembly with the fluid sensor adapter of claim 8 of the patent because these types of vehicle control elements allow a user to know when errors are present, such as items that would trigger a check-engine light.
Claims 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,321. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 14-16 of the patent include or requires of all of the limitations of claims 16-18 of the application except that claim 12 (from which claims 16-18 depend) of the application also requires the additional limitation of a controller in communication with a vehicle’s electronic control circuit to communicate a warning. A vehicle with some type of controller communicating with its electronic control circuit to communicate a warning is characteristic of nearly all modern automobiles that include any type of sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included a modern vehicle as part of an assembly with the fluid sensor adapter of claims 14-16 of the patent because these types of vehicle control elements allow a user to know when errors are present, such as items that would trigger a check-engine light.
Claims 19-21 and 26 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,321. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 of the patent requires all of the limitations required by claims 19-21 of the application and claim 15 of the patent includes or requires all the limitations required by claim 26 of the application.
Claim 29 (as renumbered) is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,321. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the patent includes or anticipates all of the limitations of claim 29 of the application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-18 and 28 would be allowable if the non-statutory double patenting rejection were overcome with the filing of the properly executed terminal disclaimer.
Claims 3-8 and 10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including double patenting rejection were overcome with the filing of the properly executed terminal disclaimer.
Claim 25 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 12, Heath fails to disclose or suggest the third segment including a plug and an o-ring.
With regard to claim 28, Heath fails to disclose or suggest the second segment and the third segment having approximately the same diameter.
With regard to claim 3, Heath fails to disclose or suggest the diameter of the second segment and a diameter of the third segment being approximately equal.
With regard to claim 10, Heath fails to disclose or suggest the third segment including a plug and an o-ring.
With regard to claim 25, Bauer fails to disclose or suggest the entrance and the inlet being separated by a shelf and fluid flow from the entrance to the inlet requiring a 180º turn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M WEST whose telephone number is (571)272-2139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5:30 pm (CT).
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 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 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.
/PAUL M. WEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights