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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leveen (US 2004/0007589 A1), and further in view of Christine (US Patent No. 4,711,373).
Re: Claim 1, Leveen discloses the claimed invention including a fluid dispenser comprising:
a container (110) comprising an inlet (116) and an outlet (112), wherein the container defines an inner volume (118) (Depicted in Figs. 1-3);
a pressure-actuated outlet valve (106) adjacent the outlet and movable between an open position and a closed position (Depicted in Figs. 1-3, Para. 19, pressure actuated);
a flexible fluid container (102) positioned within the container and including an outlet passage that extends through the pressure-actuated outlet valve (Depicted in Figs. 1-33); and
a bag receiver (104) positioned in the container, the bag receiver configured to slidably receive at least a portion of the flexible fluid container to secure the outlet of the flexible fluid container relative to the outlet of the container (Depicted in Fig. 3, Para. 11), wherein the bag receiver is removably coupled to the container such that the bag receiver and the flexible fluid container configured to be inserted into the inner volume together after the bag receiver slidably receives at least the portion of the flexible fluid container (Para. 11, flexible container connected to bag receiver then slid into the container, and connected therein)
Leveen discloses the valve dispensing when pressure is applied to the container except for particulars thereof. However, Christine teaches a pressure actuated outlet valve (52) is biased toward the closed position and configured to move to the open position when the pressure within the inner volume and applied to the flexible fluid container exceeds a threshold pressure (Col. 2, lines 45-51, opens under a threshold pressure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include the valve of Christine, since Christine states in column 1, lines 40-44 that such a modification provides a valve system which is efficient to use, practical, and economical in manufacture and utilization.
Re: Claim 2, Leveen as modified by Christine in the rejection of claim 1 above discloses the outlet valve is configured to return to the closed position when the pressure in the inner volume is less than the threshold pressure (Christine: Col. 2, lines 45-51, opens under a threshold pressure and closes when pressure is lowered).
Re: Claim 3, Leveen discloses the claimed invention including the outlet passage is disposed in the outlet, such that fluid within the flexible container does not contact the outlet of the container (Depicted in Fig. 1).
Re: Claim 4, Leveen discloses the claimed invention including the flexible fluid container further comprises an elongated neck portion (Depicted in Fig. 1).
Re: Claim 5, Leveen as modified by Christine in the rejection of claim 1 above discloses the outlet valve is disposed about at least a portion of the neck, and wherein the outlet valve is positioned to restrict fluid flow through at least a portion of the neck (Christine: Depicted in Fig. 4,valve about neck).
Re: Claim 6, Leveen discloses the claimed invention including the interior volume of the flexible container is in fluidic communication with the outlet when the outlet valve is in the open position, and wherein the interior volume of the flexible container is fluidically isolated from the outlet when the outlet valve is in the closed position (Depicted in Figs. 1-3 fluid communication when opened and not fluid communication when closed).
Re: Claim 9, Leveen discloses the claimed invention including the inlet of the container is configured to be coupled to a pressurized fluid source (114) (Fig. 1).
Re: Claim 11, Leveen discloses the claimed invention including an inlet valve (116) adjacent the inlet (Fig. 1, Para. 13, inlet valve).
Re: Claim 12, Leveen discloses the claimed invention including the inlet is fluidically sealed when the inlet valve is in the closed position, and wherein the inlet is fluidically open when the inlet valve is in the open position (Para. 13, seals when closed, unseals when open).
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leveen (US 2004/0007589 A1) and Christine (US Patent No. 4,711,373) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fiedler (US Patent No. 8,360,278).
Re: Claim 7, Leveen discloses the claimed invention except for a U-shaped receiver. However. Fiedler teaches a bag receiver (30) comprises a u-shaped receiver configured to receive at least the portion of the flexible fluid container (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include an outlet on the cap as taught by Fiedler, since such a modification would allow the receiver to container leaks, and further the court has held that the configuration of a claimed feature was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Re: Claim 10, Leveen discloses the claimed invention except for a cap comprising the outlet. However, Fiedler discloses a pressurized container with an openable cap (8) comprising an outlet (30) (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include an outlet on the cap as taught by Fiedler, since such a modification would allow the user to remove the cap without removing the bar receiver there for maintenance, and further it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leveen (US 2004/0007589 A1) and Christine (US Patent No. 4,711,373), and further in view of Callaghan (US 2023/0278850 A1).
Re: Claim 13, Leveen discloses the claimed invention including a fluid dispenser comprising:
a container (110) comprising an inlet (116) and an outlet (112), wherein the container defines an inner volume (118) (Depicted in Figs. 1-3);
a pressure-actuated outlet valve (106) adjacent the outlet and movable between an open position and a closed position (Depicted in Figs. 1-3, Para. 19, pressure actuated);
a flexible fluid container (102) positioned within the container and including an outlet passage that extends through the pressure-actuated outlet valve (Depicted in Figs. 1-33); and
a bag receiver (104) positioned in the container, the bag receiver configured to slidably receive at least a portion of the flexible fluid container to secure the outlet of the flexible fluid container relative to the outlet of the container (Depicted in Fig. 3, Para. 11), wherein the bag receiver is removably coupled to the container such that the bag receiver and the flexible fluid container configured to be inserted into the inner volume together after the bag receiver slidably receives at least the portion of the flexible fluid container (Para. 11, flexible container connected to bag receiver then slid into the container, and connected therein)
Leveen discloses the valve dispensing when pressure is applied to the container except for particulars thereof. However, Christine teaches a pressure actuated outlet valve (52) is biased toward the closed position and configured to move to the open position when the pressure within the inner volume and applied to the flexible fluid container exceeds a threshold pressure (Col. 2, lines 45-51, opens under a threshold pressure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include the valve of Christine, since Christine states in column 1, lines 40-44 that such a modification provides a valve system which is efficient to use, practical, and economical in manufacture and utilization.
Leveen discloses the claimed invention except for expressly stating a plurality of container system. However, Callaghan discloses a plurality container system (100) (Fig. 1B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a plurality or containers as taught by Callaghan, since such modification would allow the device to produce a greater range of products than that of just one, and further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Re: Claim 14, Leveen as modified by Christine in the rejection of claim 1 above discloses the outlet valve is configured to return to the closed position when the pressure in the inner volume is less than the threshold pressure (Christine: Col. 2, lines 45-51, opens under a threshold pressure and closes when pressure is lowered).
Re: Claim 15, Leveen discloses the claimed invention including the inlet is fluidically sealed when the inlet valve is in the closed position, and wherein the inlet is fluidically open when the inlet valve is in the open position (Para. 13, seals when closed, unseals when open).
Re: Claim 16, Leveen discloses the claimed invention including the inner volume is in fluidic communication with the outlet when the outlet valve is in the open position, and wherein the inner volume is fluidically isolated from the outlet when the outlet valve is in the closed position (Depicted in Figs. 1-3 fluid communication when opened and not fluid communication when closed).
Re: Claim 17, Leveen discloses the claimed invention including the flexible container defining an interior volume and an opening, wherein the flexible container is disposed inside the inner volume, and wherein the opening is adjacent the outlet of the container (Depicted in Figs. 1-3).
Re: Claim 18, Leveen discloses the claimed invention including the interior volume of the flexible container is in fluidic communication with the outlet when the outlet valve is in the open position, and wherein the interior volume of the flexible container is fluidically isolated from the outlet when the outlet valve is in the closed position (Depicted in Fig. 1-3, fluid communication when opened and not fluid communication when closed).
Re: Claim 19-20, Leveen discloses the claimed invention except for expressly stating controller with a processor communicating with the pressure source and air inlet. However, Callaghan teaches a controller with a processor (900, 904) in communication with the pressurized fluid source and an inlet valve (104) in communication with the processor, wherein the inlet valve is moved between an open position and a closed position based on instructions from the processor (Para. 31,42, processor in controller communicates with pressurized source and inlet valve).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a plurality or containers as taught by Callaghan, since Callaghan states in paragraph 37 that such a modification of processing systems to automatically dispense beverages either by the interaction with an employee, customer, server, or automatically and allows the drink dispensing system may be completed automatically via any control signal. Further, it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leveen (US 2004/0007589 A1), Callaghan (US 2023/0278850 A1), and Christine (US Patent No. 4,711,373) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Fiedler (US Patent No. 8,360,278).
Re: Claim 21, Leveen discloses the claimed invention except for a U-shaped receiver. However. Fiedler teaches a bag receiver (30) comprises a u-shaped receiver configured to receive at least the portion of the flexible fluid container (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include an outlet on the cap as taught by Fiedler, since such a modification would allow the receiver to container leaks, and further the court has held that the configuration of a claimed feature was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754 in
Prosecution Insights