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 .
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 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a pressure device” in claims 7 and 18. This limitation satisfies the three-prong test because A) it uses a generic placeholder “device”, B) it is modified by functional language: to discharge liquid at a pressure from the nozzle; and C) it is not modified by any structural features in these claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The Specification discloses the pressure device as a diaphragm pump, a rotary pump, a piston pump, or a centrifugal pump. Examiner will interpret it as such, or equivalent thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 4, 7, 15 and 18 are 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 4 recites the limitation "the group" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the group" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7 and 18 disclose: “wherein the pressure device is configured to allow the liquid to exit the discharge nozzle at a pressure in a range of between 100 psi and 5,000 psi when the valve disc is in an opened position in a range of between the fully open position to the fully closed position which is inclusive of the fully open position, but exclusive of the fully closed position.” It is unclear what “is” inclusive in the fully open position, but exclusive of the fully closed position. Rewording of this limitation is suggested. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret the liquid pressure at the nozzle being in a range of between 100 psi and 5,000 psi, when the valve is in the open position, but not when the valve is in the closed position.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al (U.S. 2019/0366375) in view of Cis et al (U.S. 2018/0326431).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson teaches a system for discharging a liquid component (defined at least by sprayer 36, reservoir 34 and nozzle 38) from a remote operated vehicle (UAV 12), said system comprising:
the remote operated vehicle (12);
a valve system (seen in Fig 5b, defined by valve tip 146 and valve controller 148) attached to the remote operated vehicle (valve system is adjacent to nozzle 38 which is attached to the vehicle 12), said valve system comprising:
a valve (146) comprising: a valve body (defined by body surrounding valve 146, seen in Fig 5b and shown below) having a valve body inlet (shown below) and a valve body outlet (shown below), a valve disc (defined by downstream end of valve 146; Note: Examiner is interpreting “valve disc” in view of Applicant’s specification which states in Par 0011 that the valve disc is selected from a group consisting of “a disc, a needle, a gate, a rotary ball, and a plug”; as seen in Fig 5b, the downstream end of valve 146 is a needle/plug) located within an interior of the valve body (as seen below), and a stem (158) attached to the valve disc (as seen in Fig 5b, the stem 158 is mechanically connected to the “valve disc”) and extending outside of the valve body (as seen in Fig 5b, stem 158 extends outside the valve body), and
an actuator (defined by valve actuator 156, which is disclosed as a solenoid in Par 0107) operatively connected to the stem (156 is connected to the stem 158, see Fig 5b);
a pressure device (pump 60) having a device inlet (defined by connection that connects to supply tube 72, seen in Fig 1) and a device outlet (defined by connection that connects to spray tube 74, seen in Fig 1), said device outlet being fluidly connected to the valve body inlet (the outlet connects to spray tube 74 which is where the valve body is placed, see Fig 5b, thus connecting to the valve body inlet);
a liquid source (reservoir 34, which contains liquid, see Par 0048) fluidly connected to the device inlet (the reservoir 34 connects to the pump 60 inlet via supply tube 72, see Fig 1); and
a discharge nozzle (38) fluidly connected to the valve body outlet (as seen below and in Fig 5b); and
wherein the servo actuator is configured to operate on the stem to move the valve disc in a range of a fully open position and a fully closed position (actuator 156 is controlled by valve controller 148, as seen in Fig 5b, which controls the stem 158 to move the valve from a fully open to a fully closed position, as disclosed at least in Par 0106).
PNG
media_image1.png
375
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Thompson does not teach the actuator being a servo actuator.
Cis teaches a nozzle assembly that uses a servo valve to control flow (see abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thompson to incorporate the teachings of Cis to provide the valve actuator as a servo actuator since servos can precisely control actuator movement (as disclosed in Par 0004 of Cis). This would allow the actuator of Thompson to open the valve with precision depending on intended flow rate.
Note: references made in parenthesis hereafter are referencing Thompson, unless otherwise stated.
Regarding claim 2, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 1, wherein the system includes a platform (body 18) comprising a platform top surface (86) and a platform bottom surface (88), wherein the valve system is attached to the platform top surface and/or the platform bottom surface (the valve system is attached to the top surface 86 of the platform 18, as seen in Fig 2A), and wherein the platform is connected to the remote operated vehicle (the platform 18 is connected to the vehicle 12 as seen in Fig 2A).
Regarding claim 3, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 1, wherein the servo actuator is configured to receive a wireless signal from a remote device (the actuator 156 is controlled by valve controller 148, which is controlled by control unit 20, as disclosed in Par 0108; as seen in Fig 1, the control unit 20 is wirelessly connected to remote device 14 via communication modules 62 and 22) to operate on the stem to move the valve disc in the range of the fully open position and the fully closed position (as disclosed at least in Par 0106).
Regarding claim 4, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 1, wherein the valve disc is selected from the group consisting of a disc, a needle, a gate, a rotary ball, and a plug (the valve disc is a needle-like plug, see 146 in Fig 5B).
Regarding claim 6, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 1, wherein the servo actuator is configured to act on the stem to raise or lower the valve disc within the valve body (Par 0107 discloses the stem 158 configured to shift the valve disc from a closed to an open position and vise versa; as seen in Fig 5b, when valve 146 is shifted, it is raised from its seat to open passage of fluid, the it is lowered into the seat to close the passage).
Regarding claim 7, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 1, wherein the pressure device is configured to allow the liquid to exit the discharge nozzle at a pressure in a range of between 100 psi and 5,000 psi when the valve disc is in an opened position in a range of between the fully open position to the fully closed position which is inclusive of the fully open position, but exclusive of the fully closed position (as best understood, Thompson teaches in Par 0048 that spray pressure is about 500-4000 psi, which is within the claimed range; spray happens the valve is in its open position, which means this pressure is achieved when the valve is its open position; however, when the valve closes, spray stops, meaning the spray pressure is effectively zero).
Regarding claim 8, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 1, wherein the pressure device is selected from the group consisting of a diaphragm pump, a rotary pump, a piston pump, and a centrifugal pump (Par 0048 discloses the pressure device 60 as a diaphragm pump or a piston pump).
Regarding claim 9, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 8, wherein the pressure device is driven by a motor (Par 0079 discloses a motor driving the pump, i.e. the pressure device).
Regarding claim 10, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 1, wherein the liquid source is a tank (liquid source is a reservoir 34).
Regarding claim 12, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 1, wherein the liquid comprises water (Par 0043 discloses the system using water).
Regarding claim 13, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 12, wherein the liquid further comprises at least one cleaning agent (Par 0048 discloses the system using a number of chemicals; Examiner notes that the system is capable of being used with a cleaning agent; furthermore, Examiner notes that the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims, as determined in MPEP 2115; therefore, the type of material does not carry patentable weight over the claimed apparatus and the apparatus of Thompson is deemed capable of working with said cleaning agent).
Regarding claim 14, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 2, wherein the servo actuator is configured to receive a wireless signal from a remote device (the actuator 156 is controlled by valve controller 148, which is controlled by control unit 20, as disclosed in Par 0108; as seen in Fig 1, the control unit 20 is wirelessly connected to remote device 14 via communication modules 62 and 22) to operate on the stem to move the valve disc in the range of the fully open position and the fully closed position (as disclosed at least in Par 0106).
Regarding claim 15, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 2, wherein the valve disc is selected from the group consisting of a disc, a needle, a gate, a rotary ball, and a plug (the valve disc is a needle-like plug, see 146 in Fig 5B).
Regarding claim 17, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 2, wherein the servo actuator is configured to act on the stem to raise or lower the valve disc within the valve body (Par 0107 discloses the stem 158 configured to shift the valve disc from a closed to an open position and vice versa; as seen in Fig 5b, when valve 146 is shifted, it is raised from its seat to open passage of fluid, the it is lowered into the seat to close the passage).
Regarding claim 18, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 2, wherein the pressure device is configured to allow the liquid to exit the discharge nozzle at a pressure in a range of between 100 psi and 5,000 psi when the valve disc is in an opened position in a range of between the fully open position to the fully closed position which is inclusive of the fully open position, but exclusive of the fully closed position (as best understood, Thompson teaches in Par 0048 that spray pressure is about 500-4000 psi, which is within the claimed range; spray happens the valve is in its open position, which means this pressure is achieved when the valve is its open position; however, when the valve closes, spray stops, meaning the spray pressure is effectively zero).
Regarding claim 19, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 1, wherein the remote operated vehicle is an aerial drone (UAV 12, i.e. aerial drone).
Regarding claim 20, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 1, wherein the remote operated vehicle is a ground robot (Thompson teaches an embodiment, Fig 12, wherein the vehicle is a ground vehicle 244, which is autonomously and remotely controlled by a control unit, as disclosed in Par 0154, i.e. 244 is a ground robot) (in the embodiment of Fig 12, the remote controlled vehicle is both AUV 12’ and 244, since they are controlled as a unit, see Par 0159; thus the remote vehicle is also a ground robot, as claimed).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al (U.S. 2019/0366375) in view of Cis et al (U.S. 2018/0326431); further in view of Lee (KR 102353689 B1). Note: references to Lee are referring to the translation provided by Examiner herewith.
Regarding claim 5, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 1. However, they do not teach the system wherein the servo actuator is configured to turn the stem and thereby rotate the valve disc within the valve body.
Lee teaches a liquid discharging system (S) from a remote operated vehicle (drone 110), wherein a servo actuator (340) is configured to turn a stem (370) and thereby rotate a valve disc (inner valve body disclosed as opening and closing device, disclosed in Par 0008, 0019 and 0022) within the valve body (Par 0008 discloses the opening and closing device being built-in into the valve body) (as seen in Figs 4 and 5, when the servo 340 turns, it rotates the stem 370 via linkages 350, 400, 390 and 360 in order to open or close the valve).
Lift valves were known in the art, as evidenced by Thompson (146), while rotating valves were known in the art as evidence by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the lift valve of Thompson with the rotating valve of Lee by known methods. The results of using both elements would have yield predictable results, as both work equally well at opening and closing the valve outlet. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to replace the lift valve with a rotating valve, since the examiner takes Official Note of equivalence of these type of valving mechanism for their use in fluid dispensing. The selection of any of these known equivalents in this context would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art {See MPEP 2144.06 II}. Examiner notes that in order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized. In the present case, Applicant recognizes the equivalence between a lift valve and a rotating valve (as disclosed in Par 0009 of Applicant’s specification). In other words, Applicant makes use of both of these type of valves and provides no criticality for using over the other one.
Regarding claim 16, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 2. However, they do not teach the system wherein the servo actuator is configured to turn the stem and thereby rotate the valve disc within the valve body.
Lee teaches a liquid discharging system (S) from a remote operated vehicle (drone 110), wherein a servo actuator (340) is configured to turn a stem (370) and thereby rotate a valve disc (inner valve body disclosed as opening and closing device, disclosed in Par 0008, 0019 and 0022) within the valve body (Par 0008 discloses the opening and closing device being built-in into the valve body) (as seen in Figs 4 and 5, when the servo 340 turns, it rotates the stem 370 via linkages 350, 400, 390 and 360 in order to open or close the valve).
Lift valves were known in the art, as evidenced by Thompson (146), while rotating valves were known in the art as evidence by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the lift valve of Thompson with the rotating valve of Lee by known methods. The results of using both elements would have yield predictable results, as both work equally well at opening and closing the valve outlet. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to replace the lift valve with a rotating valve, since the examiner takes Official Note of equivalence of these type of valving mechanism for their use in fluid dispensing. The selection of any of these known equivalents in this context would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art {See MPEP 2144.06 II}. Examiner notes that in order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized. In the present case, Applicant recognizes the equivalence between a lift valve and a rotating valve (as disclosed in Par 0009 of Applicant’s specification). In other words, Applicant makes use of both of these type of valves and provides no criticality for using over the other one.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al (U.S. 2019/0366375) in view of Cis et al (U.S. 2018/0326431); further in view Gavrilov (U.S. 2022/0247347)
Regarding claim 11, Thompson and Cis teach the system of claim 1. However, they do not teach the system wherein the liquid source is a water spigot connected to a well or a municipal water line.
Gavrilov teaches a drone system for dispensing fluid wherein liquid source is a water spigot connected to municipal water line (as disclosed in Par 0025, the water source is a spigot connected to a home water supply; see the home 101).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thompson to incorporate the teachings of Gavrilov to provide the source as a water spigot in order be able to refill the reservoir on the spot (as disclosed in Par 0025). Note: Thompson discloses its system operating with water (Par 0043).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
