DETAILED ACTION
The Response filed 8 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-18 and 20-23 are pending, with claim 23 being new. Claim 19 has been canceled.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The non-patent literature cited in the IDS filed 1/8/2026 was not considered because a publication date was not provided/readable in the citation. The examiner acknowledges that the applicant cites the publication in the Response, but in the published copy of the IDS, a date is not provided/readable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons in view of the previously applied prior art references – Gibson et al. (US 2017/0237158) and Sitnikov et al. (US 2020/0384296).
The applicant argues with respect to independent claim 1 on pgs. 7-9 of the Response that the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the “axis of the nozzle cap extends through the opening of the inner cap and the plug.” However, Sitnikov discloses in Figs. 1-26 an axis that extends in the direction that the overall cap 1130, 1910 (like the nozzle cap disclosed by Gibson) extends from the hydrant (similar to the axis of the nozzle cap disclosed by Gibson) extends through the plug 1960 and the opening in the cap 1910 (analogous to the inner cap) into which the plug 1960 fits. Sitnikov is combined with the teaching of a nozzle cap for a hydrant by Gibson, wherein the nozzle cap comprises an inner cap 1402, 1404, to which the cap 1910 disclosed by Sitnikov is analogous. Gibson discloses in Figs. 14-20 that the communications hub (comprising housing 1406 and/or the electronics housed therein) is axially outward from the inner cap 1402, 1404 with respect to the same axis, which is the axis that the nozzle cap extends relative to the hydrant.
The applicant argues with respect to independent claim 15 on pgs. 8-9 of the Response that the prior art fails to disclose or suggest “an axis of the nozzle cap extends through the opening of the nozzle cap and the plug.” However, as discussed above with regard to the argument concerning claim 1, the combination of Gibson and Sitnikov is seen as teaching such a structure.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 9-10 of the Response, filed 8 January 2026, with respect to independent claim 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 18 is indicated as allowable, because as the applicant points out, it has been amended to include the allowable subject matter indicated in the previous office action regarding dependent claim 19.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 20, line 3, “a sensing device” should be changed to --the sensing device-- to refer to the recitation of the structure of the same name in claim 18 as an antecedent basis.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 22 is 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 22 recites the limitation "the axis of the nozzle cap" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 is seen as repeating the newly added limitation at the end of claim 1, which recites “the axis of the nozzle cap extends through the opening of the inner cap and the plug.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
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 1-17, 21, 23 (as understood: 21) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson et al. (US 2017/0237158) in view of Sitnikov et al. (US 2020/0384296).
Regarding claim 1, Gibson discloses in Figs. 14-20 a nozzle cap for a hydrant, the nozzle cap comprising:
an inner cap 1402, 1404 (comprising cap 1402 and the mounting plated 1404 mounted thereto, as disclosed in paragraph 113) securably engageable with a nozzle of the hydrant, the nozzle configured to connect a fire hose to the hydrant (when the inner cap 1420 is removed, as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize);
a communications hub (comprising the electronics housed in housing 1406 and/or housing 1406) positioned both adjacent to the inner cap 1402, 1404 and axially outward, with respect to an axis of the nozzle cap, from the inner cap 1402, 1404.
Gibson lacks a plug plugging an opening defined in the inner cap and securably engaged with the inner cap, the opening extending through a thickness of the inner cap, the plug comprising a material that allows transmission of a wireless signal through the material, and wherein the axis of the nozzle cap extends through the opening of the inner cap and the plug.
Sitnikov teaches in Figs. 1-26 a plug 1960 plugging an opening defined in the cap 1910 (similar to the inner cap 1402, 1404 disclosed by Gibson that also serves as a boundary for the space in the hydrant) and securably engaged with the cap 1910, the opening extending through a thickness of the cap 1910, the plug 1960 comprising a material that allows transmission of a wireless signal through the material (paragraph 83), and wherein an axis that extends in the direction that the overall cap 1130, 1910 (like the nozzle cap disclosed by Gibson) extends from the hydrant (similar to the axis of the nozzle cap disclosed by Gibson) extends through the opening of the cap 1910 (analogous to the inner cap) and the plug 1960. The plug 1960 is used with an antenna 1942 to receive wireless signals from a sensor in the hydrant that monitors the fluid in the hydrant (paragraphs 82-83), and the signals are process in the electronics housed in the cap 1910.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle cap disclosed by Gibson to include the plug and associated electronics and sensor taught by Sitnikov to be able to monitor the fluid in the hydrant, because Gibson discloses using the nozzle cap with sensors, including sensors not disclosed (paragraph 105), and the fluid sensors taught by Sitnikov allow for monitoring whether the fluid in the hydrant is appropriate for use.
Regarding claim 2, Sitnikov teaches in Figs. 1-26 that the plug 1960 comprises: a first portion extending across the opening defined in the cap 1910 (comprising the inner cap 1402, 1404 disclosed by Gibson in the modification of Gibson in view of Sitnikov); and a second portion (comprising the portion that fits in bore 1980 of the cap 1910) extending from the first portion and securably engaged with the cap 1910; wherein the material is a non-metallic material.
Regarding claim 3, Sitnikov teaches in Figs. 1-26 that the second portion defines a threaded portion (as shown in Figs. 20, 23, and 26) received within a threaded portion defined in the cap 1910 (comprising the inner cap 1402, 1404 disclosed by Gibson in the modification of Gibson in view of Sitnikov).
Regarding claim 4, Sitnikov teaches in Figs. 1-26 that a diameter of the second portion (comprising the threaded portion of the plug 1960 that fits into the bore 1980 of the cap 1910) is smaller than a diameter of the first portion with respect to an axis of the plug 1960.
Regarding claim 5, Sitnikov teaches in Fig. 23 that the plug 1960 further comprises a third portion (comprising the narrowed portion opposite about the widened, middle section from the threaded end) configured to extend away from each of the first portion and the second portion and towards an interior cavity of the hydrant, the third portion receiving an antenna 1942, 1945 of the communications hub in a cavity of the plug 1960 defined at least in part by the third portion thereof.
Regarding claim 6, Sitnikov teaches in Figs. 1-26 that the plug 1960 defines an anti-rotation feature (comprising the hex-nut head that would having ordinary skill in the art would recognize in Fig. 19 and being for engagement by a wrench, as is common in the art for hex-nut heads) configured to be driven by a tool during installation or removal of the plug 1960.
Regarding claim 7, Gibson discloses in Figs. 14-20 a housing 1406 secured to the inner cap 1402, 1404, the communications hub (comprising electronics) being positioned inside the housing 1406.
Regarding claim 8, alternative to the embodiment in Figs. 14-20 of Gibson, Gibson discloses in Figs. 36-50 a nozzle cap for a hydrant, the nozzle cap comprising:
an inner cap 4130 securably engageable with a nozzle of the hydrant, the nozzle configured to connect a fire hose to the hydrant (when the inner cap 4130 is removed, as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize);
a communications hub (comprising the electronics housed in housing 4120 and/or housing 4120) positioned both adjacent to the inner cap 4130 and axially outward, with respect to an axis of the nozzle cap, from the inner cap 4130;
a housing 4120 secured to the inner cap 4130, the communications hub being positioned inside the housing 4120;
an outer cap 4110 secured to the housing 4120, the outer cap 4110 comprising a protrusion 4116 configured to facilitate a tightening or a loosening of the nozzle cap during installation or removal of the nozzle cap.
Gibson lacks a plug plugging an opening defined in the inner cap and securably engaged with the inner cap, the opening extending through a thickness of the inner cap, the plug comprising a material that allows transmission of a wireless signal through the material.
Sitnikov teaches in Figs. 1-26 a plug 1960 plugging an opening defined in the cap 1910 (similar to the inner cap 1402, 1404 disclosed by Gibson that also serves as a boundary for the space in the hydrant) and securably engaged with the cap 1910, the opening extending through a thickness of the cap 1910, the plug 1960 comprising a material that allows transmission of a wireless signal through the material (paragraph 83). The plug 1960 is used with an antenna 1942 to receive wireless signals from a sensor in the hydrant that monitors the fluid in the hydrant (paragraphs 82-83), and the signals are process in the electronics housed in the cap 1910.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle cap disclosed by Gibson to include the plug and associated electronics and sensor taught by Sitnikov to be able to monitor the fluid in the hydrant, because Gibson discloses using the nozzle cap with sensors, including sensors not disclosed (paragraph 105), and the fluid sensors taught by Sitnikov allow for monitoring whether the fluid in the hydrant is appropriate for use.
Regarding claim 9, Sitnikov teaches in Fig. 23 a seal (unlabeled but shown in Fig. 23) configured to seal against passage of a fluid between the plug 1960 and the cap 1910 (comprising the inner cap 1402, 1404 disclosed by Gibson in the modification of Gibson in view of Sitnikov).
Regarding claim 10, Sitnikov teaches in Figs. 1-26 at least a portion of the seal is positioned between the plug 1960 and the cap 1910 (comprising the inner cap 1402, 1404 disclosed by Gibson in the modification of Gibson in view of Sitnikov).
Regarding claim 11, Sitnikov teaches in Figs. 1-26 that the seal covers the plug 1960 on a side of the cap 1910 (comprising the nozzle cap disclosed by Gibson in the modification of Gibson in view of Sitnikov) configured to face the hydrant (and including the nozzle disclosed by Gibson in the modification of Gibson in view of Sitnikov).
Regarding claim 12, Gibson discloses in Figs. 14-20 a hydrant comprising: a hydrant body; and the nozzle cap of claim 1, the nozzle cap being selectively securable to the hydrant body.
Regarding claim 13, Sitnikov teaches in Figs. 1-26 a sensing device 3010, the sensing device 3010 extending at least partly through a main valve of the hydrant (comprising the stem and valve head rigidly connected together, including stem 1210, stem pipe 2000, vein 1310, and valve member 1250), the sensing device 3010 comprising a sensor 3010 configured to measure a property of a fluid contained within a system comprising the hydrant (paragraphs 50 and 53).
Regarding claim 14, Sitnikov teaches in Figs. 1-26 that the sensor 3010 is configured to measure one of a pressure and a temperature of the fluid (paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 15, Gibson discloses in Figs. 14-20 a method of using a hydrant, the method comprising:
a communications hub (comprising the electronics housed in housing 1406 and/or housing 1406) on a nozzle cap 1402, wherein the communications hub is positioned radially outward, with respect to a vertical axis of the hydrant, from the nozzle cap 1402.
Gibson lacks sending a signal from a sensing device of the hydrant, the sensing device positioned within the hydrant and extending at least partly through a main valve of the hydrant; and receiving the signal at the communications hub through a plug plugging an opening defined in a portion of a nozzle cap of the hydrant and securably engaged with the portion of the nozzle cap, the plug comprising a material that allows transmission of the signal through the material; wherein the communications hub positioned radially outward, with respect to a vertical axis of the hydrant, from the portion of the nozzle cap defining the opening, and an axis of the nozzle cap would extend through the opening of the nozzle cap and the plug.
Sitnikov teaches in Figs. 1-26 a method of using a hydrant comprising:
sending a signal from a sensing device 3010 of the hydrant, the sensing device 3010 positioned within the hydrant and extending at least partly through a main valve of the hydrant (comprising the stem and valve head rigidly connected together, including stem 1210, stem pipe 2000, vein 1310, and valve member 1250); and
receiving the signal at a communications hub 1920 through a plug 1960 (to be received by antenna 1942 extending through the plug 1960, as disclosed in paragraph 77 and Fig. 26), the plug 1960 comprising a material that allows transmission of the signal through the material (such as a polymer, rubber, or other elastomeric material, as disclosed in paragraph 81, and inherently to allow wireless signals to reach the antenna 1942 from the antenna 1370 located with the sensing device 3010), and
wherein an axis that extends in the direction that the overall cap 1130, 1910 (like the nozzle cap disclosed by Gibson) extends from the hydrant (similar to the axis of the nozzle cap disclosed by Gibson) extends through the opening of the cap 1910 (analogous to the inner cap) and the plug 1960.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrant disclosed by Gibson to include a sensing device that extends at least partly through the main valve of the hydrant and configured to send signals through a plug in an opening in the nozzle cap (to be received by the electronics of/in the communication hub disclosed by Gibson to include sensors, as disclosed in paragraph 105) to measure a property of the fluid to monitor the condition of the hydrant for proper maintenance of the hydrant and system, as Sitnikov teaches (paragraph 2).
In modifying Gibson in view of Sitnikov to include a plug in an opening in a wall of the nozzle cap dividing the space between the inner cap and the housing of the communications hub, as Sitnikov teaches with a similar dividing wall, the communications hub disclosed by Gibson would then be positioned radially outward, with respect to a vertical axis of the hydrant, from the portion of the nozzle cap defining the opening, and an axis of the nozzle cap would extend through the opening of the nozzle cap and the plug.
Regarding claim 16, Gibson discloses in Figs. 14-20 removing the nozzle cap 1402 and fluidly connecting a fire hose to the nozzle of the hydrant (as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize).
Regarding claim 17, Sitnikov teaches in Figs. 1-26 that the signal is a wireless signal (paragraph 58).
Regarding claim 21, in the modification of Gibson in view of Sitnikov, the inner cap and the plug are aligned along the axis of the nozzle cap.
Regarding claim 23, Gibson discloses in Figs. 14-20 a nozzle cap for a hydrant, the nozzle cap comprising:
an inner cap 1402, 1404 (comprising cap 1402 and the mounting plated 1404 mounted thereto, as disclosed in paragraph 113) securably engageable with a nozzle of the hydrant, the nozzle configured to connect a fire hose to the hydrant (when the inner cap 1420 is removed, as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize);
a communications hub (comprising the electronics housed in housing 1406 and/or housing 1406) positioned both adjacent to the inner cap 1402, 1404 and axially outward, with respect to an axis of the nozzle cap, from the inner cap 1402, 1404.
Gibson lacks a plug plugging an opening defined in the inner cap and securably engaged with the inner cap, the opening extending through a thickness of the inner cap, the plug comprising a material that allows transmission of a wireless signal through the material, and wherein the plug defines an anti-rotation feature configured to be driving by a tool during installation or removal of the plug.
Sitnikov teaches in Figs. 1-26 a plug 1960 plugging an opening defined in the cap 1910 (similar to the inner cap 1402, 1404 disclosed by Gibson that also serves as a boundary for the space in the hydrant) and securably engaged with the cap 1910, the opening extending through a thickness of the cap 1910, the plug 1960 comprising a material that allows transmission of a wireless signal through the material (paragraph 83), and the plug 1960 defines an anti-rotation feature (comprising the hex-nut head that would having ordinary skill in the art would recognize in Fig. 19 and being for engagement by a wrench, as is common in the art for hex-nut heads) configured to be driven by a tool during installation or removal of the plug 1960. The plug 1960 is used with an antenna 1942 to receive wireless signals from a sensor in the hydrant that monitors the fluid in the hydrant (paragraphs 82-83), and the signals are process in the electronics housed in the cap 1910.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle cap disclosed by Gibson to include the plug and associated electronics and sensor taught by Sitnikov to be able to monitor the fluid in the hydrant, because Gibson discloses using the nozzle cap with sensors, including sensors not disclosed (paragraph 105), and the fluid sensors taught by Sitnikov allow for monitoring whether the fluid in the hydrant is appropriate for use.
Claims 1, 6, and 23 (alternatively: 1 and 6) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sitnikov in view of Gibson.
Regarding claim 1, Sitnikov discloses in Figs. 1-26 a communications hub 1920 (paragraph 58) positioned in a bonnet 1910 of a hydrant, and a plug 1960 plugging an opening defined in the bonnet 1910 and securably engaged with the bonnet 1910, the opening extending through a thickness of the bonnet 1910, the plug 1960 comprising a material that allows transmission of a wireless signal through the material (paragraph 83), wherein an axis that extends in the direction that the overall cap 1130, 1910 (like the nozzle cap disclosed by Gibson) extends from the hydrant (similar to the axis of the nozzle cap disclosed by Gibson) extends through the opening of the cap 1910 (analogous to the inner cap) and the plug 1960.
Sitnikov lacks teaching that the communications hub and plug are in a nozzle cap for a hydrant, the nozzle cap comprising:
an inner cap securably engageable with a nozzle of the hydrant, the nozzle configured to connect a fire hose to the hydrant;
the communications hub positioned both adjacent to the inner cap and axially outward, with respect to an axis of the nozzle cap, from the inner cap; and
the plug plugging an opening defined in the inner cap and securably engaged with the inner cap, the opening extending through a thickness of the inner cap, the plug comprising a material that allows transmission of a wireless signal through the material,
wherein the axis of the nozzle cap extends through the opening of the inner cap and the plug.
Gibson teaches in Figs. 14-20 a nozzle cap for a hydrant, the nozzle cap comprising:
an inner cap 1402, 1404 (comprising cap 1402 and the mounting plated 1404 mounted thereto, as disclosed in paragraph 113) securably engageable with a nozzle of the hydrant, the nozzle configured to connect a fire hose to the hydrant (when the inner cap 1420 is removed, as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize);
a communications hub (comprising the electronics housed in housing 1406 and/or housing 1406) positioned both adjacent to the inner cap 1402, 1404 and axially outward, with respect to an axis of the nozzle cap, from the inner cap 1402, 1404.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communications hub (including the sensors and transmitters/receivers therein) disclosed by Sitnikov to be positioned in the nozzle cap comprising a communications hub positioned axially outward from an inner cap with respect to an axis of the nozzle cap, and with the plug in the inner cap, as Gibson teaches with sensors (paragraph 105), as an alternative to housing the communications hub in the bonnet, which also includes the threaded valve stem with the hex nut extending outside of the bonnet for engagement with a tool to actuate the valve in the hydrant. The valve stem is typically metallic for durability and corrosion resistance, and the metallic construction could interfere with the signals transmitting between the sensor, communications hub, and external networks, so housing the communications hub in the nozzle reduces the probability of interference from the valve stem.
In modifying Sitnikov in view of Gibson, the axis of the nozzle cap would extend through the opening of the inner cap and the plug, as Sitnikov teaches with plug 1960 in the opening of the cap 1910 and the overall cap 1130, 1910.
Regarding claim 6, Sitnikov discloses in Figs. 1-26 that the plug 1960 defines an anti-rotation feature (comprising the hex-nut head that would having ordinary skill in the art would recognize in Fig. 19 and being for engagement by a wrench, as is common in the art for hex-nut heads) configured to be driven by a tool during installation or removal of the plug 1960.
Regarding claim 23, as discussed in claims 1 and 6 above, Sitnikov discloses in Figs. 1-26 a communication hub and plug in a cap, and is modified in view of Gibson to be located on a nozzle cap, and Sitnikov discloses that the plug 1960 defines an anti-rotation feature (comprising the hex-nut head that would having ordinary skill in the art would recognize in Fig. 19 and being for engagement by a wrench, as is common in the art for hex-nut heads) configured to be driven by a tool during installation or removal of the plug 1960.
Alternatively regarding claims 6 and 23, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exposed end of the plug 1960 disclosed by Sitnikov (which appears to be a hex-nut head in Fig. 19) to be a tool-drivable anti-rotation feature, like a hex-nut head, like Gibson teaches in Figs. 1-20 for the hex-nut end 806/1420 of the nozzle cap, which is similarly threaded into its assembled location, so that the plug can be operated by a tool as Gibson teaches with hex-nut end 806 (paragraph 92).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is allowed.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objection set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious, in combination with the other limitations recited in claim 18, receiving the wireless signal through a plug plugging an opening defined in the nozzle cap, the plug comprising a material that allows transmission of the wireless signal through the material.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights