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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information disclosure statements (IDS) have been filed on 09/19/2023 and 05/01/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/19/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-14 and 20) and Species A (Figs. 2-3B and 5A-7) in the reply filed on 05/01/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: The Examiner suggests changing “for create” in line 11 to --to create--.
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.
Claims 3-7 and 11-14 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.
Claim 3 recites the phrase "the nipple assembly" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the nipple assembly” to --the nipple drinker-- or --the drinker assembly--.
Claim 4 recites the phrase "drinker tip" in line 1. This is a double inclusion of “a drinker tip” in line 8 of claim 1. The Examiner suggests changing “drinker tip” to --the drinker tip--.
Claim 11 recites the phrase "a single cylindrical step" in line 2. This is a double inclusion of “each cylindrical step” in line 1 of claim 10.
Claims 5-7 and 12-14 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Appropriate correction is required. Accordingly, the invention has been examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Clark, IV (U.S. Pat. 5522346).
In regard to claim 1, Clark, IV discloses a nipple drinker, comprising: a mounting portion configured to removably attach to a watering line (Fig. 8, Abstract, Column 1 line 64 – Column 2 line 34, and Column 10 lines 31-35 and 44-47, where there is a nipple drinker for poultry with a mounting portion (surface portion that is “threaded to provide an alternative means for installing the valve”, see “A” in annotated Fig. 8 below) configured to removably attach to a watering line (“fluid pipe”)); a drinker assembly coupled to the mounting portion and comprising: an inlet portion configured to extend into a fluid-flow channel within the watering line (Fig. 8, Abstract, Column 1 line 64 – Column 2 line 34, and Column 10 lines 31-35 and 44-47, where there is a drinker assembly coupled to the mounting portion (the rest of the device which is not the “threaded” surface portion) with an inlet portion (portion in which the top pin sits, see “B” in annotated Fig. 8 below) configured to extend into a fluid-flow channel within the watering line (“fluid pipe”)); a top pin extending at least partially into the inlet portion (Fig. 8, Abstract, Column 1 line 64 – Column 2 line 34, and Column 10 lines 31-35 and 44-47, where there is a top pin extending at least partially into the inlet portion, see “C” in annotated Fig. 8 below); a sealing ball vertically below the top pin (Fig. 8, Abstract, Column 1 line 64 – Column 2 line 34, and Column 10 lines 31-35 and 44-47, where there is a sealing ball vertically below the top pin, see “D” in annotated Fig. 8 below); a bottom pin vertically below the sealing ball (Fig. 8, Abstract, Column 1 line 64 – Column 2 line 34, and Column 10 lines 31-35 and 44-47, where there is a bottom pin vertically below the sealing ball, see “E” in annotated Fig. 8 below); and a drinker tip configured to engage the mounting portion and to secure the sealing ball and the bottom pin within the drinker assembly, wherein the drinker tip defines an inner surface against which the sealing ball is configured to abut against to create an at least substantially fluid-tight seal (Annotated Fig. 8 below, Abstract, Column 1 line 64 – Column 2 line 34, and Column 10 lines 31-35 and 44-47, where there is a drinker tip 272 configured to engage the mounting portion and to secure the sealing ball and the bottom pin within the drinker assembly (“D” and “E” are secured by 272) and where the drinker tip 272 defines an inner surface against which the sealing ball is configured to abut against to create an at least substantially fluid-tight seal (“D” at least abuts against 272 to form a fluid seal)).
PNG
media_image1.png
671
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, Clark, IV discloses the nipple drinker of claim 1, wherein the drinker tip comprises a single unitary body (Annotated Fig. 8 above, Abstract, Column 1 line 64 – Column 2 line 34, and Column 10 lines 31-35 and 44-47, where the drinker tip 272 comprises a single unitary body).
In regard to claim 3, Clark, IV discloses the nipple drinker of claim 1, wherein the nipple assembly does not include a distinct sealing bushing (Annotated Fig. 8 above, Abstract, Column 1 line 64 – Column 2 line 34, and Column 10 lines 31-35 and 44-47, where the drinker assembly does not include a distinct sealing bushing).
In regard to claim 8, Clark, IV discloses the nipple drinker of claim 1, wherein the inner surface comprises a cylindrical surface (Annotated Fig. 8 above, Abstract, Column 1 line 64 – Column 2 line 34, and Column 10 lines 31-35 and 44-47, where the inner surface of the drinker tip comprises a cylindrical surface (“cylindrical regions of differing diameter define the passageway”)).
In regard to claim 9, Clark, IV discloses the nipple drinker of claim 1, wherein the inner surface comprises a stepped-cylindrical surface (Annotated Fig. 8 above, Abstract, Column 1 line 64 – Column 2 line 34, and Column 10 lines 31-35 and 44-47, where the inner surface comprises a stepped-cylindrical surface (“a seat defined by the region of transition between the cylindrical areas of differing diameter”) at which the sealing ball “D” rests in the closed configuration).
In regard to claim 10, Clark, IV discloses the nipple drinker of claim 9, wherein each cylindrical step of the stepped-cylindrical surface defines an edge at a transition from a riser portion of the given cylindrical step to a tread portion of the given cylindrical step (Annotated Fig. 8 above, Abstract, Column 1 line 64 – Column 2 line 34, and Column 10 lines 31-35 and 44-47, where the cylindrical step (at which the sealing ball “D” rests in the closed configuration) of the stepped-cylindrical surface at least defines an edge at a transition from a riser portion (vertical portion) of the cylindrical step to a tread portion (horizontal portion) of the cylindrical step).
In regard to claim 11, Clark, IV discloses the nipple drinker of claim 10, wherein the sealing ball is configured to rest on the edge of a single cylindrical step of the stepped-cylindrical surface (Annotated Fig. 8 above, Abstract, Column 1 line 64 – Column 2 line 34, and Column 10 lines 31-35 and 44-47, where the sealing ball “D” is configured to rest on the edge (change from vertical to horizontal) of the cylindrical step of the stepped-cylindrical surface (“ball for closing the valve rests against a seat defined by the region of transition between the cylindrical areas”)).
In regard to claim 20, Clark, IV discloses a drinker assembly comprising: an inlet portion configured to interface with a fluid supply (Fig. 8, Abstract, Column 1 line 64 – Column 2 line 34, and Column 10 lines 31-35 and 44-47, where there is a drinker assembly comprising an inlet portion (portion in which the top pin sits, see “B” in annotated Fig. 8 above) configured to interface with a fluid supply (“fluid pipe”)); a drinker tip removably coupled to the inlet portion, the inlet portion and the drinker tip defining a fluid-flow path within an interior of the inlet portion and the drinker tip (Fig. 8, Abstract, Column 1 line 64 – Column 2 line 34, and Column 10 lines 31-35 and 44-47, where there is a drinker tip 272 removably coupled to the inlet portion (portion in which the top pin sits, see “B” in annotated Fig. 8 above) and where the inlet portion and the drinker tip 272 at least define a fluid-flow path within an interior of the inlet portion and the drinker tip 272), an interior surface of the drinker tip defining a sealing surface (Annotated Fig. 8 above, Abstract, Column 1 line 64 – Column 2 line 34, and Column 10 lines 31-35 and 44-47, where an interior surface of the drinker tip 272 defines a sealing surface for the sealing ball (“D” at least abuts against 272 to form a fluid seal)); a top pin disposed within the fluid-flow path of the inlet portion and drinker tip and at least partially extending into the inlet portion (Fig. 8, Abstract, Column 1 line 64 – Column 2 line 34, and Column 10 lines 31-35 and 44-47, where there is a top pin disposed within the fluid-flow path of the inlet portion and drinker tip 272 and at least partially extending into the inlet portion, see “C” in annotated Fig. 8 above); a bottom pin disposed within the fluid-flow path of the inlet portion and drinker tip and at least partially extending through and out of the drinker tip (Fig. 8, Abstract, Column 1 line 64 – Column 2 line 34, and Column 10 lines 31-35 and 44-47, where there is a bottom pin disposed within the fluid-flow path of the inlet portion and drinker tip 272 and at least partially extending through and out of the drinker tip 272, see “E” in annotated Fig. 8 above); and a sealing ball disposed between the top pin and the bottom pin and configured to abut against the sealing surface of the drinker tip for create a fluid-tight seal (Annotated Fig. 8 above, Abstract, Column 1 line 64 – Column 2 line 34, and Column 10 lines 31-35 and 44-47, where there is a sealing ball “D” disposed between the top pin “C” and the bottom pin “E” and configured to abut against the sealing surface of the drinker tip 272 to create a fluid-tight seal).
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.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark, IV (U.S. Pat. 5522346) in view of Rader (U.S. Pat. 4890578).
In regard to claim 4, Clark, IV discloses the nipple drinker of claim 1. Clark, IV is silent on wherein drinker tip comprises a wear resistant material. Rader discloses the drinker tip comprises a wear resistant material (Fig. 1 and Column 2 lines 29-38, where the drinker tip 12 at least comprises a wear resistant material). Clark, IV and Rader are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include drinking devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Clark, IV such that the drinker tip comprises a wear resistant material in view of Rader. The motivation would have been to use a known, durable material which would not easily wear down over time or with repeated use. This would reduce the frequency of repair or replacement needed for the device.
Clark, IV as modified by Rader is silent on a composite material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Clark, IV as modified by Rader to have the drinker tip comprise a composite material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (Claims 15 and 17-19 of Jia et al. (U.S. Pub. 20030113686) show that a composite material made of polyphenylene sulfide, carbon fiber, graphite, and polytetrafluorethylene is known) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. The motivation would have been to use a known, durable composite material which would not easily wear down over time or with repeated use. This would reduce the frequency of repair or replacement needed for the device.
In regard to claim 5, Clark, IV as modified by Rader discloses the nipple drinker of claim 4. Clark, IV as modified by Rader is silent on the composite material comprises polyphenylene sulfide, carbon fiber, graphite, and polytetrafluorethylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Clark, IV as modified by Rader to have the composite material comprise polyphenylene sulfide, carbon fiber, graphite, and polytetrafluorethylene, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (Claims 15 and 17-19 of Jia et al. (U.S. Pub. 20030113686) show a composite material made of polyphenylene sulfide, carbon fiber, graphite, and polytetrafluorethylene is known) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. The motivation would have been to use a known, durable composite material which would not easily wear down over time or with repeated use. This would reduce the frequency of repair or replacement needed for the device.
In regard to claim 6, Clark, IV as modified by Rader discloses the nipple drinker of claim 4. Clark, IV as modified by Rader is silent on the composite material comprises, by volume, at least 60 percent polyphenylene sulfide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Clark, IV as modified by Rader to have the composite material comprise, by volume, at least 60 percent polyphenylene sulfide, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (Claims 15 and 17-19 of Jia et al. (U.S. Pub. 20030113686) show a composite material made of polyphenylene sulfide, carbon fiber, graphite, and polytetrafluorethylene is known) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. The motivation would have been to use a known, durable composite material which would not easily wear down over time or with repeated use. This would reduce the frequency of repair or replacement needed for the device.
In regard to claim 7, Clark, IV as modified by Rader discloses the nipple drinker of claim 4. Clark, IV as modified by Rader is silent on the composite material comprises, by volume, about 65 percent polyphenylene sulfide, about 15 percent carbon fibers, about 10 percent graphite, and about 10 percent polytetrafluorethylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Clark, IV as modified by Rader to have the composite material comprise, by volume, about 65 percent polyphenylene sulfide, about 15 percent carbon fibers, about 10 percent graphite, and about 10 percent polytetrafluorethylene, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (Claims 15 and 17-19 of Jia et al. (U.S. Pub. 20030113686) show a composite material made of polyphenylene sulfide, carbon fiber, graphite, and polytetrafluorethylene is known) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. The motivation would have been to use a known, durable composite material which would not easily wear down over time or with repeated use. This would reduce the frequency of repair or replacement needed for the device.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark, IV (U.S. Pat. 5522346) in view of Cardaropoli (U.S. Pat. 9226482).
In regard to claim 12, Clark, IV discloses the nipple drinker of claim 11. Clark, IV is silent on wherein the edge comprises a chamfer edge. Cardaropoli discloses wherein the edge comprises a chamfer edge (Figs. 6-7, where the sealing edge comprises a chamfer edge). Clark, IV and Cardaropoli are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include drinking devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Clark, IV such that the edge comprises a chamfer edge in view of Cardaropoli. The motivation would have been to have a larger sealing contact area, relative to a pointed edge, thereby providing a better friction fit and a more reliable seal in the device.
In regard to claim 13, Clark, IV as modified by Cardaropoli discloses the nipple drinker of claim 12, wherein the chamfer edge defines an at least substantially frusto-conical surface (Cardaropoli, Fig. 7, where the chamfer edge 139 defines a substantially frusto-conical surface).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark, IV (U.S. Pat. 5522346) in view of Cardaropoli (U.S. Pat. 9226482) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Wilmot (U.S. Pat. 3416499).
In regard to claim 14, Clark, IV as modified by Cardaropoli discloses the nipple drinker of claim 12. Clark, IV as modified by Cardaropoli is silent on wherein the chamfer edge defines an at least substantially frusto-spherical surface. Wilmot discloses wherein the chamfer edge defines an at least substantially frusto-spherical surface (Fig. 1, where the chamfer edge 18 defines an at least substantially frusto-spherical surface). Clark, IV and Wilmot are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include drinking devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Clark, IV as modified by Cardaropoli such that the chamfer edge defines an at least substantially frusto-spherical surface in view of Wilmot. The motivation would have been to have a shape fitting sealing surface, which would relatively increase the contact area of the sealing ball with the complementary sealing surface, in order to provide an even tighter seal in the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892, Notice of References Cited, for the full list of prior art made of record. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of drinking devices or composite materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 am to 4:30 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/KEVIN M DENNIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3647