DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed February 5, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9, 15-16, 31 and 100-108 remain pending.
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on February 5, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 9 is withdrawn from consideration as directed toward a non-elected species.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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. Currently, no claim limitation is being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-8, 31, 100, and 105 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2023/0173184 to McCawley et a. (McCawley).
Regarding claim 1, McCawley discloses a canister (40), comprising: an elongate body (42) comprising a barrel region defining a first diameter (wider region of the body), an enclosed first end (42a), and a neck region (the neck portion defining outlet end 42b) extending from the barrel region to an open second end defining an end wall (shown in Figs. 4A – 5C), the elongate body defining a central axis extending between the first end and the second end (the axis between the ends); a cap (44) attached to the neck region to close the second end of the elongate body (shown in Figs. 4A – 5C) and enclose a cavity (48) within the body, the cap comprising an end wall (see Fig. 4C; the end wall includes the opening which can be closed by closure 46) including an opening therethrough communicating with the cavity (Fig. 4C), and a seat (where closure 46 engages the end wall to close the opening) surrounding the opening on an interior of the end wall (Fig. 4C); and a sealing member (46) within the neck region configured to engage the seat to seal the opening, the cavity filled with pressurized fluid ([0034]).
Regarding claim 2, McCawley discloses the cap comprises an outer flange (clearly shown in Fig. 4C where cap 44 extends over the end of the neck) attached over the end wall of the neck region.
Regarding claim 3, McCawley discloses the cap comprises a substantially flat outer surface (Fig. 4C; the outer surface is substantially flat).
Regarding claim 4, McCawley discloses the cap comprises an annular recess surrounding the opening (the recess into which opener 62 is inserted).
Regarding claim 5, McCawley discloses the cap comprises an annular sleeve (the portion of cap 44 which extends parallel to the neck from the flange to the end wall forms a sleeve; see Fig. 4C) extending from the outer flange into the neck region such that the end wall is located within the neck region (Fig. 4C).
Regarding claim 6, McCawley discloses the sleeve has a diameter smaller than the neck region (Fig. 4C) to provide a space between the sleeve and the neck region.
Regarding claim 7, McCawley discloses the sealing member comprises a spherical member (ball 46; see [0036]) and wherein the seat comprises a concave surface shaped to receive a portion of the spherical member to seal the opening (see Fig. 4C; the ball is received within a concave surface of the seat).
Regarding claim 8, McCawley discloses the spherical member is loose within the neck region and internal pressure of the pressurized fluid within the cavity presses the spherical member against the seat to seal the opening (the ball is pressed to the seat by the pressure within the cavity).
Regarding claim 31, McCawley discloses a canister (40), comprising: an elongate body (42) comprising a barrel region defining a first diameter (the wider region of the body), an enclosed first end (42a), and a neck region (the neck region defining outlet end 42b) extending from the barrel region to an open second end defining an end wall (Fig. 4C), the elongate body defining a central axis extending between the first end and the second end (the axis between the ends); a cap (44) attached to the neck region to close the second end of the elongate body and enclose a cavity (48) within the body, the cap comprising an end wall (see Fig. 4C; the end wall includes the opening which can be closed by closure 46) including an opening therethrough communicating with the cavity (Fig. 4C), and a seat (where closure 46 engages the end wall to close the opening) surrounding the opening on an interior surface of the cap comprising a concave wall (see Fig. 4C; the ball is received within a concave surface of the seat); and a sealing member (46) within the neck region comprising a spherical member ([0036]) configured to engage the concave wall of the seat to seal the opening (Fig. 4C), the cavity filled with pressurized fluid ([0034]).
Regarding claim 100, McCawley discloses a gas-actuated tool (6), comprising: a housing (8) comprising a functional portion (70) and an actuator portion (the portion including drive assembly 12 and chamber 22) including a chamber (22); a canister (40) according to claim 1 (see above) within the chamber (Fig. 1A); a carriage (60) carrying an opener pin (62) movable within the housing from a first position where the pin is spaced from the opening of the canister (Fig. 4A) and a second position where the pin at least partially enters the opening (Figs. 4B-4C); and an actuator (see [0039]; in the embodiment where drive assembly 12 moves the opener pin into the opening of the canister) on the actuator portion coupled to the carriage such that activation of the actuator causes the carriage to move from the first position to the second position such that the pin displaces the sealing member to open the opening, thereby releasing pressurized gas from the canister into one or more passages within the housing to provide energy to the functional portion [0036]-[0037] and [0039]).
Regarding claim 105, McCawley discloses the sealing member is bonded to the seat (“bonded” is defined as: “(of a thing or things) joined securely to another or each other, especially by an adhesive, heat process, or pressure” and the biasing of the sealing member to the seat [0036] via pressure or another member meets the definition).
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.
Claims 15-16 and 106-108 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCawley in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0235875 to Kolbe et al. (Kolbe).
Regarding claims 15-16 and 106-108, McCawley discloses the canister of claims 1 and 7 (see above), but does not disclose a pliable material on one or more surfaces of the seat to enhance sealing the opening when the spherical member is engaged with the seat, wherein the pliable material comprises an elastomeric coating on the one or more surfaces, or coating the seat and sealing member with a soft material or epoxy to enhance the seal. Kolbe teaches a valve assembly including elastomeric coating (coating of parylene; see [0132]) on the sealing portions to prevent corrosion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coated the seat and ball of McCawley with parylene to prevent corrosion. Parylene is a flexible polymer which also serves to enhance the seal between the seat and the closure to prevent leaking of the fluid.
Claims 102-103 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCawley in view of US Patent 6,378,570 to Shipachev et al. (Shipachev).
Regarding claims 102-103, McCawley discloses the canister of claim 7 (see above), but does not disclose the spherical member is formed from rigid material and further comprises one or more coatings or outer surface finishes around an outer surface of the spherical member, wherein the rigid material comprises stainless steel and one or more coatings or outer surface finishes comprises a relatively soft material applied around the outer surface to provide compliance when engaged with the seat to enhance sealing. Shipachev teaches a gas cylinder having a sealing ball (3) formed from rigid material and further comprises one or more coatings or outer surface finishes around an outer surface of the spherical member, wherein one or more coatings or outer surface finishes comprises a relatively soft material applied around the outer surface to provide compliance when engaged with the seat to enhance sealing (see Fig. 8 and col. 3, lines 16-21; the ball is a metallic ball coated with a relatively soft material to enhance the sealing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a rigid ball coated in a soft material as taught by Shipachev in the canister of McCawley to enhance the sealing of the ball and prevent leaking of the fluid. Further, regarding the rigid material comprising stainless steel, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used stainless steel for the rigid portion of the ball, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP § 2144.07). Stainless steel is well known for its durability and corrosion resistance.
Claim 104 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCawley as modified by Shipachev as applied to claim 102 above, and further in view of Kolbe.
Regarding claim 104, McCawley as modified by Shipachev discloses the canister of claim 102, but does not disclose the one or more coatings or outer surface finishes comprises a parylene coating applied around the outer surface. Kolbe teaches a valve assembly including elastomeric coating (coating of parylene; see [0132]) on the sealing portions to prevent corrosion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coated the seat and ball of McCawley with parylene to prevent corrosion. Parylene is a flexible polymer which also serves to enhance the seal between the seat and the closure to prevent leaking of the fluid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 101 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited documents do not disclose or fairly suggest “adhesive applied to one or both of the contact surface of the seat and an outer surface of the spherical member.” The examiner finds no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would apply an adhesive to the contact surface of the seat or to the outer surface of the spherical member absent the teachings of Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLAS A ARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M- F, 8AM - 3PM.
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, 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.
/NICOLAS A ARNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753 May 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights