DETAILED ACTION
The preliminary amendment filed October 7, 2024 has been entered. Claims 1-27 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 .
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 § 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 15-18, 21 and 23 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the fifth pipes" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 15-17 are rejected based on their dependence from claim 18.
Regarding claim 21, the word “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following “preferably” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 23 recites “A method for refilling according to claim 26.” However, claim 26 does not recite a method, but rather a refill device. For further examination, the examiner is considering claim 23 as dependent from claim 22.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12-14, 20-22 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 depends from itself and is therefore of improper dependent form. Claims 12, 14, 20-22 and 27 are rejected based on their dependence from claim 13 (claim 20 depends from claim 12 and claims 21-22 and 27 depend from claim 14). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. For further examination, claim 13 is being considered as dependent from claim 11.
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 1-7, 9, 11, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2220408 to Excludair Ltd (Excludair). This document was cited on an IDS and a copy thereof filed with the application. Therefore, a copy has not been included with this Office Action.
Regarding claim1, Excludair discloses a refill device (the refill device shown in Fig. 4) for refilling a final container (the refill device can dispense wine to a glass or to another bottle, both of which can be considered a “final container”) with at least one wine or spirit (wine), comprising a hollow body (section of body 2 having reservoir 17) forming a reservoir (17), and, at or near a first end (lower end of body 2) of the hollow body, separate first and second orifices (orifices leading to passages 18 and 19) which are in fluid communication with the reservoir (both orifices are in fluid communication with the reservoir), the first orifice (orifice to passage 18) being in fluid communication with the reservoir via a tube (20; when part 13 is inserted into a container, air which enters the container from the reservoir then flows through the tube and orifice for passage 18) extending through the reservoir (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Excludair discloses the first and second orifices are formed in a first endpiece (13) fixed to the first end of the hollow body (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Excludair discloses the first endpiece (13) forms a valve (22) for selectively placing the first orifice in fluid communication with the tube and the second orifice with the reservoir (via bores 27 and 28; see page 9, lines 3-14).
Regarding claim 4, Excludair discloses the first endpiece (13) forms a first pipe (18) adapted to place the first orifice in fluid communication with the tube (20), and a second pipe (19) adapted to place the second orifice in fluid communication with the reservoir (17), a rod (rod portion of valve 22) which forms a section of each of the first and second pipes (see Fig. 4) being pivotally mounted relative to the first endpiece (valve 22 can rotate relative to endpiece 13) for selectively allowing or blocking fluid communication through the first and second pipes (page 9, lines 3-14).
Regarding claim 5, Excludair discloses the hollow body extends primarily in a main direction of extension (the body extends in a vertical direction as shown in Fig. 4), the hollow body having a dimension in the main direction of extension that is less than or equal to its dimensions in two directions perpendicular to the main direction of extension (the dimension of the body in the vertical direction is less than or equal to the dimension of the body extending in the two perpendicular directions).
Regarding claim 6, Excludair discloses the hollow body is rotationally symmetrical relative to an axis extending parallel to the main direction of extension (the hollow body is rotationally symmetrical about the vertical axis).
Regarding claim 7, Excludair discloses a first mounting adapter (lower body portion 13 forms a first mounting adapter for mounting on the final container) for mounting on a final container.
Regarding claim 9, Excludair discloses the first mounting adapter forms third and fourth pipes (18 and 29) each adapted to place the first or second orifice (orifices to passage 18 and 19, respectively) respectively in fluid communication with the interior of the final container.
Regarding claim 11, Excludair discloses the hollow body forms a third orifice (the upper orifice to reservoir 17), at or near a second end (upper end of the section of body 2 having reservoir 17) of the hollow body, the third orifice being in fluid communication with the reservoir (the upper orifice opens into the reservoir 17).
Regarding claim 25, Excludair discloses the second orifice (orifice to passage 19) is further in fluid communication with the interior of the final container via a tube (29) intended to extend through the final container.
Regarding claim 26, Excludair discloses the main direction of extension corresponding to the direction from the first end towards the second end of the hollow body (the main direction is the vertical direction shown in Fig. 4 and corresponds to the direction from the first [lower] end to the second [upper] end of the hollow body).
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 19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Excludair.
Regarding claim 19, Excludair discloses the refill device according to claim 2, but does not disclose the first endpiece is made of stainless steel. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the first endpiece of stainless steel, 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 corrosion resistance and being food grade, therefore making it an obvious choice for use in a wine dispensing device.
Regarding claim 24, Excludair discloses the refill device according to claim 7, but does not disclose the first mounting adapter is detachable from the hollow body. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the mounting adapter and hollow body as separate, detachable pieces, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C). Using separate, detachable elements can allow for easier manufacturing (for example, when molding pieces) and allows for replacement of individual parts rather than the need to replace the entire device.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Excludair in view of US Patent 5,909,824 to Qian et al. (Qian).
Regarding claim 8, Excludair discloses the refill device according to claim 7, but does not disclose the first mounting adapter forms a housing for receiving one end of the final container. In Excludair, the mounting adapter(s) are received within the open end of the container(s). Qian teaches a liquid transfer device in which a first mounting adapter (15) forms a housing for receiving one end of the final container (as shown in Fig. 3, the upper end of container 10 is received within a housing formed by the mounting adapter 15) to ensure a secure, leak-free connection between the transfer device and container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the mounting adapter of Excludair to include a housing to receive and end of the final container, as taught by Qian, to ensure a secure, leak-free connection between the transfer device and container.
Claims 12-14, 20-22 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Excludair in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0241420 to Peirsman et al. (Peirsman).
Regarding claim 13, Excludair discloses the refill device according to claim 11, but does not disclose a baffle shaped to direct the at least one wine or spirit passing through the second orifice towards a wall of the hollow body. Peirsman teaches a liquid transfer device which includes a baffle (see [0068]) which is used to impart a desired flow characteristic to the liquid, to minimize disruption of the liquid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a baffle as taught by Peirsman in the device of Excludair to direct the at least one wine or spirit passing through the second orifice towards a wall of the hollow body to impart a desired flow characteristic to the liquid, to minimize disruption of the liquid.
Regarding claim 12, Excludair further discloses the third orifice is formed in a second endpiece (12), fixed to the second end (upper end) of the hollow body (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Excludair further discloses a second mounting adapter (16) for mounting at least one refill container (11) on the refill device (device of Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20, Excludair as modified by Peirsman discloses a refill device according to claim 12, and a final container (the container into which the wine from bottle 11 is dispensed).
Regarding claim 21, Excludair as modified by Peirsman discloses a refill device according to claim 14, and at least one refill container (11) and one final container (the container receiving the wine dispensed from bottle 11 and the refill device).
Regarding claim 22, Excludair discloses a method for refilling a final container (a glass or bottle) with at least one wine or spirit (wine) from at least one refill container (11), comprising the steps of: a) at least partially emptying the at least one refill container (11) into the reservoir (17) formed by the hollow body (the portion of body 2 having reservoir 17) of a refill device (the device shown in Fig. 4) according to claim 14, through the third orifice (upper orifice leading into reservoir 17) of the refill device; then b) filling the final container (not shown in Fig. 4, but the final container is placed below the device and receives wine dispensed therefrom) from the refill device, through the first orifice (wine flows through the first orifice, out of the device, and into the container).
Regarding claim 27, Excludair does not disclose the second mounting adapter is detachable from the hollow body. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the mounting adapter and hollow body as separate, detachable pieces, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C). Using separate, detachable elements can allow for easier manufacturing (for example, when molding pieces) and allows for replacement of individual parts rather than the need to replace the entire device.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Excludair as modified by Peirsman as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Qian.
Regarding claim 18, Excludair as modified by Peirsman discloses the refill device according to claim 20, but does not disclose the second mounting adapter forms a valve which allows selectively cutting off the fluid communication through a fifth pipe. Qian teaches a liquid transfer device which includes a mounting adapter (the mounting for bottle 10) having a valve (control means 80 having valve 81) which allows selectively cutting off the fluid communication through a pipe (71) such that liquid only flows from the bottle 10 to the transfer device when the valve is opened. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a valve as taught by Qian in the second mounting adapter of Excludair such that the liquid from the bottle only flows into the refill device when desire (i.e., when the valve is opened).
Regarding claim 15, Excludair as modified by Peirsman and Qian discloses the refill device according to claim 18, but does not disclose the second mounting adapter forms a housing for receiving one end of the refill container. In Excludair, the mounting adapter(s) are received within the open end of the container(s). Qian teaches a liquid transfer device in which a first mounting adapter (15) forms a housing for receiving one end of the container (as shown in Fig. 3, the upper end of container 10 is received within a housing formed by the mounting adapter 15) to ensure a secure, leak-free connection between the transfer device and container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the mounting adapter of Excludair to include a housing to receive and end of the final container, as taught by Qian, to ensure a secure, leak-free connection between the transfer device and container.
Regarding claim 16, Excludair as modified by Peirsman and Qian further discloses the second mounting adapter forms a fifth pipe (see Fig. 4; the mounting adapter for bottle 11 forms a pipe having passage 31) adapted to place the housing for receiving one end of the refill container in fluid communication with the third orifice (passage 31 is in fluid communication with the upper opening of reservoir 17).
Regarding claim 17, Excludair as modified by Peirsman and Qian further discloses the second mounting adapter forms a sixth pipe (see Fig. 4; the mounting adapter for bottle 11 forms a pipe having passage 31) adapted to place the third orifice (upper opening of reservoir 17) in fluid communication with a tube (16) intended to extend through the refill container (11) received in the second mounting adapter (Fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
Claim 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 the hollow body having no orifices other than the first and second orifices or an intermediate step of separating the refill container from the refill device. Excludair specifically teaches away from both of these limitations and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify the device and method of Excludair to include them.
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 April 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights