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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 1, paragraph 0001, line 6, “11,577,943” should be “11,573,953”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1, “Error! Reference source not found.” Should most likely be “21”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “the manifold support and the support ring” in line 2. Apparently, claim 33 should be dependent upon claim 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 21, 24 – 31, 36 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phallen (5168905) in view of Janek et al. (5529099).
Regarding claims 21, 31 and 39, the Phallen reference discloses a fluid distribution system (Figure 3) comprising: an input tube (34, 36) configured to extend from a supply container (28);
a first vessel (12) including a first inflow conduit (58);
a second vessel (12) including a second inflow conduit (58); and
a distribution hub (48) comprising:
an inlet (50; Fig. 5) in fluid communication with the input tube (36);
a first outlet (defined at the connections of conduits 58 and hub 48) in fluid communication with the inlet, the first inflow conduit (58) extending
between the first outlet and the first vessel (12) such that the first vessel is in fluid
communication with the first outlet therethrough; and
a second outlet (defined at the connections of conduits 58 and hub 48) in fluid communication with the inlet, the second inflow conduit
extending between the second outlet and the second vessel (12) such that the second
vessel is in fluid communication with the second outlet therethrough; and
a frame assembly (62, 64, 66, 68, 96, 98, 170, 172) positioning the first vessel and the second vessel a substantially equal distance from the distribution hub. The Phallen reference doesn’t disclose the fluid distribution system being aseptic. However, the Janek et al. reference discloses another fluid distribution system (Figure 2) having aseptic filling (sterile chamber 29) to keep the product free from germs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Phallen device to have aseptic capabilities as, for example, taught by the Janek et al. reference since aseptic filling is well known in the art, conventional and would be obvious when the product being dispensed needs to be germ free.
Further, regarding claim 31, Phallen further discloses a support stand (frame 98) positioning the first receptacle (12) and the second receptacle (12) a substantially equal distance from the fluid distribution manifold. See Figures 3, 5 and 7.
Further, regarding claim 39, Phallen further discloses the first inflow conduit (58) free of obstructions between the first outlet and the first vessel; and a second outlet in fluid communication with the inlet and with the second inflow conduit (58), the second outlet free of obstructions between the second outlet and the second vessel. The first and second inflow conduits (58) are free of obstructions when valves (54) are open.
Regarding claim 24, the Phallen reference further comprises a third vessel (12) and a fourth vessel (12), the frame assembly positioning the third vessel and the fourth vessel a substantially equal distance from the distribution hub. See Figures 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 25, the Phallen reference further comprises wherein the frame
assembly positions every one of the first vessel, the second vessel, the third vessel, and the fourth vessel a substantially equal distance from the distribution hub. The two middle vessels being filled (Figure 3) are substantially equal distance from the distribution hub (48).
Regarding claim 26, the Phallen reference further comprises wherein the frame
assembly further comprises a plate that supports a bottom portion of the first vessel and a bottom portion of the second vessel. The top plate of frame (98) meets the claim limitation (see Figures 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 27, the Phallen reference further comprises wherein the inlet (50) is a single inlet defined in a bottom side of the distribution hub (see Fig. 5), the inlet being centrally located in the bottom side of the distribution hub (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 28, the Phallen reference further comprises wherein the first inflow conduit is free of obstructions between the first outlet and the first vessel, and the second inflow conduit is free of obstructions between the second outlet and the second vessel. The first and second inflow conduits (58) are free of obstructions when valves (54) are open.
Regarding claim 29, the Phallen reference further comprises wherein the first inflow conduit is free of obstructions between the first outlet and the first vessel, and the second inflow conduit is free of obstructions between the second outlet and the second vessel. The first and second inflow conduits (58) are free of obstructions when valves (54) are open.
Regarding claim 30, the Phallen reference further comprises, wherein the first inflow conduit (58) and the second inflow conduit (58) are fluidly coupled to the first outlet and the second outlet, respectively, above the inlet of the distribution hub. See Figure 5.
Regarding claim 36, Phallen further discloses a first inflow conduit (58) extending from the first outlet to the first receptacle (12) such that the first receptacle is in fluid communication with the first outlet therethrough and a second inflow conduit (58) extending from the second outlet to the second receptacle (12) such that the second receptacle is in fluid communication with the second outlet therethrough.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phallen, as applied to claim 36, and further in view of Stenger (5025955).
Regarding claim 37, modified Phallen discloses the invention (discussed supra), but doesn’t disclose a first seal configured to fluidly seal the first inflow conduit and a second seal configured to fluidly seal the second inflow conduit. However, the Stenger reference discloses another fluid distribution system having seals (32, 33) to enable sealing at the connection of tubes (22, 23) and unit (20; see Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Phallen device to have seals as, for example, taught by the Stenger reference in order to ensure a good, positive seal where the conduits are connected to other structures of the device.
Further, the use of seals is well known, conventional in the art and would be obvious to try without unexpected results.
Claim(s) 21 – 36 and 38 - 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaWarre, Sr. (5111857) in view of Janek et al. (5529099).
Regarding claims 21, 31 and 39, the LaWarre reference discloses a fluid distribution system (10; Figure 4) comprising: an input tube (122) configured to extend from a supply container (inherent);
a first vessel (14) including a first inflow conduit (24);
a second vessel (12) including a second inflow conduit (24); and
a distribution hub (18) comprising:
an inlet (124; Fig. 2) in fluid communication with the input tube (122);
a first outlet (174) in fluid communication with the inlet, the first inflow conduit (24) extending between the first outlet and the first vessel (14) such that the first vessel is in fluid communication with the first outlet therethrough; and
a second outlet (174) in fluid communication with the inlet, the second inflow conduit (24) extending between the second outlet and the second vessel (14) such that the second vessel is in fluid communication with the second outlet therethrough; and
a frame assembly (20; see Fig. 4) positioning the first vessel and the second vessel a substantially equal distance from the distribution hub. The LaWarre reference doesn’t disclose the fluid distribution system being aseptic. However, the Janek et al. reference discloses another fluid distribution system (Figure 2) having aseptic filling (sterile chamber 29) to keep the product free from germs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the LaWarre device to have aseptic capabilities as, for example, taught by the Janek et al. reference since aseptic filling is well known in the art, conventional and would be obvious when the product being dispensed needs to be germ free.
Further, regarding claim 31, LaWarre further discloses a support stand (20; see Fig. 4) positioning the first receptacle (14) and the second receptacle (14) a substantially equal distance from the fluid distribution manifold.
Further, regarding claim 39, LaWarre further discloses the first inflow conduit (24) free of obstructions between the first outlet and the first vessel; and a second outlet in fluid communication with the inlet and with the second inflow conduit (24), the second outlet free of obstructions between the second outlet and the second vessel. The first and second inflow conduits (24) are free of obstructions when valves (12) are open.
Regarding claim 22, LaWarre further discloses wherein the frame assembly (20) comprises: a support collar (26; Fig. 3) supporting the distribution hub (18); and a vessel collar positioning the first vessel and the second vessel relative to the distribution hub. See Annotated Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 23, LaWarre further discloses wherein the frame assembly (20) comprises an arm extending between the support collar (26) and the vessel collar, the arm supporting the support collar and the vessel collar with respect to each other. See Annotated Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 24, LaWarre further discloses a third vessel (14) and a fourth vessel (14), the frame assembly positioning the third vessel and the fourth vessel a substantially equal distance from the distribution hub. See Figure 4.
Regarding claim 25, LaWarre further discloses wherein the frame assembly (20) positions every one of the first vessel, the second vessel, the third vessel, and the fourth vessel a substantially equal distance from the distribution hub. See column 4, lines 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 26, LaWarre further discloses wherein the frame assembly further comprises a plate (inherent to support each vessel) that supports a bottom portion of the first vessel and a bottom portion of the second vessel.
Regarding claim 27, LaWarre further discloses wherein the inlet is a single inlet defined in a bottom side of the distribution hub (see Figures 1, 2 and 4), the inlet being centrally located in the bottom side of the distribution hub (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 28, LaWarre further discloses wherein the first inflow conduit (24) is free of obstructions between the first outlet and the first vessel, and the second inflow conduit (24) is free of obstructions between the second outlet and the second vessel. The first and second inflow conduits (24) are free of obstructions when valves (12) are open.
Regarding claim 29, LaWarre further discloses wherein the first inflow conduit is free of obstructions between the first outlet and the first vessel, and the second inflow conduit is free of obstructions between the second outlet and the second vessel. The first and second inflow conduits (24) are free of obstructions when valves (12) are open.
Regarding claim 30, LaWarre further discloses wherein the first inflow conduit (24) and the second inflow conduit (24) are fluidly coupled to the first outlet and the second outlet, respectively, above the inlet of the distribution hub. See Figure 4.
Regarding claim 32, LaWarre further discloses wherein the support stand (20) comprises: a manifold support (26) supporting the fluid distribution manifold (170); and a support ring (see Annotated Figure 4) positioning the first receptacle (14) and the second receptacle (14) relative to the fluid distribution manifold.
Regarding claim 33, LaWarre further discloses a post extending between the manifold support and the support ring, the post supporting the manifold support and the support ring with respect to each other. See Annotated Figure 4.
Regarding claim 34, LaWarre further discloses a third receptacle (14) and a fourth receptacle (14), the support stand positioning the third receptacle and the fourth receptacle a substantially equal distance from the fluid distribution manifold. See Figure 4 showing multiple dispensing lines for multiple receptacles. See column 4, lines 1 and 2 indicating multiple receptacles are filled, which would include third and fourth and fifth and so on.
Regarding claim 35, LaWarre further discloses wherein the support stand further comprises a lower support ring that supports a bottom portion of the first receptacle (14) and a bottom portion of the second receptacle (14). See Annotated Figure 4.
PNG
media_image1.png
600
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 36, LaWarre further discloses a first inflow conduit (24) extending from the first outlet to the first receptacle (14) such that the first receptacle is in fluid communication with the first outlet therethrough and a second inflow conduit (24) extending from the second outlet to the second receptacle (14) such that the second receptacle is in fluid communication with the second outlet therethrough. See Figure 4.
Regarding claim 38, LaWarre further discloses a plurality of receptacles consisting of ten receptacles (see col. 4, lines 1 - 2), including the first receptacle (14) and the second receptacle (14), every one of the ten receptacles of the plurality of receptacles positioned a substantially equal distance from the fluid distribution manifold. LaWarre indicates as many as 12 or more conduits for fluid distribution, which could consist of 10.
Regarding claim 40, LaWarre further discloses a plurality of vessels (14), the plurality of vessels including the first vessel (14) and the second vessel (14), the plurality of vessels consisting of a number of vessels equal to a number of outlets of the distribution hub (18), the frame assembly (20) positioning every one of the vessels of the plurality of vessels a substantially equal distance from the distribution hub. See Figure 4.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaWarre, as applied to claim 36, and further in view of Stenger (5025955).
Regarding claim 37, modified LaWarre discloses the invention (discussed supra), but doesn’t disclose a first seal configured to fluidly seal the first inflow conduit and a second seal configured to fluidly seal the second inflow conduit. However, the Stenger reference discloses another fluid distribution system having seals (32, 33) to enable sealing at the connection of tubes (22, 23) and unit (20; see Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the LaWarre device to have seals as, for example, taught by the Stenger reference in order to ensure a good, positive seal where the conduits are connected to other structures of the device.
Further, the use of seals is well known, conventional in the art and would be obvious to try without unexpected results.
Claim(s) 21, 24 - 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (9428373) in view of Janek et al. (5529099).
Regarding claims 21, 31 and 39, the Tanaka et al. reference discloses a fluid distribution system (Figure 1) comprising: an input tube (13) configured to extend from a supply container (71);
a first vessel (C) including a first inflow conduit (4);
a second vessel (C) including a second inflow conduit (4); and
a distribution hub (3) comprising:
an inlet (inherent) in fluid communication with the input tube (13);
a first outlet (defined where input tube is connected to hub 3) in fluid communication with the inlet, the first inflow conduit (4) extending
between the first outlet and the first vessel (C) such that the first vessel is in fluid
communication with the first outlet therethrough; and
a second outlet (defined where input tube is connected to hub 3) in fluid communication with the inlet, the second inflow conduit (4)
extending between the second outlet and the second vessel (C) such that the second
vessel is in fluid communication with the second outlet therethrough; and
a frame assembly (1) positioning the first vessel and the second vessel a substantially equal distance from the distribution hub (see Figures 1 and 2). The Tanka et al. reference further discloses filling under sealed conditions (Figure 10, 12-14; col. 20, lines 46 - 58), but doesn’t disclose the fluid distribution system being aseptic. However, the Janek et al. reference discloses another fluid distribution system (Figure 2) having aseptic filling (sterile chamber 29) to keep the product free from germs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Tanaka et al. device to have aseptic capabilities as, for example, taught by the Janek et al. reference since aseptic filling is well known in the art, conventional and would be obvious when the product being dispensed needs to be germ free.
Further, regarding claim 31, Tanaka et al. further discloses a support stand (1a) positioning the first receptacle (C) and the second receptacle (C) a substantially equal distance from the fluid distribution manifold. See Figures 1, 2, 4.
Further, regarding claim 39, Tanaka et al. further discloses the first inflow conduit (4) free of obstructions between the first outlet and the first vessel; and a second outlet in fluid communication with the inlet and with the second inflow conduit (4), the second outlet free of obstructions between the second outlet and the second vessel. The first and second inflow conduits (4) are free of obstructions when valves (4a) are open.
Regarding claim 24, the Tanaka et al. reference further comprises a third vessel (C) and a fourth vessel (C), the frame assembly positioning the third vessel and the fourth vessel a substantially equal distance from the distribution hub. See Figure 1.
Regarding claim 25, the Tanaka et al. reference further comprises wherein the frame assembly (1) positions every one of the first vessel, the second vessel, the third vessel, and the fourth vessel a substantially equal distance from the distribution hub. See Figure 1.
Regarding claim 26, the Tanaka et al. reference further comprises wherein the frame assembly further comprises a plate (1C; Figure 2) that supports a bottom portion of the first vessel and a bottom portion of the second vessel.
Regarding claim 27, the Tanaka et al. reference further comprises wherein the inlet is a single inlet defined in a bottom side of the distribution hub (see line 13 connection with hub 3; Fig. 2), the inlet being centrally located in the bottom side of the distribution hub (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 28, the Tanaka et al. reference further comprises wherein the first inflow conduit (4) is free of obstructions between the first outlet and the first vessel, and the second inflow conduit (4) is free of obstructions between the second outlet and the second vessel. The first and second inflow conduits (4) are free of obstructions when valves (4a) are open.
Regarding claim 29, the Tanaka et al. reference further comprises wherein the first inflow conduit is free of obstructions between the first outlet and the first vessel, and the second inflow conduit is free of obstructions between the second outlet and the second vessel. The first and second inflow conduits (4) are free of obstructions when valves (4a) are open.
Regarding claim 30, the Tanaka et al. reference further comprises, wherein the first inflow conduit (4) and the second inflow conduit (4) are fluidly coupled to the first outlet and the second outlet, respectively, above the inlet of the distribution hub. See connection of conduit 4 with hub 3 in Figure 2.
Regarding claim 32, the Tanaka et al. reference further comprises, wherein the support stand (1) comprises: a manifold support (1b) supporting the fluid distribution manifold (3); and a support ring (defined by 1c) positioning the first receptacle (C) and the second receptacle (C) relative to the fluid distribution manifold.
Regarding claim 33, the Tanaka et al. reference doesn’t disclose a post extending between the manifold support and the support ring, the post supporting the manifold support and the support ring with respect to each other. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that replacing the existing structure between the manifold support and support ring in the Tanaka et al. device with a post is a mere matter of design choice, since applicant has not disclosed that a post solves any stated problem and it appears that the invention would perform equally with existing structure or a post structure.
Regarding claim 34, the Tanaka et al. reference further comprises a third receptacle (C) and a fourth receptacle (C), the support stand positioning the third receptacle and the fourth receptacle a substantially equal distance from the fluid distribution manifold. See Figure 1 showing multiple dispensing lines for multiple receptacles.
Regarding claim 35, the Tanaka et al. reference further comprises wherein the support stand further comprises a lower support ring (1c) that supports a bottom portion of the first receptacle (C) and a bottom portion of the second receptacle (C). See Figure 2.
Regarding claim 36, the Tanaka et al. reference further discloses a first inflow conduit (4) extending from the first outlet to the first receptacle (C) such that the first receptacle is in fluid communication with the first outlet therethrough and a second inflow conduit (4) extending from the second outlet to the second receptacle (C) such that the second receptacle is in fluid communication with the second outlet therethrough. See Figures 2 and 10.
Regarding claim 37, the Tanaka et al. reference further comprises a first seal (60b, 60c) configured to fluidly seal the first inflow conduit (24) and a second seal (60b, 60c) configured to fluidly seal the second inflow conduit (4).
Regarding claim 38, the Tanaka et al. reference further comprises a plurality of receptacles consisting of ten receptacles (see Figure 1 showing 10 filling flow path configuration units 8), including the first receptacle (C) and the second
Receptacle (C), every one of the ten receptacles of the plurality of receptacles positioned a substantially equal distance from the fluid distribution manifold.
Regarding claim 40, the Tanaka et al. reference further comprises a plurality of vessels (C), the plurality of vessels including the first vessel (C) and the second vessel (C), the plurality of vessels consisting of a number of vessels equal to a number of outlets of the distribution hub (3), the frame assembly (1) positioning every one of the vessels of the plurality of vessels a substantially equal distance from the distribution hub. See Figure 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Ballew (10751713) reference discloses a fluid distribution system (20) having a hub (24), inflow lines (42) and support stand (28).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753