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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations “first conduit”, “first opening of the reservoir”, and “second opening of the reservoir” (of Claim 12) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. In this case, there does not appear to be any “first conduit” shown in the figures that fluidly connects pressure port 110 to the interior volume of the reservoir 106 (see, example, Figures 5-9, which show merely a first opening 122 providing such a fluid connection). Conduits 115 & 117 are both shown in the figures as being upstream of pressure port 110. As far as the examiner understands, this “first conduit” can only be located internally of the manifold 104. Similarly, there is no “first opening” of the reservoir 106 labeled or denoted anywhere in the figures. At best, it appears that filter 118 forms openings within reservoir 106, but this element is separately and distantly recited in Claim 12. Finally, there is no “second opening” of the reservoir 106 labeled or denoted anywhere in the figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 32 of the originally filed specification appears to contain a typographical error therein. In particular, given the originally filed drawings, it appears that sentences 4-6 should read: “The pressure port 110 can be coupled to the pump 102 via a conduit 117. The suction port 112 can be in fluid communication with a suction output 116. The suction port 112 can be coupled to the pump 102 via a conduit or tubing 115.”
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.
Claims 5-6 & 12-20 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 5 recites the phrasing “can be” to describe possible pump assembly configurations within the claim. However, the phrasing “can be” renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear whether or not the limitations construed with this phrasing are actually present in the invention or not. Thus, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the relief valve is at a lower position in the reservoir”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the required structural arrangement of the invention cannot be discerned. In this case, Claim 1, from which Claim 6 depends, requires the relief valve to be “positioned on…the manifold”. However, Claim 6 instead refers to the relief valve being “in the reservoir”. These two limitations appear to conflict with one another, and the language of Claim 6 appears to further conflict with the depictions shown in the originally supplied drawings which clearly depict the relief valve 126 being mounted to the manifold 104 (not within the reservoir 106). As such, it becomes unclear whether Claim 6 simply includes a typographical error or is attempting to require the relief valve to be located both 1) on the manifold and 2) in the reservoir. The examiner can only guess at Applicant’s intent in this regarding, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted Claim 6 as instead reciting “the relief valve is at a lower position in the manifold”; an arrangement that agrees with the originally filed specification.
Claim 12, line 10 recites “a first opening of the reservoir”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the required structural arrangement of the invention cannot be discerned. In this case, Claim 12 refers to a first opening that is “of the reservoir”, whereas the originally filed specification makes clear that the “first through hole 122” is part of the manifold 104. These appear to conflict with one another, and the language of Claim 12 appears to further conflict with the depictions shown in the originally supplied drawings which clearly depict through hole 122 being part of the manifold 104 (not the reservoir 106). As such, it becomes unclear whether Claim 12 simply includes a typographical error or is actually attempting to require an opening to be located in the reservoir. The examiner can only guess at Applicant’s intent in this regarding, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted Claim 12 as instead reciting “a first opening of the manifold”; an arrangement that agrees with the originally filed specification.
Claim 12, line 14 recites “a second opening of the reservoir”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the required structural arrangement of the invention cannot be discerned. In this case, Claim 12 refers to a second opening that is “of the reservoir”, whereas the originally filed specification makes clear that the “pressure exit 128” is part of the manifold 104. These appear to conflict with one another, and the language of Claim 12 appears to further conflict with the depictions shown in the originally supplied drawings which clearly depict pressure exit 128 being part of the manifold 104 (not the reservoir 106). As such, it becomes unclear whether Claim 12 simply includes a typographical error or is actually attempting to require a second opening to be located in the reservoir. The examiner can only guess at Applicant’s intent in this regarding, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted Claim 12 as instead reciting “a second opening of the manifold”; an arrangement that agrees with the originally filed specification.
Claim 12, line 16 recites “a third opening of the reservoir”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the required structural arrangement of the invention cannot be discerned. In this case, Claim 12 refers to a third opening that is “of the reservoir”, whereas the originally filed specification makes clear that the “through hole 124” is part of the manifold 104. These appear to conflict with one another, and the language of Claim 12 appears to further conflict with the depictions shown in the originally supplied drawings which clearly depict through hole 124 being part of the manifold 104 (not the reservoir 106). As such, it becomes unclear whether Claim 12 simply includes a typographical error or is actually attempting to require a third opening to be located in the reservoir. The examiner can only guess at Applicant’s intent in this regarding, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted Claim 12 as instead reciting “a third opening of the manifold”; an arrangement that agrees with the originally filed specification.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are found to be provisionally allowable, pending Applicant’s overcoming of the above-noted objections and rejections. Applicant should note that the application cannot be properly allowed until Applicant has fully and properly overcome all of the above-noted issues.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the best available prior art fails to disclose the inventions of Claims 1 & 12. In particular, the best available prior is as follows:
1. US 5,263,826 to Baumann et al.
2. US 2007/0116584 to DeRosa et al.
3. WO 2004/030794 to Chan (attached herein)
4. US 2023/0122679 to Reuter et al.
5. US 2014/0044570 to Cedrone et al.
6. US 5,299,370 to Gyori et al.
Baumann et al. is considered to be the most relevant prior art document, and discloses a pump assembly (Fig. 1; Abstract) comprising: a housing (46); a pressure output (12); a suction output (7); a pump (1) disposed at least partially within the housing (Fig. 1) and comprising a pressure port (i.e. a pump outlet) in fluid communication with the pressure output (fluid is pumped from the pump outlet to the pressure output 12; see flow arrows in Fig. 1) and a suction port (i.e. a pump inlet) in fluid communication with the suction output (fluid is pumped from the pump outlet to the pressure output 12; see flow arrows in Fig. 1); a reservoir (6), and a manifold (5) disposed at least partially within the housing (Fig. 1) between the pump and the reservoir (Fig. 1), the manifold comprising: a reservoir connection point (19a) configured to couple the reservoir to a reservoir facing side of the manifold (Fig. 1), the reservoir connection point comprising a first through hole (“aperture 19a”; see also Fig. 1), an interior of the reservoir being in fluid communication with the pressure port of the pump through the first through hole (“the suction-side connection of the compressor 1 can be formed by a suction part 7a, which is tightly connected to an aperture 19a provided in the cover 5”; see also the flow arrows in Fig. 1). However, Baumann fails to further disclose the manifold having a second through hole connecting a relief valve to the interior of the reservoir, the relief valve positioned on a pump-facing side of the manifold, and a pressure exit extending through the manifold, the pressure exit fluidically connecting the interior of the reservoir with the pressure output via a moisture control tubing permeable to water vapor. While Baumann generally discloses a relief valve (21) fluidly coupled to the manifold (5), this arrangement fails to meet the arrangement recited. Furthermore, Baumann is silent towards any pressure exit extending through the manifold, the pressure exit fluidically connecting the interior of the reservoir with the pressure output via a moisture control tubing permeable to water vapor, as claimed. As such, Baumann clearly falls far short of disclosing or rendering obvious Applicant’s recited invention.
DeRosa et al. another similarly relevant prior art document, and discloses a pump assembly (Figs. 1-4) comprising: a housing (14); a pressure output (para. 27; “a hose”; Figs. 1 & 4); a suction output (61; “inlet passage”; para. 31; Fig. 4); a pump (60; Fig. 4) disposed at least partially within the housing (“air compressor 60 is positioned within the enclosure 14”; para. 31) and comprising a pressure port (i.e. a pump outlet; Fig. 4) in fluid communication with the pressure output (fluid is pumped from the pump outlet to the pressure output; see Fig. 4) and a suction port (i.e. a pump inlet) in fluid communication with the suction output (fluid is pumped from the pump outlet to the pressure output; see Fig. 4); a reservoir (68), and a manifold (80) disposed at least partially within the housing (Fig. 1). However, DeRosa fails to disclose that the manifold is disposed between the pump and the reservoir, the manifold comprising: a reservoir connection point configured to couple the reservoir to a reservoir facing side of the manifold, the reservoir connection point comprising a first through hole, an interior of the reservoir being in fluid communication with the pressure port of the pump through the first through hole; a second through hole connecting a relief valve to the interior of the reservoir, the relief valve positioned on a pump-facing side of the manifold; and a pressure exit extending through the manifold, the pressure exit fluidically connecting the interior of the reservoir with the pressure output via a moisture control tubing permeable to water vapor. As such, Baumann clearly falls far short of disclosing or rendering obvious Applicant’s recited invention, and likewise fails to remedy the many deficiencies present within Baumann.
The other above-noted prior art references to Chan, Reuter et al., Cedrone et al., and Gyori all disclose other pump assemblies similar to Applicant’s invention recited in Claim 1, but none of these disclosures overcome or remedy the deficiencies of Baumann or DeRosa. As such, the best available prior art, as a whole, fails to disclose or render obvious the invention of Claim 1, and therefore, Claim 1 appears to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art. Claim 12 (as best interpreted by the Examiner; see the 112(b) rejections above) is found to be provisionally allowable for similar reasons to those noted above for Claim 1, as the best available prior art fails to disclose the suction and pressure flow paths, the relief valve, and the third opening recited in Claim 12.
Applicant’s specification makes clear that the particular arrangements recited in Claims 1 & 12 provide pump assemblies that remove or reduce condensation and/or moisture levels within the pump assemblies in order to prevent damage to electronic components thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 ABC
Prosecution Insights