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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Phrases that can be implied, such as “Embodiments of the present invention provide” (see line 1) should not be present therein.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
In paragraph 0093, on line 4, it appears “the second brush disc 726 and” should be deleted since it is the driving assembly 738 that includes a power output end while the second brush disc does not include a power output end (see paragraph 0092, line 6).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The term “micro-current element” (see claim 17, lines 3-4) does not have an antecedent basis in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6, 12, 15, 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: In regard to claim 1, it is unclear as to whether or not the bottle body is intended to be part of the claimed combination, i.e., the language on line 1 of claim 1 indicates the bottle body is not intended to be claimed, however, the language on line 2 seems to indicate the bottle body is intended to be claimed. Should the Applicant intend to claim the bottle body, an antecedent basis should therefor be defined. Should the bottle body not be intended to be claimed, “adapted to be”/“for” language should be used when referring thereto.
In regard to claim 4, on line 2, “the center” should be “a center” since the center of the connecting seat as not previously been defined. Further, on line 2, “cross-section” should be “a cross-section”.
In regard to claim 6, on line 1, “on side” should be “on a side” and on line 3, “near center” should be “near a center”.
In regard to claim 12, similar to claim 1, it is unclear as to whether or not the bottle body is intended to be part of the claimed combination.
In regard to claim 15, on line 3, it appears “the a plurality of group” should be “a plurality of groups”.
In regard to claim 18, on line 1, “lifting mechanism” should be “lifting assembly” (see paragraph 0114, lines 3-4).
In regard to claim 19, similar to claim 18, on line 1, “mechanism” should be “assembly”. Further, on lines 3-4, it appears “in the housing” should be “out of the housing” (see paragraph 0115, lines 1-4).
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.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
In regard to claim 10, an antecedent basis for “the opening or closing position” (see line 2) has not been defined.
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.
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: “a driving assembly in the housing for driving the brush assembly to rotate” (see claim 12, line 12).
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation 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 to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Straszer (U.S. Patent 2,702,396).
In regard to claim 1, the Straszer reference discloses an apparatus for dispensing a liquid from a bottle body 10 comprising:
a connecting seat 12 having a first end 14 connected to the bottle body and a second end 20, the connecting seat has one or more strip shaped holes 16 arranged in an arc-shape;
a first perforation 20 eccentrically arranged on the connecting seat for communicating with an opening of the bottle body;
an adjusting seat 22 connected with the second end of the connecting seat, the adjusting seat has one or more clamping jaws 24 to clamp in the one or more strip shaped holes 16; and
a second perforation 30 eccentrically arranged on the adjusting seat for communicating with the first perforation.
In regard to claim 2, a circumference where the one or more strip-shaped holes are located is coaxially arranged with the connecting seat.
In regard to claim 3, the one or more clamping jaws 24 are arranged in an annular array around the connecting seat and each of the one or more clamping jaws fits into the corresponding strip-shaped hole 16.
In regard to claim 10, the connecting seat has a first protrusion (defined by the protruding portion 15 on connecting seat 12) and the adjusting seat has a second protrusion 25 to locate the opening and closing positions of the first and second perforations.
(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, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bennett (US 2006/0278665).
In regard to claim 1, the Bennett reference discloses an apparatus for dispensing a liquid from a bottle body 300 (see Figure 5) comprising:
a connecting seat 430 having a first end connected to the bottle body and a second end, the connecting seat has one or more strip shaped holes 440 arranged in an arc-shape;
a first perforation 436 eccentrically arranged on the connecting seat for communicating with an opening of the bottle body;
an adjusting seat 410 connected with the second end of the connecting seat, the adjusting seat has one or more clamping jaws 424 to clamp in the one or more strip shaped holes 440 (see Figures 8 and 9); and
a second perforation 420 eccentrically arranged on the adjusting seat for communicating with the first perforation.
In regard to claim 5, the connecting seat 430 further comprises a first support plate 435 and a first annular wall (see Figure 5, the first annual wall being defined by the annular wall depending from the outer edge of the support plate 435) extending from the first support plate and the first perforation 436 and the one or more strip-shaped holes 440 are formed in the first support plate; and
the adjusting seat 410 comprises a second support plate 418 coaxially arranged with the first support plate and a second annular wall 412 extending from the second support plate, the second perforation 420 is formed on the second support plate and the one or more clamping jaws 424 are arranged on one face of the second support plate facing the first support plate.
In regard to claim 6, the first annular wall is positioned on a side of the first support plate and extends vertically toward the bottle body 300 and the second support plate is positioned near a center of the second annular wall.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straszer.
In regard to claim 4, a cross-section of the one or more clamping jaws 24 is rounded (see Figure 2). Although Straszer reference does not disclose the angle at which the strip-shaped holes 16 extend, viewing Figure 2, the angle at which the strip-shaped holes 16 extend appear to be within the claimed range. In any event, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the strip-shaped holes can be designed to extend at any suitable angle, including an angle within the claimed range, without effecting the overall operation of the device 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. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett. In regard to claims 8 and 11, although the Bennett device is not disclosed as having the claimed reinforcing rib or boss, the examiner takes official notice that such reinforcing structures are commonly employed in manufacturing processes in order to strengthen various areas of device. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the Bennett device can include such reinforcement ribs and bosses in order to strengthen the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9 are 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.
Claims 12-20 will be allowed upon the above noted objections being overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Huneke and Lysons references are cited as being directed to the state of the art as teachings of other dispensers having rotary, slide type valves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
DJW
4/30/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights