Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/498,823

Systems For Filling Fluid Receptacles

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 31, 2023
Examiner
MAUST, TIMOTHY LEWIS
Art Unit
3753
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Midea Group Co. Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1169 granted / 1430 resolved
+11.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1463
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
38.0%
-2.0% vs TC avg
§102
34.7%
-5.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1430 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claims 1-6, 8-10, 21-25 and 27-32 are pending. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/20/26 has been entered. Claim Objections Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 6, “a pivot a valve” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 10, 21-23 and 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Veit (2018749). Regarding claims 1, 21 and 30, the Veit reference discloses a system (Fig. 1) for filling a fluid receptacle (7) with a fluid, the system comprising: a filling head (1), the filling head comprising one or more nozzles (3), each of the one or more nozzles having: an outlet (inherent); and a valve (inherent), the valve configured to open and close such that when the valve is opened fluid flows through the one or more nozzles and out of the outlet and when the valve is closed fluid may not flow is prevented from flowing through the one or more nozzles (page 2, lines 22-35), one or more fluid receptacles (7); and a receptacle support shelf (20), the receptacle support shelf configured to support one or more fluid receptacles (7), wherein the receptacle support shelf is configured beneath the filling head and is configured to move along a vertical axis relative to the filling head (Fig. 1); and the valve being rotatable around a pivot between closed and open positions by a knob (2; ball on handle 2 is construed as a knob). Further, regarding claim 30, wherein the receptacle support shelf (20) is configured beneath the filling head (1) and is supported by one or more springs (24) configured to move the receptacle support shelf along a vertical axis relative to the filling head (page 2; lines 1-4). Regarding claims 2 and 22, the Veit device is capable of being used in a refrigerator. Regarding claims 3 and 23, Veit further discloses wherein the one or more nozzles are fluidly coupled to a fluid source (i.e., a source of beer (e.g., keg)). Regarding claim 27, the fluid source is capable of being placed vertically above the one or more nozzles. Regarding claims 9 and 28, wherein the receptacle support shelf (20) is rested upon one or more springs (24), the one or more springs configured to adjust a height of the receptacle support shelf relative to the one or more nozzles. See page 2; lines 1-4. Regarding claims 10 and 29, wherein the receptacle support shelf (20) is configured to be adjusted to one or more predetermined positions along the vertical axis. Arm (21) adjusts the shelf downward and locks into place to place a glass (7) on the shelf and permits insertion of nozzle (3). See page 2, lines 18-21. 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. Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10, 21- 25 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazur (8069774) in view of Leete et al. (5350091). Regarding claims 1 and 21, the Mazur reference discloses a system (Fig. 1) for filling a fluid receptacle with a fluid, the system comprising: a filling head (Fig. 6), the filling head comprising one or more nozzles (tubes 36), each of the one or more nozzles having: an outlet; and a valve (inherent), the valve configured to open and close such that when the valve is opened fluid flows through the one or more nozzles and out of the outlet and when the valve is closed fluid may not flow is prevented from flowing through the one or more nozzles (col. 6, lines 7-24), one or more fluid receptacles (17); and a receptacle support shelf (25), the receptacle support shelf configured to support one or more fluid receptacles (17), wherein the receptacle support shelf is configured beneath the filling head and is configured to move along a vertical axis relative to the filling head (see Fig. 14; col. 5, lines 17-32). The Mazur reference doesn't disclose the valve being rotatable around a pivot between closed and open positions by a knob. However, the Leete et al. reference discloses another fluid filling system (Figure 18) having a rotatable valve (14.1; Fig. 21) that pivots open and closed by a knob (68.1 on cap 18; Fig. 21) to control flow of fluid from container (24) to container (i.e., tank or container being filled; see col. 3, lines 8 – 12 and col. 5, lines 6-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Mazur device to have a knob controlled pivotable valve as, for example, taught by the Leete et al. reference wherein so doing would amount to mere substitution of one valve for another within the art (i.e., valve controlled fluid transfer) and the selection of any of these valves would work on the Mazur device without unexpected results. Regarding claims 2 and 22, Mazur further discloses wherein the system is configured for use inside of a refrigerator (col. 3, lines 55-59). Regarding claims 3 and 23, Mazur further discloses wherein the one or more nozzles are fluidly coupled to a fluid source (10 and 14; col. 4, lines 34-40 and col. 6, lines 36-50). Further, fluid source (18) and manifold (35) meet the claim limitation. Regarding claims 4 and 24, modified Mazur discloses the invention (discussed supra) including a fill height sensor (41) and filling tube (36), the fill height sensor communicatively coupled to the valve, wherein the fill height sensor is configured to communicate a signal to the valve to close the valve if the fill height sensor determines a fluid height inside of the fluid receptacle has reached a predetermined fill height (col. 6, lines 7-24). The Mazur reference doesn't disclose the fill height sensor being disposed within the filling tube. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the Mazur fill height sensor (41) within the filling tube (36), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. Regarding claim 5, wherein Mazur further discloses the fill height sensor comprises a pressure sensor (col. 6, lines 16-21; particularly line 20). Regarding claims 6 and 25, Mazur further discloses the opening and closing of the valve is controlled by a CPU, which meets "electronic activation device" (col. 6, lines 7-24). Regarding claim 8, Mazur further discloses wherein the fluid source (18) comprises a fluid reservoir (35), the fluid reservoir configured vertically above the one or more nozzles (36). Further, fluid reservoir (10) is used to fill water inlet (14) on top of the housing (1) to supply water to the nozzles. Regarding claim 10, Mazur further discloses wherein the receptacle support shelf (25) is configured to be adjusted to one or more predetermined positions along the vertical axis (col. 5, lines 17-23). Regarding claim 31, Mazur further discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to be stored or built into a refrigerator (col. 3, lines 55-59 and col. 4, lines 10-18). This would include being mounted in well-known mounting holes in the refrigerator. Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazur (8069774) in view of Leete et al. (5350091) and further in view of Schlenkert (3337283). Regarding claim 32, modified Mazur discloses the invention (discussed supra), but doesn’t disclose wherein the receptable support shelf comprises a ratcheting rack and pinion system configured to adjust the height of the receptacle support shelf. The Schlenkert reference disclose a refrigerator with a shelf supporting having shelf height adjustments by way of ratchet lugs (40) and bars (12) (col. 2, lines 10-26, 64-72 and col. 3, lines 1-5) to adjust the positions of shelving within the refrigerator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Mazur device to have a height adjustable ratcheting shelf as, for example, taught by the Schlenkert reference since it is well known in the art, conventional and would be obvious to try without unexpected results. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm. 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, 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 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. /TIMOTHY L MAUST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 31, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 06, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 06, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 07, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 12, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 04, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595164
Methods and Apparatus for Dispensing at Multiple Dispensing Points
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583418
Filling Device for a Vehicle, and Vehicle Having Such a Filling Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583730
Automated Beverage Dispensing System and Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583725
LIQUID FILLING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577034
AEROSOL SAFETY ACTUATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1430 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month