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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 1/3/26, it appears the Applicant did not amend the latest claim set filed 9/13/25, as is proper, but rather amended an early claim set. In any event, as the claims where essentially rewritten, the claim set filed 1/3/26 has been examined herein. Amendments to claims should be amendments made to the latest set of claims in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 7, this claim depends from canceled claim 5. It appears claim 7 should be amended to depend from claim 1.
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.
upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-4,7-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szeteli (U.S. Patent 9,580,197) in view of Fontana (US 2022/0184369).
In regard to claims 1 and 3, the Szeteli reference discloses a dispensing system “of a container” 3, the dispensing system comprising:
the container 3 configured to hold stored goods;
a dip tube 5 made from plastic material (see column 3, lines 33-38);
a dispense head 4 fastened at the dip tube so that liquid is dispensable from the container or liquid is supplyable to the container through the dip tube and the dispense head (see column 2, lines 32-34); and
a robot (see column 2, lines 53-54);
wherein the dip tube includes a connection device which includes a thread (defined by the screw threads in the dip tube which attach to threads 16, see Figure 4 and column 4, lines 58-61) wherein the connection device and thread are formed from plastic material (see column 3, lines 33-38: and
wherein the dispense head is fastened at the dip tube by the plastic thread by the robot (see column 2, lines 53-54).
Although the threaded connection device is not disclosed as being a multi-start threaded connection which engages a mating multi-start thread, as claimed, attention is directed to the Fontana reference, which discloses another tubular structure which employs a threaded connection between tubular elements wherein both the threaded element 36 and the mating threaded element 26 employ multi-start threads in order to enable the tubular elements to require less relative rotation before they are secured (see paragraph 0052, lines 11-15). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the threaded connection on the dip tube and the mating threaded connection on the dispense head in the Szeteli device can be a multi-start threaded connections in order to enable the dip tube and dispense head to require less relative rotation before they are secured.
In regard to claim 2, the multi-start thread of the dip tube is part of a screw connection configured to fastened to the dispense head to the dip tube (via threaded connection 16a of the dispense head engaging the threaded connection on the dip tube).
In regard to claim 4, the multi-start thread on the dip tube is an internal thread and the multi-start thread on the dispense head is an external thread (see column 4, lines 58-61).
In regard to claim 7, the dispense head is formed from plastic parts (see column 3, lines 33-38).
In regard to claim 8, the dip tube is supported in a container opening of the container and projects into an interior of the container.
In regard to claim 9, the container is formed by a barrel (see the last line in column 3).
In regard to claim 12, as discussed above, the Szeteli reference discloses a dip tube 5 configured to be supported in a container 3 wherein the dip tube comprises a connection device which can obviously include a multi-start thread.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szeteli in view of Fontana, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guidorzi.
In regard to claim 10, although the Szeteli reference does not disclose an RFID chip is integrated into the dip tube such that identification data about the stored goods in the container is stored in the chip, as claimed, attention is directed to the Guidorzi reference, which discloses another dispensing device wherein an RFID chip is integrated therein in order to provide the user with information regarding the stored goods present in the container (see paragraph 0014). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made an RFID chip can be integrated into the dip tube (or any other suitable element) of the Szeteli device in order to provide information regarding the stored goods in the container to the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends the claims are allowable since neither the Szeteli nor Fontana references suggest the use of a robot to engage and tighten a multi-start thread having the advantages described in paragraph 0026 of the specification. However, as discussed above, the Szeteli reference discloses the use of a robot to attach the dispense head to the dip tube (via the threaded connection) and the threaded connection can obviously include multi-start threaded fasteners (as taught by Fontana) in order to enable the dip tube and dispense head to require less relative rotation before they are secured. As such, the combination of Szeteli and Fontana are considered to render the claimed structure obvious. Even though neither the Szeteli nor Fontana references discuss the Applicant’s specifically disclosed advantages to using a robot to connect a multi-start threaded connection, the prior art still renders obvious a robot which can be used to connect a multi-start threaded connector, which has been discussed in detail above.
It is noted the Applicant did not contend the Szeteli device cannot be modified to have a multi-start threaded connection as claimed but rather seems to contend a single piece of prior art does not disclose a robot used for connecting multi-start threaded connections. The examiner agrees a single piece of prior art does not disclose a robot which connects multi-threaded elements, however, as discussed above, the combination of Szeteli and Fontana are considered to render obvious a robot may be used to secure multi-start threaded elements as claimed.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
DJW
1/21/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754