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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/22/2024, 9/5/2024, and 6/18/2025 were filed prior to the mailing date of the mailing of this action. The submissions comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because item 21a in Fig. 3A is pointing to the wrong location, and item 31 in figure 4 is also pointing to the wrong location.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “44” has been used to designate both the subassembly in Figure 3A and the subassembly in Figure 4. Since these have different configurations, it is required to change 44, in Figure 4 to, 44’ and correct this in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first engaging portion”, “second engaging portion”, and “guide portion” in claims 1 and 10, and “extension member” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitations,
In claims 1 and 10, the limitation “performs an engagement to fix” should be changed to - -engages to fix - -, or it appears that the claims are reciting both an apparatus and method claim which would mix separate classes in the same claim;
in claims 2-9 and 11-18,
“A container” should be changed to - -“The container”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recites the limitation "a guide portion to cause a movement", which is unclear as to how the diametrical surfaces 21a,22a “cause a movement”? These surfaces guide the movement of the valve but are not seen as causing the movement itself. It would appear that the shoulder at the recess 33 would cause a movement of the valve when connection occurs. A possible suggestion may be to change this to - - a guide portion that assists/permits in a movement - -.
Claims 1 and 10 recites, “the another conduit of the container holder and the outer conduit are fluidly connected when the container holder receives the container connection”, which is unclear as to the timing of the limitation “when the container holder receives”? The specification in para.0021 discloses that the container connection 2a is “further inserted …”, and therefore, it would appear that the container connection 2 is received in the container holder 3, prior to the timing of the fluidly connected state. Should “receives” be changed to - -is fully connected and engaged in a mating connection area/groove - -?
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record discloses or renders as obvious, as best understood, based on the rejections above, “a container holder for receiving the container connection to connect with the fluid container, the container holder having a conduit capable of connecting with the inner conduit of the fluid container and another conduit capable of connecting with the outer conduit of the fluid container when the container holder receives the container connection, wherein the fluid container including a connecting valve having a first engaging portion and a second engaging portion, the connecting valve being stored in the fluid container, and wherein the container connection system comprising a guide portion to cause a movement of the connecting valve between a first position where the first engaging portion is engaged to the fluid container to close the outer conduit when the fluid container and the container holder are spaced apart from each other; and a second position where the second engaging portion and the container holder performs an engagement to fix the fluid container to the container holder and fluidly connect the conduit of the container holder to the inner conduit, and the another conduit of the container holder and the outer conduit are fluidly connected when the container holder receives the container connection, in combination with the rest of the limitations in claim 1, and, “the fluid container being connectable to a container holder, wherein the container holder includes a conduit capable of connecting with the inner conduit of the fluid container and another conduit capable of connecting with the outer conduit of the fluid container when the container holder receives the container connection and connects with the fluid container, wherein the fluid container includes a connecting valve having a first engaging portion and a second engaging portion, the connecting valve being stored in the fluid container, and wherein the connecting valve comprises a guide portion to cause a movement of the connecting valve between a first position where the first engaging portion is engaged to the fluid container to close the outer conduit when the fluid container and the container holder are spaced apart from each other; and a second position where the second engaging portion and the container holder performs an engagement to fix the fluid container to the container holder and fluidly connect the conduit of the container holder to the inner conduit, and the another conduit of the container holder and the outer conduit are fluidly connected when the container holder receives the container connection”, in combination with the rest of the limitations in claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
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) Form at Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753