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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-17 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 02/09/24 and 04/29/25 and 07/10/25 and 08/15/25 and 08/22/25 have been acknowledged and considered by the Office.
Claim Interpretation
For the purpose of applying prior art the following broadest reasonable interpretations are applied. The disclosure does not set forth uncommon, special, or otherwise explicit definitions for terms for which the following aforementioned broadest reasonable interpretations are provided. These broadest reasonable interpretations do not appear inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure.
Broadest Reasonable Interpretations
In regards to claim 5, the term joint is interpreted as: “a place where two things or parts are joined” as per the attached definition obtained on 10/03/26 from Merriam-Webster Online dictionary.
In regards to claim 5, the term seam is interpreted as “a line, groove, or ridge formed by the abutment of edges”
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “monolithic structure without joints” (of claim 5) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The determination that “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention is not a single, simple factual determination. Rather, it is a conclusion reached by weighing all the above noted factual considerations. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404.
As per claim 5, and in accordance with the definition of “joint” set forth herein under title “Claim Interpretation” it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would make and/or use an invention commensurate with the scope of claim 5—requiring no place where two things or parts are joined, i.e. handle joined to body, etc.
Claims 9-12 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.
As per claim 5, the limitation “fluid tank, the first handle, and the second handle form a monolithic structure without joints” appears not enabled and the particular scope intended is therefore uncertain.
As per claim 9, the claim is indefinite for several reasons:
the term “angle” requires a relative basis for definite orientation. There is no such basis established in the originally filed claims or the specification. That is, there is no relation established in the originally filed claims or the specification between "angle" and a fixed (i.e. absolute) origin such that would preclude interpretation by one of ordinary skill in the art of the term “angle” as corresponding to any direction. Applicants are required to make clear and precise the terms that are used to define the invention whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
the limitation “the filler neck extends from the fluid tank at an angle that bisects a first plane defined by a longitudinal axis of the first handle and a second plane defined by a longitudinal axis of the second handle” is ambiguous. Specifically, it is unclear which particular structure of the filler neck performs the claimed bisecting. Furthermore, the planes are defined merely by respective axes, and presumable extend infinitely and inclusive of those axes respectively. It therefore is unclear how planes—in having an infinite extensions—can actually be bisected at all.
As per claim 11, the term “angle” requires a relative basis for definite orientation. There is no such basis established in the originally filed claims or the specification. That is, there is no relation established in the originally filed claims or the specification between "angle" and a fixed (i.e. absolute) origin such that would preclude interpretation by one of ordinary skill in the art of the term “angle” as corresponding to any direction. Applicants are required to make clear and precise the terms that are used to define the invention whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claims 10-12 depend from claim 9 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
In view of the indefiniteness issues noted above, although a search of the prior art has been conducted, no meaningful application of prior art against claims 9-12 can be made at this time. This should not be taken as an indication that the claims would be allowable if all of the noted issues are corrected. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0173753 to Connor et al.
As per claims 1 and 8, Conner discloses a portable fluid tank system (10), comprising:
a fluid tank (14) comprising an internal volume for holding fluid (paragraph [0020]);
a fluid actuation system (88) configured to facilitate controlled movement and pressurization of the fluid in the fluid tank for ejection through a conduit (paragraph [0026]);
an electronics housing (30) defining a cavity (46) to accommodate a removable energy storage device (battery 100), the removable energy storage device configured to electrically couple and provide energy to the fluid actuation system (paragraphs [0022], [0026]); and
a spill face (200, 210) integrally formed with the fluid tank, the spill face comprising an annular rim (opening 210 comprises an annular ring with threads that is closed by a cap 232, the opening is angled with respect to the horizontal and the vertical direction and thus having an upper part that is higher than a lower part of the annular ring, see figures 1-4) upon with a defining an aperture allowing for fluid ingress into or egress from the fluid tank.
Conner teaches a second handle (228) positioned on a side surface of the fluid tank (figure 1). Conner further teaches additional strap hooks (222, 226) on a sidewall (figure 2) and also multiple handles on side of the tank in other embodiments (figures 7-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluid tank assembly of Conner such that it comprises a first handle on a top surface in addition to the second handle in order to provide a user with multiple ways or carrying or handling the fluid tank assembly. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)).
As per claim 6, Connor discloses the claimed structure except for “the first handle and the second handle are produced in a single manufacturing process with the fluid tank by blow molding”. However these limitations are considered as product-by-process claims. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. There appears no structural difference between the product of Connor and the product of claim 6 of the instant application.
As per claim 15, Conner, in a different embodiment, teaches a mounting assembly coupled to the fluid tank, the mounting assembly comprising a first engagement member (raised section of fluid tank, paragraph [0045], figure 7) being configured to mechanically engage with a complementary second engagement member (312, figure 7, paragraphs [0044-0046]) of an external docking assembly, wherein engagement of the first engagement member and the second engagement member secures the portable fluid tank system to the external docking assembly. Here, Conner teaches a separate fluid tank (314) being attached to a base unit (312) that holds pump, electronics, and nozzle components. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Conner such the entire fluid tank assembly is provided a first engagement mechanism that engages with a second engagement mechanism of a completely different docking system (as taught by various embodiments of Conner) to provided a stacked system with multiple tanks or electronics units if needed.
As per claim 17, Conner discloses that the fluid actuation system comprises a diaphragm pump (88, paragraph [0030]), the diaphragm pump being configured to oscillate a flexible diaphragm to variably alter the internal volume, thereby facilitating intake, pressurization, and ejection of the fluid through the conduit.
Claims 2-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090173753 to Connor et al in view of US D528423 to Glover.
As per claims 2-3 and 13-14, Connor discloses the claimed invention except for the particular claimed orientation of the handles. Glover teaches a container comprising a first handle having a longitudinal axis of the first handle aligned with a longitudinal axis of the fluid tank and oriented orthogonally, i.e. 90 degrees, to a longitudinal axis of a second handle that is aligned with a lateral axis of the fluid tank (Fig. 1-3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to form the handles of Connor according to the aforementioned teachings from Glover since it has been generally held that the mere change in shape and/or rearrangement of parts is considered to be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
As per claim 4, Connor discloses the claimed invention except for at least one of the first handle or the second handle includes a hollow portion. Glover teaches a container comprising first and second handles contributing to the internal volume of the fluid tank (Fig. 1-3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Connor according to the aforementioned teachings from Glover for reasons including to try to reduce weight.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090173753 to Connor et al in view of US 4069946 to Flider.
As per claim 5, and as the examiner can understand the claim, Connor discloses the claimed invention except for the particular material and method of forming the tank-handle structure. Flider teaches a fluid tank with two handles wherein tanks made of easily moldable plastic materials have no seams to rupture, are not subject to corrosion, will not dent, crack or cause sparks when dropped, and are lighter in weight than metallic containers of proportionate size (Col. 1, Ln. 15-20). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, in view of the aforementioned silence of Connor, to form the tank-handle structure of Connor according to the aforementioned teachings from Flider for reasons including to prevent weak points prone to rupture.
As per claim 7, Connor further discloses the electronics housing being in a lower portion of the system (Fig. 2). Connor does not discloses a particular location of the first handle relative to the electronics housing. Flider teaches a system having a first handle (15) proximal to a lower portion of the system relative to a second handle (11; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide the first handle located according to the aforementioned teachings from Connor – i.e. and therefore proximal to the electronics housing relative to the second handle—since it has been generally held that the mere change in shape and/or rearrangement of parts is considered to be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090173753 to Connor et al in view of US 20220134369 to Gustafson et al.
As per claim 16, Conner teaches that the electronics housing comprises a control switch on the exterior that controls the dispensing operation but does not explicitly teach a multi-state control interface and a wireless communication module.
Gustafson teaches a pressure washer comprising a multi-state control interface (50, rotatable dial, paragraphs [0042], [0048]), positioned on an exterior of the electronics housing (figure 2, paragraph [0042]), the multi-state control interface configured to enable transition between various states of operation of the fluid actuation system (paragraph [0042]); and a communication module (46, 48) configured to interpret and execute command signals received from a remote transmitting device via a wireless communication network (paragraphs [0043-0046]), wherein activation of the fluid actuation system can be effectuated through direct user interaction with the multi-state control interface or remotely via a remote transmitting device (paragraphs [0042-0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Conner as taught by Gustafson to provide an electronics communication module, a multi-state control module, and a wireless communication module in order to control the entire spraying assembly manually or automatically as taught by Gustafson. In the dispensing art, automatic control is increasingly becoming common and deploying such systems in existing assemblies such as Conner’s is within the range of one of ordinary skill in the art. Doing so increases user control and efficiency while also improving the overall fluid dispensing operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 October 7, 2026
