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 10-15 in the reply filed on July 28, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 10-15 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.
In re claim 10, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of claim 10 are. Claim 10 recites “a method of operating the fluid delivery system according to claim 1.” It is unclear what structure of claim 1 are required for the methods of claim 10. First, claim 10 is a method claim. It cannot be depending from an apparatus claim 1. And if claim 10 were intending to include all limitations of claim 1, but claim 10 further recites “a pressurizing unit (20)” and others that have the same term as claim 1. It is unclear if they are the same, or they are additional units. If they are additional units, then they should not have the same name. If they are not additional units, then claim 10 is NOT operating the fluid delivery system according to claim 1 because claim 10 do not have all limitation of claim 1. Claim 10 also recites “the fluid delivery system further comprising …” and “closing the actuator and delivering said at least one fluid out of the fluid delivery system.” It is unclear what the scope of this fluid delivery system is.
Claim 10 first recites “according to claim 1 comprising” and then also recited “said method comprising.” It is unclear if the “said method” is the claim 10 of a method of operating the fluid delivery system. It is unclear if the first comprising merely a preamble, and not necessary condition. Applicant is required to specific note what is required and what is not required in recite a claim. Is Applicant picking a few parts of claim 1 within the first comprising and then provide the actual method of using the chosen part? If that’s the case, then the method of operating the fluid delivery system is not according to claim 1. Applicant needs to specific point out what apparatus is necessary for the intended method.
The structure of fluid delivery system is unclear and detail searches cannot be performed.
The term “substantially” in claims 14-15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
But for the sake of not including anything from claim 1.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheesley et al. (US 3,877, 347, hereinafter Sheesley ‘347).
In re claim 10, Sheesley ‘347 teaches a method of operating the fluid delivery system (100; 200; 300) chamber (fig. 1, it would have been obvious the piston can be axially translated in multiple sessions), and closing the actuator and delivering said at least one fluid out of the fluid delivery system (col. 4, lines 34-42).
In re claim 11, Sheesley ‘347 wherein the step of circulating said at least one fluid between said first and second variable-volume sub-chambers (35, 36) is sequentially repeated till the step of delivering said at least one fluid out of the fluid delivery system is performed (col. 5, lines 2-14, note that pushing down is sequentially).
In re claim 12, Sheesley ‘347 teaches wherein the step of supplying comprises the step of filling said first and second variable-volume sub-chambers (35, 36) with said at least one fluid to be delivered, the step of filling further comprising the steps of: opening a supply station valve (11) associated to said at least one supply station (10); closing the actuator (70; 270) of the recirculation fluid circuit (60; 260), and acting on the driving unit (M) of said pressurizing unit (20) for reciprocating the piston (32) within the chamber (31) (col. 4, lines 20-57).
In re claim 13, it would have been inherent and obvious that any pump on earth with not vacuum feature would have the limitation of “further comprising the step of priming air outside of the fluid delivery system, said step of priming being performed simultaneously to the step of filling” because every pump without a vacuum feature would have air, and when it is filed with fluid, the air will get out.
In re claim 14, it would have been obvious that when a pusher in a simple piston and chamber as shown in fig.1 that what volume is being pushed, is what volume of fluid will be delivered. Hence the limitation of “further comprising the steps of: computing a volume of said at least one fluid to be delivered, and axially translating the piston (32) to define the sub-chamber (35; 36) whose volume is substantially equal to the computed fluid volume to be delivered” is an obvious conventional design of a pusher pump.
In re claim 15, similarity to the logic of claim 14, it would have been obvious of a conventional feature and design of a pusher pump to have further comprising the steps of: providing a computed volume of said at least one fluid to be delivered as an input delivery data, and axially translating the piston (32) to define the sub-chamber (35; 36) whose volume is substantially equal to the computed fluid volume to be delivered.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO JOSEPH PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BO JOSEPH PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights