DETAILED ACTION
For this Office action, Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
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 1 and 3-20 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. Independent Claims 1, 18 and 20 each recite a drip valve assembly comprising “a first arm disposed in proximity to the first elongated slit, the first arm [being] configured to move between a first extended position and a first retracted position”. The claims then recite a specific structure with respect to the first retracted position, yet said claims do not present limitations regarding the first extended position. This issue renders the claim indefinite because, in particular since specific structure has been established for the retracted position, the claim language is unclear what may be considered the first extended position. This issue is both resolved and underscored by the limitations of Claim 2 (which is not subject to the rejection due to resolving the issues of indefiniteness requiring the ground of rejection), which provides a structure for the first extended position; however, the fact the claimed embodiment with the structure established in Claim 2 is only a potential embodiment of such a position highlights the indefinite nature of the independent Claims and their respective dependents. Applicant is urged to address this issue in the response to this Office action. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume the first extended position is that described in instant Claim 2.
Claim 14 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reciting “the container wall at the container top portion”, which lacks established antecedent basis. The container wall has only been established at the container top portion. Applicant is urged to address this issue in the response to this Office action.
Claim 20 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reciting a second elongated slit, a second arm, a second retracted position and a third retracted position. This rejection is similar in logic to the grounds regarding the first elongated slit, arm, and positions above, as the same issues arise with said limitations. Applicant is urged to address this issue in the response to this Office action. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume the second extended position is similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 2 (see above with respect to the original ground of rejection).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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. Claim 2 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons detailed above; the claim is, however, dependent on Claim 1, which is rejected above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Collins et al. (US Pat Pub. 2008/0197062) discloses a plunger movable from a fully extended and fully retracted position the aid in a filtration technique (Abstract); however, while the plunger could be considered an arm, the function and structure is not the same. No ground of rejection could be made.
van Savooijen et al. (US Pat Pub. 2012/0037549) discloses a filter assembly with a bypass valve member that may be placed in a retracted position to control fluid flow (Figures 1-4D; Paragraph [0055]; Paragraph [0089]; Paragraph [0099]; see bypass valve member 35). While this type of retracted position may be common in filter cartridges in the art, the structure is not similar to that of the instant application; therefore, no ground of rejection can be made.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30pm MT.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 02/19/2026