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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/21/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 01/21/2025 is acknowledged.
A call to applicant was made on 4/18/2025 regarding the species restriction sent in the requirement for restriction mailed 11/19/2024, where applicant elected species 2, subspecies 2a, more specifically the embodiment shown in figure 3a. Applicant indicated that claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 12 are either generic or directed towards the elected species/subspecies. Subsequently, claims 6, 7, and 9 have been withdrawn.
Claims 10 and 11 were also reviewed. With regards to claim 10, claim 10 appears to be generic to the elected species. With regards to claim 11, claim 11 appears to be directed towards non-elected subspecies 2b (and may also be generic to species 6) since it requires internal pressurization of the container via inert air and is thus withdrawn.
Upon further review of the claims and the disclosure, it appears that claim 1 (and its dependents) is directed towards non-elected species 2, subspecies 2c, figure 3c because this embodiment teaches a regulating valve at the ejection port of the dispensing mechanism (species 2, subspecies 2a only shows a valve the ejection port of the container). Subsequently claims 1-5 are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the applicant uses the term ‘electromechical actuator’ in claim 8. This term is not specifically defined in the specification of the application, but based on the totality of the specification this is being interpreted as an actuator that is controlled by a controller.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “wherein the controller operates in a closed-loop fashion to meter the regulating valve in response to feedback from the piston position and/or pressure within the container” does not have support in the disclosure at least to the extent claimed. Applicant is encouraged to point to parts of the disclosure to provide evidence for support of the claim limitations if it is believed that this conclusion is in error.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lager (US 3150848 A) teaches a chaff deployment system with a metering unit
Barbaccia (US 6352031 B1) teaches a chaff deployment system using a piston mechanism
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642