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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/10/2026.
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:
“optical means” in claim(s) 5
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.
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 5 and 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the claimed optical means invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose any structure for the claimed optical means. The specification does not disclose that the claimed optical means is shown in the drawings. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the structure from the drawings either. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the translucent part of the enclosure” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no earlier recitation of the limitation. MPEP 2173.05(e).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-4, 7-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller (US-20190232429-A1) in view of Yan (CN-109175366-A) and in further view of Gold (US-20170144223-A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Buller teaches a printer having a laser 321 that is configured to direct a laser beam 301 through a window 315 and an internal volume 327 of a processing chamber 326, towards an exposed surface 319 of a powder bed 304 (an apparatus for producing a three-dimensional workpiece, the apparatus comprising: a process chamber for receiving a material from which the three-dimensional workpiece is producible using an additive layer manufacturing technique, wherein the process chamber comprises a translucent window; an irradiation device for irradiating, through the translucent window, the material for producing the three-dimensional workpiece) (Fig 3 and ¶0035).
Buller does not teach an enclosure arranged between the translucent window of the process chamber and the irradiation device, wherein at least a part of the enclosure is translucent for an irradiation beam stemming from the irradiation device to travel from the irradiation device through the enclosure to the material for producing the three-dimensional workpiece, wherein the enclosure comprises an inlet and an outlet, and wherein the apparatus is configured to control a flow of a fluid through the enclosure via the inlet and the outlet.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (providing stable conditions for the irradiation beam path from the irradiation device via the enclosure and the translucent window to the material which is to be solidified; ¶0016 of the instant specification) ( see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Yan discloses an system for the protection of optics heating power and cooling system for being used for the sintering of high-temperature laser constituency, wherein the system integral arrangement is in the shaped cavity top of selective laser sintering equipment (Fig 1-2 and Translation, Pg 4 ). Yan teaches that an air-cooled structure layer is laid on 4 top of shaped cavity, and located at the left and right sides are a cold air import 11 and a cold air outlet 16, positioned at the upper window 13 and lower window of upper and lower two sides 14, and the cavity 15 for surrounding and being formed is closed in central region; wherein by air inlet after wherein cold air enters via the cold air import 1 the multilayer spoiler of grid 12 is separated into multilayer laminar flow cold air, then pass to the cavity 15; wherein laminar gas after heat exchange continues through exhaust grille 17 and is discharged by the cold air outlet 16; wherein the upper window and lower window collectively forms a laser perspective path, and is located at the shaped cavity lower part through arrival for laser beam shape table top 41; and wherein upper window 13 is under window 14 is laser see-through window, and material is for example microcrystalline quartz glass, heat-resisting up to 1500 DEG C or more (enclosure arranged between the translucent window of the process chamber and the irradiation device, wherein at least a part of the enclosure is translucent for an irradiation beam stemming from the irradiation device to travel from the irradiation device through the enclosure to the material for producing the three-dimensional workpiece, wherein the enclosure comprises an inlet and an outlet, and wherein the apparatus is configured to control a flow of a fluid through the enclosure via the inlet and the outlet) (Fig 1-2 and Translation, Pg 4).
Buller and Yan disclose a laser see-through window (substituted components and their functions were known in the art; see MPEP 2143(B)).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the printer disclosed in Buller by substituting the window disclosed in Buller with the air-cooled structure comprising an upper window and under window as disclosed in Yan since the simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143(B).
Buller in view of Yan do not teach an apparatus further comprising one or more sensors coupled to and/or arranged within one or more of the inlet, the outlet and the enclosure for sensing the fluid, wherein the apparatus is configured to control, based on the sensed fluid and/or area, one or more parameters of the fluid within the enclosure; wherein the one or more parameters of the fluid within the enclosure comprises the flow speed of the fluid.
However, in the same field of endeavor, stereolithography apparatus, Gold teaches machine 10 and its operation are as representative example of a “powder bed machine” (¶0025). The gas flow sensor or sensors may be positioned as required to properly monitor the gas flow for a specific application (¶0035). For example, a gas flow sensor 74 could be placed in the outside the housing 28, in the ductwork of the gas flow apparatus 54 (¶0035). This would permit the gas flow sensor 74 to detect a flow rate (¶0035). The machine 10 and gas flow apparatus 54 may be controlled, for example, by software running on one or more processors embodied in one or more devices such as a programmable logic controller (“PLC”) or a microcomputer (not shown); wherein such processors may be coupled to the sensors and operating components, for example, through wired or wireless connections; and wherein the same processor or processors may be used to retrieve and analyze sensor data, for statistical analysis, and for feedback control, which allows provides consistent, adequate gas flow while minimizing the flow of gas; and wherein this has the potential to reduce workpiece variation and scrap rate, improve part quality, and monitor the condition of the machine (¶0045-0046)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus disclosed in Buller in view of Yan by arranging the gas flow sensor detect a flow rate disclosed in Gold within one or more of the inlet, the outlet and the enclosure of the apparatus disclosed in in Buller in view of Yan such that the apparatus is configured to control, based on the sensed fluid, one or more parameters of the fluid within the enclosure; wherein the one or more parameters of the fluid within the enclosure comprises the flow speed of the fluid since the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claims 2-3, as applied to the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the printer disclosed in Buller in view of Yan and Gold such that the enclosure forms at least a part of a wall of the process chamber and the enclosure comprises the translucent window, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to the apparatus of claim 1, Buller in view of Yan and Gold do not teach wherein the one or more sensors comprises one or more temperature sensors for sensing a temperature of the irradiation device and wherein said controlling, by the apparatus, comprises adjusting the one or more parameters of the fluid within the enclosure to maintain the temperature of the irradiation device at a target temperature or within a target temperature range.
However, Yan teaches sensor 33 is placed close to laser 341 for monitoring the temperature of laser 341 and when light device 341 is more than critical operating temperatures, the entire selective laser sintering equipment alarms and stops working (Translation Pg 5).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Buller in view of Yan and Gold by applying the known technique of temperature sensors for sensing a temperature of the irradiation device disclosed in Yan to the apparatus disclosed in Buller in view of Yan and Gold such that the apparatus comprises adjusting the one or more parameters of the fluid within the enclosure to maintain the temperature of the irradiation device at a target temperature or within a target temperature range with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to the apparatus of claim 1, Buller in view of Yan and Gold teach wherein the inlet and/or the outlet comprises one or more control devices configured to control one or more properties of the fluid (multilayer spoiler grid 12; Yan, Fig 2).
Regarding claims 9-10, as applied to the apparatus of claim 1, Buller in view of Yan and Gold do not teach wherein the enclosure comprises a plurality of enclosures arranged within a beam path of the irradiation beam from the irradiation device to an interior of the process chamber.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Buller in view of Yan and Gold such that the enclosure comprises a plurality of enclosures arranged within a beam path of the irradiation beam from the irradiation device to an interior of the process chamber and wherein the apparatus is configured to control a said flow of a first said fluid through a first said enclosure and to control a said flow of a second said fluid through a second said enclosure, the first fluid being different from the second fluid, since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to the apparatus of claim 1, Buller in view of Yan and Gold teach wherein the irradiation device is configured to provide a plurality of beam paths for the irradiation beam from the irradiation device through the enclosure (lasers 430 and 432; Buller, Fig 4 and ¶0036).
Regarding claim 12, as applied to the apparatus of claim 1, Buller in view of Yan and Gold teach wherein a wall of the enclosure comprises a cavity for controlling, via a fluid within said cavity, a physical property of the enclosure (Yan, Fig 2).
Regarding claim 19, as applied to the apparatus of claim 1, Buller in view of Yan and Gold teach wherein the translucent window and/or the translucent part of the enclosure respectively comprise an optical lens (Yan, Fig 2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller (US-20190232429-A1) in view of Yan (CN-109175366-A) and in further view of Gold (US-20170144223-A1), as applied to claim 4, and in further view of Yuds (US-20200338250-A1).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to the apparatus of claim 4, Buller in view of Yan and Gold do not teach further comprising optical means for determining the cleanliness of the fluid.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (optical means for determining the cleanliness of the fluid; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Yuds discloses that light emission source 365 may illuminate the fluid flowing through the tubing 120 for the optical sensor 360a to observe fluid flowing through the tubing 120, the rate of flow through the tubing, and/or to detect any changes in clarity of the fluid. For example, patients with an infection may have used dialysate fluid of a different (e.g., cloudier) clarity and/or particles in the fluid than patients without an infection, which may indicate peritonitis in the patient. More than one optical sensor 360a and/or light emission source 365 may be placed along the length of the sheath 205 to detect various of the above or other conditions. The optical sensor 360a and light emission source 365 may provide a more reliable and/or repeatable option for detecting changes in fluid. In some embodiments, the light emission source 365 may include a photodetector and circuitry such that upon detection of a change in clarity of fluid, the optical sensor 360a may signal to the patient or medical provider, or both. (¶0036).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Buller in view of Yan and Gold by applying the known technique of light emission source illuminating fluid for an optical sensor to observe and/or to detect any changes in clarity of the fluid disclosed in Yuds to the apparatus disclosed in Buller in view of Yan and Gold with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller (US-20190232429-A1) in view of Yan (CN-109175366-A) and in further view of Gold (US-20170144223-A1), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Yuds (US-20200338250-A1).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to the apparatus of claim 1, Buller in view of Yan and Gold do not teach wherein the apparatus is configured to derive, from the sensing of the fluid, a cleanliness of the translucent window.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (optical means for determining the cleanliness of the fluid; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Yuds discloses that light emission source 365 may illuminate the fluid flowing through the tubing 120 for the optical sensor 360a to observe fluid flowing through the tubing 120, the rate of flow through the tubing, and/or to detect any changes in clarity of the fluid. For example, patients with an infection may have used dialysate fluid of a different (e.g., cloudier) clarity and/or particles in the fluid than patients without an infection, which may indicate peritonitis in the patient. More than one optical sensor 360a and/or light emission source 365 may be placed along the length of the sheath 205 to detect various of the above or other conditions. The optical sensor 360a and light emission source 365 may provide a more reliable and/or repeatable option for detecting changes in fluid. In some embodiments, the light emission source 365 may include a photodetector and circuitry such that upon detection of a change in clarity of fluid, the optical sensor 360a may signal to the patient or medical provider, or both. (¶0036).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Buller in view of Yan and Gold by applying the known technique of light emission source illuminating fluid for an optical sensor to observe and/or to detect any changes in clarity of the fluid disclosed in Yuds to the apparatus disclosed in Buller in view of Yan and Gold with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-18 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.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record, Buller in view of Yan and Gold disclose an apparatus for producing a three-dimensional workpiece, the apparatus comprising: a process chamber for receiving a material from which the three-dimensional workpiece is producible using an additive layer manufacturing technique, wherein the process chamber comprises a translucent window; an irradiation device for irradiating, through the translucent window, the material for producing the three-dimensional workpiece; and an enclosure arranged between the translucent window of the process chamber and the irradiation device, wherein at least a part of the enclosure is translucent for an irradiation beam stemming from the irradiation device to travel from the irradiation device through the enclosure to the material for producing the three-dimensional workpiece, wherein the enclosure comprises an inlet and an outlet, and wherein the apparatus is configured to control a flow of a fluid through the enclosure via the inlet and the outlet, the apparatus further comprising one or more sensors coupled to and/or arranged within one or more of the inlet, the outlet and the enclosure for sensing the fluid and/or an area surrounding the enclosure, wherein the apparatus is configured to control, based on the sensed fluid and/or area, one or more parameters of the fluid within the enclosure.
The apparatus as claimed is deemed novel and non-obvious because the prior art of record along with a further prior art search do not teach or suggest an apparatus further comprising an optical control unit for controlling an irradiation beam path of a said irradiation beam based on an optical property of a said fluid and/or of an interface between a said fluid and the translucent part of the enclosure, and wherein said controlling of said flow of said fluid through the enclosure comprises controlling said flow based on said optical property for controlled steering of said irradiation beam.
Claims 14-18 are allowed because the claims are dependent upon allowable claim 13.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,280,545 (reference patent) in view of Buller (US-20190232429-A1), Yan (CN-109175366-A), Gold (US-20170144223-A1), and Yuds (US-20200338250-A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-19, the limitations recited in claims 1-16 of the reference patent in view of Buller, Yan, Gold, and Yuds disclose a similar apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cavalli (US-20210199574-A1) teaches an optical sensor device for detecting possible contamination of a generic liquid (¶0143).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
