DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 16-25, drawn to a system for supporting a fluid container, classified in G01G 13/26.
II. Claims 26-35, drawn to a method of splitting a fluid, classified in G01G 23/16.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of Groups I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand such as providing a solenoid valve system to control the flow based on system measurements.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions, species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
the inventions, species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
the inventions, species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Joseph Freund on 6/01/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 16-25. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 26-35 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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) 16, 19, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Min et al. (US 2018/0155070, hereafter “Min”).
Regarding claim 16, Min discloses a system for supporting a fluid container (Fig. 1), comprising: a source support (as shown in Fig. 1, the support for supporting 102) configured to support a source container (102) of a fluid flow circuit; at least one satellite support (as shown in Fig. 1, the support for supporting 150), wherein each satellite support is configured to support a different satellite container (150) of the fluid flow circuit fluidly connected to the source container; a weight scale (240 associated with 150 and 244 associated with 102; Fig. 1) associated with each of the supports; a clamp system (210, 212, 214, 216, 218, 220, 222); and a controller (300) configured to: control each weight scale to measure an initial combined weight of the container and the contents of the container supported by the support associated with the weight scale; assign a target weight, based at least in part on the combined weights, to each container; for each satellite container, control the clamp system to allow fluid flow from the source container to the satellite container until a current combined weight measured by the weight scale associated with the satellite support supporting the satellite container is less than and within a predetermined percentage of the target weight for the satellite container; for each satellite container, control the clamp system to prevent fluid flow from the source container to the satellite container when the current combined weight measured by the weight scale associated with the satellite support supporting the satellite container is less than and within a predetermined percentage of the target weight for the satellite container; for each satellite container, determine a fluid flow rate of fluid from the source container to the satellite container upon the clamp system being controlled to allow fluid flow from the source container to the satellite container, and a time to allow fluid flow from the source container to the satellite container based at least in part on the fluid flow rate and a lag time of the clamp system (para. [0094] - [0097]); and for each satellite container, control the clamp system to allow fluid flow from the source container to the satellite container for said time and then control the clamp system to prevent fluid flow from the source container to the satellite container so as to arrive within a predetermined amount of the target weight for the satellite container (para. [0032], [0045] – [0046], [0054] – [0059]).
Regarding claim 19, Min further discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the controller is configured to verify that the target weight for each container has been achieved upon verifying that the current combined weight measured by the weight scale associated with the source support is no more than the difference of the target weight for the source container and said predetermined amount, and for each satellite container, the current combined weight measured by the weight scale associated with the satellite support supporting the satellite container is no less than the difference of the target weight for the satellite container and said predetermined amount. (para. [0032], [0045] – [0046], [0054] – [0059])
Regarding claim 24, Min further discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the target weights for each of the containers are equal. (para. [0032], [0045] – [0046], [0054] – [0059]; the controller of Min is able to perform this function)
Regarding claim 25, Min further discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the target weights for at least two of the containers are different. (para. [0032], [0045] – [0046], [0054] – [0059]; the controller of Min is able to perform this function)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 18, and 20-23 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights