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 the Li et al. reference is moot, since Li et al. is not being used in the rejection below.
Applicant argues that Persson does not disclose a liquid transfer device between the two bottles which enables authorization or not of liquid transfer by rotation. The Examiner has considered the above argument as respectfully disagrees. No authorization is claimed and liquid is transferred after the bottles are rotated with respect to one another.
Applicant argues that Persson mentions several times that liquid flows through a small central opening 26 and through a more reduced passage or opening 50. Thus, this system is not at all adapted to liquids which are more viscous than perfumes. Persson is clearly concerned with the transfer of perfumes. The Examiner has considered the above argument as respectfully disagrees. Any flowable liquid is capable of being transferred from one bottle to another (see col. 1, lines 24 – 27).
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 – 17 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "namely" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Applicant claims “at least one passage” (which can be construed as 2 or more passages) and then inferentially claims a “single liquid passage”. It’s unclear as to the number of passages being claimed (i.e., one passage or more than one passage).
Regarding claim 8, Applicant claims “at least one passage”, “a single liquid passage” and “at least one liquid passage”. Applicant should clarify what is being defined.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant claims “a manually deformable container”, which has no structural connection to the previously defined “refill” and “bottle”. It is unclear whether the “manually deformable container” is the “refill” or “bottle” or both.
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) 2 – 8 and 10 - 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson (2773521; cited prior art) in view of Lampe (3325844).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, the Persson reference discloses a system (Figure 1) for refilling at least one bottle with liquid, comprising, with the system arranged vertically along an axis Z (Figure 4): a refill (10) containing liquid (30), at least one bottle to be refilled (14) arranged below the refill, a liquid transfer device (20) arranged between the refill and said at least one bottle to be refilled, said at least one bottle to be refilled (14) and/or the refill (10) being produced in the form of a manually deformable container and able to be deformed manually under the influence of external pressure to cause a variation of internal pressure in the container thus deformed (see col. 3, lines 8 - 29). The Persson reference further discloses a system rotating one of two parts of a liquid transfer device relative to the other part to bring the two parts into a first relative rotation position (i.e., bottle 10 has a threaded neck (part one) and bottle 14 has a threaded neck (part two), threaded onto coupler 20, thus they are rotated into a relative rotation position shown in Figure 4); wherein the two parts jointly define a single passage (26) for liquid from a refill to a bottle; transferring liquid from the refill to the bottle and rising air contained in the bottle into the refill through the single liquid passage by exerting external pressure on a manually deformable container (See column 2, lines 48 – 68). The Persson liquid transfer device doesn't disclose the two parts being jointly configured to obstruct said at least one liquid passage, in the second relative rotation position.
The Lampe reference discloses another liquid transfer apparatus (Figure 1) having a valve mechanism (10 and 16), which is open and defines a single liquid passage (i.e., when apertures 34 and 46 align; Figures 9, 10) when rotated in one direction and closed when rotated in an opposite direction (Figures 7, 8) to control flow of liquid through aperture (34, 46; see col. 4, line 32 – col. 5, line 10). 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 Persson device to have a valve mechanism as, for example, taught by the Lampe reference to further control flow of liquid from one container to another by controlling the opening and closing of the liquid passage.
Further, Persson doesn't disclose at least one passage having a passage cross section comprised between 5 mm2 and 100 mm2. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have at least one passage for liquid, being between 5 mm2 and 100 mm2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105
Furthermore, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known to base the diameter size of a fluid passage on the viscosity of the liquid being transferred. Persson further discloses many different types of liquid being transferred (see col. 1, lines 24 – 27).
Moreover, 100 mm2 is 20 times greater than 5 mm2, which indicates that the defined range is arbitrary and would be a mere matter of design choice.
Regarding claims 3 - 6, the Persson reference further discloses exerting external pressure on the manually deformable container (14; Fig. 4, see zigzag arrows) of said at least one bottle to be refilled in order to cause the air from said at least one bottle to be refilled to rise into the refill, and releasing the external pressure on the manually deformable container of said at least one bottle to be refilled in order to cause the transfer of liquid from the refill to said at least one bottle to be refilled by aspiration of the liquid contained in the refill (see col. 3, lines 8 - 29).
Regarding claim 7, modified Persson would inherently screw the bottles together and the valve is opened or closed by rotation as taught by Lampe.
Regarding claim 10, Lampe teaches the two parts (10, 16), in a first rotation position, are in fluid communication (Figs. 9, 10), and in a second rotation position (Figs. 7, 8) are not in fluid communication.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, modified Persson would inherently screw the bottles together and the valve is opened or closed by rotation as taught by Lampe.
Regarding claim 13, Persson further disclose the refill (10) is selected among a
manually deformable container with shape memory or a manually deformable container
without shape memory (i.e., squeeze bottle).
Regarding claim 14, a liquid tight zone would be inherent when the bottles are connected.
Claim(s) 1, 15, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson (2773521; cited prior art).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, the Persson reference discloses a method of rotating one of two parts of a liquid transfer device relative to the other part to bring the two parts into a first relative rotation position (i.e., bottle 10 has a threaded neck (part one) and bottle 14 has a threaded neck (part two), threaded onto coupler 20, thus they are rotated into a relative rotation position shown in Figure 4); wherein the two parts jointly define a single passage (26) for liquid from a refill to a bottle; transferring liquid from the refill to the bottle and rising air contained in the bottle into the refill through the single liquid passage by exerting external pressure on a manually deformable container (See column 2, lines 48 – 68).
Persson doesn't disclose at least one passage having a passage cross section comprised between 5 mm2 and 100 mm2. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have at least one passage for liquid, being between 5 mm2 and 100 mm2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105
Further, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known to base the diameter
size of a fluid passage on the viscosity of the liquid being transferred. Persson further discloses many different types of liquid being transferred (see col. 1, lines 24 – 27).
Furthermore, 100 mm2 is 20 times greater than 5 mm2, which indicates that the defined range is arbitrary and would be a mere matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 17, releasing the exerted external pressure would be inherent during normal use and operation of the apparatus. See rejection of claims 3 – 6, above.
Regarding claim 18, the same reasoning applies as is defined in the rejection of claims 1 and 15, above.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson (2773521; cited prior art) in view of Lampe (3325844).
Regarding claim 16, the Persson reference discloses the method according to claim 15, but doesn’t disclose rotating one of the two parts relative to the other part, in the direction opposite to that of the preceding relative rotation between the two parts to bring the two parts into a second relative rotation position wherein the liquid passage is obstructed. The Lampe reference discloses another liquid transfer apparatus (Figure 1) having a valve mechanism (10 and 16), which is open when rotated in one direction and closed when rotated in an opposite direction to control flow of liquid through aperture (34, 46; see col. 4, line 32 – col. 5, line 10; Figures 7 - 10). 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 Persson device to have a valve mechanism as, for example, taught by the Lampe reference to further control flow of liquid from one container to another.
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 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
Prosecution Insights