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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 3-6 and 15.
Applicant's arguments filed 26 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-7, 10-11 and 13-15 on pages 6-8 of the Remarks:
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant that the claim 1 rejection does not have prima facie obviousness. Additionally, The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant that Garrison and Kunter do not teach the second overflow valve configured to move into an open position if a second fluid pressure, which is different than the first fluid pressure, is exceeded.
The use of St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 seen in the rejection was to support the addition of multiple bypass channels each containing an overflow valve as the additional bypass channels would be a further extension to the single bypass channel (784, Figure 28) present in Garrison. This would not result in the first and second overflow valves having the same pressure. Garrison discloses the first bypass channel (784, Figure 28) which contains a first overflow valve (788, Figure 28) comprising a first closing body (790, Figure 28) that is moved to a first moved into the open position if a first fluid pressure is exceeded (Paragraph [0128]). A second valve (800, Figure 28) comprising a closing body (804, Figure 28) which is configured to be moved into the open position if a second fluid pressure which is different than the first fluid pressure is exceeded (Paragraphs [0128-0129], the second overflow valve is opened at a different pressure than the first overflow valve). The first overflow valve and the second overflow valve are adjustable to activate at different pressures based on the biasing force of the spring. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious based on the two valves seen in Garrision that a duplication of the first bypass channel with a first overflow valve can be duplicated in which the duplicated bypass channel can have the fluid pressure be different than the first fluid pressure due to the adjusting of the springs within the overflow valve (Paragraphs [0128-0129]). It would be considered as a routine to create multiple bypass channels dependent on different pressures as Garrison has the valves may be adjustable (Paragraph [0128]).
Kunter was not used in the rejection of former claim 6 to teach the first and second fluid pressures.
The claim 1 rejection does have prima facie obviousness. The rejections of claims 1-2, 10-11, and 13-14 are maintained as seen below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 14-26, a new line is needed after each semicolon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1, “claim 1; further comprising” should be amended to –claim 1, further comprising--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrison (US 20050077317 A1) in view of Kunter (US 20180251367 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Garrison discloses a nozzle (410, Figure 22) for dispensing a fluid (Paragraph [0115]), comprising:
an inlet (414, Figure 22) for the connection of a fluid feed line (Paragraphs [0115] and [0052], the fluid feed line is the flexible hose),
a main channel (418, Figure 22) which connects the inlet (414, Figure 22) to an outlet (416, Figure 22), with a main valve (20, Figure 22) for controlling a total volumetric flow through the main channel (Paragraph [0115], the valve controls the flow of liquid in the main channel), and with a vacuum line (812 and 814, Figure 30) which opens into the main channel (418, Figure 22),
wherein the main channel (418, Figure 22) merges downstream of the main valve (20, Figure 22) into a part channel (786, Figure 28, the auxiliary liquid path is the part channel and the second channel) and into a bypass channel (784, Figure 28, the primary liquid path is the bypass channel) which runs parallel to the part channel (786, Figure 28), the part channel (786, Figure 28) and/or the bypass channel (784, Figure 28) are configured in such a way that a relative proportion of the total volumetric flow which flows through the part channel decreases as the total volumetric flow increases (Paragraphs [0128-0129], the pressure to open and close the means for prioritizing the fluid throughflow controls the fluid flow through the path),
the part channel (786, Figure 28) having a tapered portion (810, Figure 30), and the vacuum line (812 and 814, Figure 30) opening in the region of the tapered portion (810, Figure 30) into the part channel (786, Figure 28),
wherein a first bypass channel (784, Figure 28) has a first overflow valve (788, Figure 28, the first pressure activated valve is the first overflow valve) for at least partially closing the first bypass channel (784, Figure 28); wherein the first overflow valve (788, Figure 28) includes a first closing body (790, Figure 28, the valve stem is the closing body) that is preloaded upstream into a closed position (Paragraph [0126], upstream is where the head of the closing body is located where it is preloaded into a closed position); wherein the first overflow valve (788, Figure 28) moves to an open position in response to a fluid pressure upstream of the first overflow valve (788, Figure 28) exceeding a first threshold pressure (Paragraph [0129], the first overflow valve opens when the first threshold pressure (250-300 millibar) is reached); and
wherein a second channel (786, Figure 28) has a second valve (800, Figure 28) for at least partially closing the second channel (786, Figure 28); wherein the second valve (800, Figure 28) includes a second closing body (804, Figure 28) that is preloaded upstream into a closed position (Paragraph [0127], the second valve is preloaded in the closed position); wherein the second valve (800, Figure 28) moves to an open position in response to a fluid pressure upstream of the second valve (800, Figure 28) exceeding a second threshold pressure (Paragraph [0128], the valve opens in response to a fluid pressure upstream of the valve); and
wherein the second threshold pressure is different than the first threshold pressure (Paragraphs [0128-0129], the second overflow valve is opened at a different pressure than the first overflow valve).
Garrison does not disclose:
a main valve for controlling a total volumetric flow through the main channel;
the part channel and/or the at least two bypass channels having means for prioritizing the fluid throughflow, which means are configured in such a way that a relative proportion of the total volumetric flow which flows through the part channel decreases as the total volumetric flow increases; and
wherein a second bypass channel of the at least two bypass channels have a second overflow valve for at least partially closing the second bypass channel; wherein the second overflow valve includes a second closing body that is preloaded upstream into a closed position; wherein the second overflow valve moves to an open position in response to a fluid pressure upstream of the second overflow valve exceeding a second threshold pressure.
Kunter teaches a nozzle (Paragraph [0051]), comprising:
a main valve (5, Figure 1) for controlling a total volumetric flow through the main channel (Paragraphs [0062] and [0068], the opening lift controls the total volumetric flow).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Garrison to include a main valve for controlling a total volumetric flow through the main channel as taught by Kunter with the motivation to control the volume flow to the tank without overwhelming the filler neck and purging system.
Garrison and Kunter do not teach:
At least two bypass channels which run parallel to the part channel, the part channel an/or the at least two bypass channels having means for prioritizing the fluid throughflow; and
wherein a second bypass channel of the at least two bypass channels have a second overflow valve for at least partially closing the second bypass channel; wherein the second overflow valve includes a second closing body that is preloaded upstream into a closed position; wherein the second overflow valve moves to an open position in response to a fluid pressure upstream of the second overflow valve exceeding a second threshold pressure.
Garrison and Kunter discloses the claimed invention except for a second bypass channel, a second overflow valve, and a second closing body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second bypass channel, a second overflow valve, and a second closing body which run parallel to the part channel, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 2:
Garrison discloses:
the part channel and/or the bypass channel (784, Figure 28) are configured to deflect and/or control the fluid flow (Paragraphs [0128-0129], the first bypass channel has the first overflow valve which controls the fluid flow).
Garrison and Kunter discloses the claimed invention except for at least two bypass channels. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have at least two bypass channels, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 7:
Garrison discloses:
wherein a preload of the first closing body (790, Figure 28) of the first overflow valve (788, Figure 28) is different than a preload (Paragraph [0129], the first and second valves have different preloads in order to open the valve) of the second closing body (804, Figure 28) of the second valve (800, Figure 28).
Garrison and Kunter do not teach:
the closing body of the second overflow valve.
Garrison and Kunter discloses the claimed invention except for a second overflow valve with a second closing body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second overflow valve in a bypass channel comprising a second closing body, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 10:
Garrison discloses:
wherein the part channel (786, Figure 28) and the vacuum line (812 and 814, Figure 28) opens into the part channel (786, Figure 28) form a Venturi nozzle (Paragraph [0130], the part channel and the vacuum line form a Venturi nozzle).
Regarding Claim 13:
See claim 1 for the nozzle.
Garrison discloses a method for dispensing fluid by means of a nozzle (410, Figure 22), comprising:
wherein a first proportion of the fluid flow is conducted through the part channel (786, Figure 28) and the remaining proportion of the fluid flow is conducted through the bypass channel (784, Figure 28), the first proportion of the fluid flow which is conducted through the part channel (786, Figure 28) being used to generate a vacuum (Paragraph [0130], the underpressure is the vacuum created by the fluid flow in the part channel).
Garrison and Kunter do not teach:
the at least two bypass channels.
Garrison and Kunter discloses the claimed invention except for the at least two bypass channels. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the at least two bypass channels, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 14:
Garrison discloses:
wherein the first overflow valve (788, Figure 28) and the second valve (800, Figure 28) are used to set the first proportion of the fluid flow (Paragraphs [0128-0129], the first proportion is the pressure required to open the valve) which flows through the part channel (786, Figure 28).
Garrison and Kunter do not teach:
the second overflow valve.
Garrison and Kunter discloses the claimed invention except for the second overflow. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the a second overflow valve in addition to the first overflow valve, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrison (US 20050077317 A1) in view of Kunter (US 20180251367 A1) in further view of Kunter 2 (US 20140130939 A1).
Regarding Claim 11:
Garrison discloses:
further comprising an automatic switch-off device (710, Figure 30, the nozzle shut-off control segment) for actuating the main valve (Paragraph [0130], the automatic switch-off device closes the main valve (20)), the vacuum line (812 and 814, Figure 30) being connected to the automatic switch-off device (710, Figure 30).
Garrison and Kunter do not expressly teach:
an automatic switch-off device for actuating the main valve.
Kunter 2 teaches a filling nozzle, comprising:
an automatic switch-off device (15, Figure 1) for actuating the main valve (5, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Garrison and Kunter to include an automatic switch-off device for actuating the main valve as taught by Kunter 2 with the motivation to shut the nozzle off to prevent potential contamination when the nozzle is removed from the tank.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Garrison (US 20050077317 A1) in view of Kunter (US 20180251367 A1) in further view of Rabinovich (US 5392824 A).
Regarding Claim 8:
Garrison discloses:
The main valve (20, Figure 22).
Rabinovich teaches a vapor recovery nozzle, comprising:
wherein the main valve (74 and 86, Figure 1, the poppet plunger and main poppet body are the main valve) has a valve body (86, Figure 1) and a valve stem (74, Figure 1) which is arranged downstream of the valve body (86, Figure 1).
Claim 8 contains the limitation “at least one section of the part channel being arranged next to the valve stem in the radial direction” in lines 3-4 of the claim. The limitation is not seen in the prior art of record in view of all other limitations of claims 1 and 8. Additionally, the structure of Garrison would need to be modified to have the part channel be next to the valve stem in the radial direction.
Claim 9 is objected to as the claim is dependent from claim 8.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Garrison (US 20050077317 A1) in view of Kunter (US 20180251367 A1) in further view of Nitzberg (US 4951722 A).
Regarding Claim 12:
Garrison discloses:
A nozzle (410, Figure 22).
Kunter teaches:
- the nozzle has a first adjustable maximum volumetric flow and a second maximum volumetric flow which is different than the first maximum volumetric flow, the second maximum volumetric flow being greater than the first maximum volumetric flow (Paragraph [0062], the first volume flow is less than a maximum (second) volume flow).
Nitzberg teaches a fuel dispensing nozzle, comprising:
A flow limiter (40, Figure 3).
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious:
- the nozzle has an adjustable flow limiter which is configured separately from the main valve and is configured to selectively limit the fluid throughflow to the first or second maximum volumetric flow, and
- the nozzle has an actuating device which is configured to interact with a signal element which is assigned to a tank of a motor vehicle and to selectively set the flow limiter to the first or the second maximum volumetric flow.
The limitations in view of all other limitations of claims 1 and 12 are not taught by the prior art of record. Any additional reference would further modify a secondary reference leading to hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davis (US 2320033 A) teaches a filling nozzle with automatic shutoff comprising a main valve, an input, an output, an air passage, and a main channel.
Mayer (US 4133355 A) teaches a sealable dispensing nozzle with automatic shut-off comprising a main valve, an input, an output, an air passage, and a main channel.
Nusen (US 6311742 B1) teaches a fuel dispensing nozzle comprising a venturi, a main valve, an input, an output, an air passage, and a main channel.
Dotson (US 5327949 A) teaches a fuel dispensing nozzle comprising a main valve, an input, an output, an air passage, an automatic shut-off, and a main channel.
Schultz-Hildebrandt (US 11505448 B2) teaches a device for discharging and returning fluids comprising a main channel, a bypass channel, and a venturi.
Hansel (US 4027708 A) teaches a dispensing nozzle control system comprising a main valve, an input, an output, an air passage, and a main channel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES whose telephone number is (571)272-5373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 9:30AM to 5:30PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights