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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim contains the following limitation, “wherein the tip extends along the longitudinal axis on a same plane as the passageway and a channel.”
However, antecedent Claim 19 contains the limitation, “wherein the tip extends linearly along the longitudinal axis”, and antecedent (and independent) Claim 14 contains the limitation “wherein the passageway and the conduit extend linearly along a longitudinal axis.
Since Claims 14 and 19 require linear extension of the tip “along a/the longitudinal axis”, Claim 20 fails to provide any further limitation for said tip, since it solely requires the same linear extension. Claim 20 is therefore improper.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delligati (US 3,140,801).
Regarding Claim 1, Delligati discloses an injection system comprising:
- a fluid reservoir (Fig 1, "hopper H") operable to contain a fluid (Col 2, lines 38-43), the fluid reservoir having a reservoir width (inherent to a hopper), the fluid reservoir including an outlet opening that has an outlet width (inherent to a hopper), the outlet width being greater than 20% of the reservoir width (Delligati, Fig 1, clearly shows hopper H as comprising a funnel, with an outlet width smaller than the reservoir width).
Although Delligati does not explicitly address the ratio of widths, Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would appropriately size the outlet width according a design need, such as to meet the desired flow rate of liquid to be dispensed. Doing so would be a matter of routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05. In the present case, Examiner further notes that Applicant assigns no criticality to the ratio of reservoir width to outlet width, and instead presents an extremely wide range of suitable ratios (from 20% to 90%) at Specification, paras 46- 47;
- an injection pump ("pumping means P") coupled to the fluid reservoir (Col 2, lines 51-55),
- the injection pump including a passageway (piston chamber 34) in fluid communication with the outlet opening such that the passageway is operable to receive the fluid from the fluid reservoir via the outlet opening (Col 2 lines 51-55 describes this action as accomplished with "a conventional gate valve G"), the injection pump operable to dispense the fluid from the passageway through a pump outlet (Fig 3, Examiner's annotations);
- a conduit (extension 63) in fluid communication with the injection pump (P), the conduit forming a channel (63 is, by definition, also a "channel" since fluid flows through it) operable to receive the fluid dispensed from the passageway, the channel operable to permit the fluid to flow therethrough (Col 4, lines 15-30),
- wherein the passageway (34) and the channel extend linearly along a longitudinal axis (Fig 1 shows items 63 and 34 "extending linearly").
PNG
media_image1.png
1094
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Delligati discloses an injection system wherein the passageway (34) and the channel (63) extend along the longitudinal axis on a same plane (shown at Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Delligati discloses an injection system wherein the passageway (34) is positioned below the outlet opening along a vertical axis (shown at Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Delligati discloses an injection system (see Figs 1 and 3) wherein the conduit (63) is directly coupled (shown at Fig 3) with the pump outlet of the injection pump (P).
Regarding Claim 5, Delligati discloses an injection system (see Figs 1 and 3) wherein fluid is operable to flow from the passageway (34) into and through the channel (63) without a turn.
Regarding Claim 6, Delligati discloses an injection system (see Figs 1 and 3) wherein the outlet width is greater than 80% of the reservoir width. See Examiner's rationale above in the rejection of Claim 1, and MPEP 2144.05 with regards to the routine optimization of the ratio between outlet width and reservoir width.
Regarding Claim 7, Delligati discloses an injection system (see Figs 1 and 3) further comprising a tip (trowel 70) coupled with the conduit (63) such that the fluid flows out of the tip to be dispensed into a container.
Regarding Claim 8, Delligati discloses an injection system (see Figs 1 and 3) wherein the tip (70) is detachably coupled (see Col 4, lines 28-30, "removably coupled") with the conduit (63).
Regarding Claim 9, Delligati discloses an injection system (see Figs 1 and 3) wherein the tip extends linearly along the longitudinal axis (the apparatus of Delligati is capable of this, since the tip 70 is at the end of flexible hose 68 as shown at Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Delligati discloses an injection system (see Figs 1 and 3) wherein the tip extends along the longitudinal axis on a same plane as the passageway (34) and the channel (63).
Regarding Claim 11, Delligati discloses an injection system (see Figs 1 and 3) wherein the injection pump (P) includes a piston (piston 36, see Figs 3 and 5) that is operable to translate within the passageway (piston chamber 34) to dispense the fluid (an extensive description of the piston mechanism is taught at Col 3, lines 19-64).
Regarding Claim 12, Delligati discloses an injection system (see Figs 1 and 3) wherein the piston (36) transitions between an extended configuration and a withdrawn configuration (via reciprocating motion provided by crank K; see at least Col 2, line 54 - Col 3, line 9), wherein when the piston (36) transitions from the withdrawn configuration to the extended configuration, the piston (36) is operable to push the fluid received in the passageway (34) out of the pump outlet (apparent at Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Delligati discloses an injection system (see Figs 1 and 3) wherein when the piston (36) transitions from the extended configuration to the withdrawn configuration, the fluid flows from the fluid reservoir (H) through the outlet opening into the passageway (34). See Col 3, lines 19-64 and at least Figs 1 and 3.
Regarding Claim 14, Delligati discloses a method comprising (through the routine operation of the apparatus of Delligati, see the rejection of Claim 1 above):
- receiving, from a fluid reservoir (H) through an outlet opening, a fluid in a passageway (34) of an injection pump (P);
- pumping, via the injection pump (P), the fluid from the passageway (34) into a conduit (63);
flowing the fluid through the conduit (63) to be dispensed into a container (Fig 1, Examiner's annotations),
- wherein the passageway (34) and the conduit (63) extend linearly along a longitudinal axis (Fig 1 shows items 63 and 34 "extending linearly")
- wherein the outlet opening has an outlet width that is greater than 20% of a reservoir (H) width. See Examiner's rationale above in the rejection of Claim 1, and MPEP 2144.05 with regards to the routine optimization of the ratio between outlet width and reservoir width.
Regarding Claim 15, Delligati discloses a method wherein the passageway (34) and a channel (63) for the conduit (63) extend along the longitudinal axis on a same plane (shown at Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Delligati discloses a method wherein the pumping of the fluid includes: transitioning a piston (36) of the injection pump (P) between an extended configuration and a withdrawn configuration (via reciprocating motion provided by crank K; see at least Col 2, line 54 - Col 3, line 9).
Regarding Claim 17, Delligati discloses a method wherein the piston (36) transitions from the withdrawn configuration to the extended configuration, the piston (36) is operable to push the fluid received in the passageway (34) out of the pump outlet (apparent at Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 18, Delligati discloses a method wherein the piston (36) transitions from the extended configuration to the withdrawn configuration, the fluid flows from the fluid reservoir (H) through the outlet opening into the passageway (34). This is apparent per Fig 3 and the method as described at Col 2, line 54 - Col 3 line 9 and Col 3, lines 19-64)
Regarding Claim 19, Delligati discloses a method further comprising: detachably coupling (see Col 4, lines 28-30, "removably coupled") a tip (70) with the conduit (63), wherein the tip extends linearly along the longitudinal axis (accomplished by straightening hose 68).
Regarding Claim 20, Delligati discloses a method wherein the tip extends (by straightening hose 68) along the longitudinal axis on a same plane as the passageway (34) and a channel (63).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5217050 A, US 3362441 A, US 4303108 A, US 3385479 A and US 4105146 A are all considered pertinent to Applicant’s claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753