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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kirschmann et al. (“Kirschmann” hereinafter) (US PN 4,691,850).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Kirschmann discloses a system (figure 1) for controlling chemical dispensing from a chemical delivery device (item 10, figure 1), comprising: means for dispensing (item 62, figure 3) a chemical (chemical from bottles 28a-28f, figure 1), wherein during dispensing an amount of the chemical from the chemical delivery device, the means for dispensing the chemical draws an equal amount of the chemical into the chemical delivery device as the amount of the chemical dispensed (column 5, lines 20-32 and column 7, lines 27-43, the pump pulls the same amount of liquid from bottles 28 through manifold 42 as the amount of liquid being transported to flush manifold 36, figures 2-3).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Kirschmann discloses means for dispensing a fluid (water solenoid 32 and pipes 18 and 20 that bring hot and cold water, figures 2-3, column 4, lines 13-28) and means for mixing (flush manifold 36 mixes flush water and one or more chemicals being dispensed via pump 62, figures 2-3, column 7, lines 10-51) the dispensed chemical and fluid dispensed from the means for dispensing the fluid.
Regarding claim 4, Kirschmann discloses means for controlling (items 96, 98, 102, figure 3) dispensing: of the chemical from the means for dispensing a chemical, of the fluid from the means for dispensing a fluid, or of mixtures of the chemical and the fluid (the control circuit board along with membrane switch 98, LED board, and memory 102 monitors and controls the entire dispensing operation including controlling the means for dispensing chemicals, the solenoids that control the chemicals and water delivery and the check-valve that controls dispensing, column 6, lines 27-45).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 15, Kirschmann discloses that the means for controlling dispensing comprises means for linearly controlling dispensing (the controller mechanism controls the operation of the entire dispensing system in a linear fashion, figures 2-4).
Regarding claims 6, 10, and 18, Kirschmann discloses that the means for controlling is integrated into an assembly comprising one or more of the means for dispensing a chemical or a plurality of chemicals, the means for dispensing a hot or cold or both waters, or the means for mixing the fluid and the chemical (the control board 96, the pump 62, the chemical manifold 42, the water manifold 32, and the flush manifold 36 are all integrated into one dispensing assembly 10, figures 2-4).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Kirschmann discloses that means (the control mechanisms including control board 96, switch 98, memory 102 control the diluting operation of the chemicals) for controlling a dilution ratio of the chemical and the fluid dispensed from the means for dispensing a chemical and the means for dispensing a fluid (column 2, lines 62-67: column 3, lines 1-20).
Regarding claims 8, 9, 11, and 17, Kirschmann discloses that means for coordinating (the control mechanisms including control board 96, switch 98, memory 102 control the coordination of the dispensing process) dispensing from a plurality of the means for dispensing a chemical and a plurality of the means for dispensing a fluid (column 6, lines 27-45 and column 7, lines 10-67: column 8, lines 1-43).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirschmann in view of Horie et al. (“Horie” hereinafter) (US PN 6,419,462).
Regarding claim 2, Kirschmann is silent to teaching means for sensing one or more properties of the dispensed chemical, of the chemical drawn into the chemical delivery device, or of the means for dispensing a chemical.
Horie teaches a liquid-delivery apparatus (figure 1) with metering means and contemplates use of various sensors such as pressure sensor (item 168, figure 8), flow sensor (column 3, lines 41-46), and leak sensor (item 160, figure 8) in the system to measure such characteristics related to the liquid being deployed and dispensed through the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kirschmann as taught by Horie to have provided one or more sensing means in the form of sensors that measure various parameters of the liquids being dispensed in the system in order to provide the control system of Kirschmann valuable operation specific data to improve the dispensing process. It is worth noting that use of sensors to measure liquid parameters is also old and well-known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL J PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-9324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9 am - 7 pm).
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/Vishal Pancholi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
