DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IL 292884, filed on May 9th 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 5th 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the references cited therein are considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 8, 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the “pressure-regulating subsystem suitable to produce an increase of pressure inside said container”, whereas, claims 8, 19, 20 recite “the device suitable to raise pressure in the container”. For the purpose of consistency, one of these phrases should be selected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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.
6. 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.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “flexible element” lines 4 and 7.
Claim 5 recites the phrase “inflation device” lines 6 and 11.
Claim 5 recites the phrase “device suitable to raise pressure”.
Claim 6 recites “a member”.
Claim 7 recites the phrase “flexible element”.
Claim 8 recites the phrase “device.”
Claim 8 recites phrase “device suitable to raise pressure”.
Claim 9 recites phrase “tubing components”.
Claim 15 recites the phrase “flexible element”.
Claim 16 recites the phrase “tearing elements”.
Claim 16 recites the phrase “flexible element”.
Claim 17 recites the phrase “tearing elements”.
Claim 17 recites the phrase “pyrotechnic means”.
Claim 18 recites the phrase “flexible element”.
Claim 19 recites the phrase “device suitable to raise pressure”.
Claim 20 recites the phrase “device suitable to raise pressure”.
Claim 21 recites the phrase “flexible element” lines 2 and 3.
Claim 22 recites the phrase “flexible element” in lines 5, 8 and 14.
Claim 22 recites the phrase “device suitable to raise pressure”.
Claim 22 recites phrase “tubing components”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-22 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.
Claims 1-21, for the claims dependent upon claim 1 the preamble is inconsistent and should be corrected to properly recite and refer back to the independent claim.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “…an arrangement suitable to allow…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the arrangement allows the opening of said lid or not.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…the opening…” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “…a flexible element suitable to be connected to said container…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the flexible element is connected to said container or not.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “…suitable to be inflated…”. This claim is deemed indefinite
Claim 1 recites the phrase “…a pressure-regulating subsystem suitable to produce an increase…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the pressure-regulating subsystem produces an increase of pressure or not. What is meant by suitable, and how is suitable determined?
Claim 1 recites the phrase “…up to a value that causes inflation…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because the value for the sufficient amount of functional inflation is not defined. Additionally, the sufficient amount of inflation is not defined either.
Claim 2 recites the phrase “…open wide…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because wide is a relative term. There is not definite value of how open the lid is.
Claim 4 recites the phrase “…weak points…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because weak is a relative term. There is no definition of what is considered weak on the flexible element.
Claim 5 recites the phrase “…wherein at least one pressure sensor is suitable to be located inside said container…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether the at least one pressure sensor is located on the inside of the container or not. Additionally, it appears the claim is indefinite because it isn’t clear whether or not the “at least one sensor” (lines 7-8) are a reference to the previously recited “at least two pressure sensors” or if these are additional sensors. If it is a reference to the previous at least two previous sensors it should be clarified, for example: -wherein at least one of the at least two pressure sensors is…and the other of the at least two pressure sensors is…-
Claim 5 recites the phrase “…said device suitable to raise pressure in said container…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether said device raises the pressure in the container or not.
Claim 5 recites the phrase “…a tube suitable to connect the outlet of said inflation device…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether the tube connects to the out let or not.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “…the outlet…” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “…the inner volume…” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “…the group consisting of…” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “…wherein the tubing components further comprise a non-return valve that is located along the tube that connects the outlet of the device suitable to raise pressure in the container and the inner volume of said container.”
- Examiner notes that claim 8 (and therefore, claim 9) has not been further treated by prior art. However, as presented, the claims are not deemed allowable and clarity is needed, in regards to antecedent bases, to provide an understanding of the claim(s) and the protection sought. Applicant is required to review the claims for clarity and definiteness.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “…the tubing components…” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “…the tube…” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “…the outlet…” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “…the device suitable to raise pressure in the container…” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “…the tubing components…” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “…the controller…” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “…the controller…” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “…the pressure measurements…” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “…the controller…” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the phrase “…a timing component suitable to communicate with the controller…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether the timing component communicates with the controller or not.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “…the controller…” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “…the controller…” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the phrase “…tearing elements suitable to induce tearing…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether the tearing elements induce tearing or not.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “…the device suitable to raise pressure in the container…” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “…the device suitable to raise pressure in the container…” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the phrase “…perforations suitable to allow pressure comparison between both sides…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether the perforations allow pressure comparison or not.
Claim 21 recites the phrase “…perforations suitable to allow pressure comparison between both sides…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how perforations provide comparison. Elements for providing comparisons are typically a controller or processor combined with a database.
Claim 22 recites the phrase “…mechanical means suitable to allow…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the mechanical means allows the opening of said lid or not.
Claim 22 recited the phrase “…and its tearing…”. The use of “its” in the claims renders it indefinite as well, as it isn’t clear what “its” references. Applicant should positively recite the structure/limitation to which “its” references.
This should be done for any of the claims reciting “its”
Claim 22 recites the limitation “…the opening…” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the phrase “…flexible element suitable to be connected to said container…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the flexible element is connected to the container or not.
Claim 22 recites the phrase “…a pressure-regulating subsystem suitable to produce an increase…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the pressure-regulating subsystem produces an increase of pressure or not.
Claim 22 recites the phrase “…up to a value that causes inflation…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because the value for the sufficient amount of functional inflation is not defined. Additionally, the sufficient amount of inflation is not defined either.
Claim 22 recites the phrase “…providing a device suitable to raise pressure…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the device raises the pressure in the container or not.
Claim 22 recites the phrase “…said device suitable to raise pressure in said container…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether the device raises the pressure in the container or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1, 4, 10, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galliano (US 6,854,409).
Regarding claim 1, Galliano discloses an opening system (10) for a container (12) that is closed with a lid (22), which is located under pressure (col. 2 ll. 33-34), comprising:
a) an arrangement (24) suitable to allow the opening of said lid (22) of said container (12);
b) a flexible element (20) suitable to be connected to said container (12; Fig. 1), and suitable to be inflated (col. 2 ll. 61-65); and
c) a pressure-regulating subsystem (30) suitable to produce an increase of pressure inside said container (12) up to a value that causes the inflation of said flexible element (20) and its tearing (col. 3 ll. 18-33).
Regarding claim 4, Galliano discloses wherein said flexible element (20) further comprises weak points configured to be torn in a pre-defined pattern (col. 2 ll. 64).
Regarding claim 10, Galliano discloses wherein the controller (36) is adapted to control the opening of the container’s lid (22; via actuator 24; col. 3 ll. 33-35; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Galliano discloses wherein the flexible element (20) is provided with weak points (col. 2 ll. 64).
Regarding claim 16, Galliano discloses further comprising tearing elements (14, 16) suitable to induce tearing of the flexible element (20; the propulsor moves the payload, therefore, tearing the flexible element).
Regarding claim 17, Galliano discloses wherein the tearing elements (14, 16) are pyrotechnic means (14, 16; pyrotechnics is defined as: the use of chemical reactions to create light, heat, smoke or sound. In the instant case, the propulsor is designed to perform this function in order to move the payload. (14)).
Regarding claim 19, Galliano discloses wherein the device (30) suitable to raise pressure in the container is a pump (col. 3 ll. 18-33).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claim(s) 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galliano (US 6,854,409) in view of Lammle (US 2022/0009607).
Regarding claim 2, Galliano discloses wherein said lid (22) is attached to said container (12) with a hinge, causing it to open wide under the pressure of said inflated flexible element.
Galliano fails to disclose said lid is attached to said container with a hinge.
However, Lammle teaches a lid (6.1) is attached to a container (3.1; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the lid and container of Galliano with the hinge of Lammle, in order to open the lid from the container.
Regarding claim 6, Galliano discloses wherein the container (12) is a member selected from a group consisting of: an underwater vessel, an underwater tubing system, aquaculture equipment, and a storage vessel (col. 2 ll. 42-43).
13. Claim(s) 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galliano (US 6,854,409) in view of Barth et al. (US 2012/0192979; “Barth”).
Regarding claim 3, Galliano discloses said flexible element (20).
Galliano fails to disclose wherein said flexible element is made of a hyperelastic material.
However, Barth teaches a bladder made of a hyperelastic material. (para. [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the flexible element of Galliano with the hyperelastic material of Barth, in order to have a flexible element maintain its integrity under pressure (para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 7, Gallian discloses the flexible element (20).
Galliano fails to discloses wherein the flexible element is made of a rubber material.
However, Barth teaches a bladder made of a rubber material. (para. [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the flexible element of Galliano with the rubber material of Barth, in order to have a flexible element maintain its integrity under pressure (para. [0050]).
14. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galliano (US 6,854,409) in view of Sondheimer (US 3,811,379).
Regarding claim 11, Galliano discloses wherein the controller (36) is provided with a program for opening the container's lid (22).
Galliano fails to disclose the controller is provided with a program for opening the container’s lid that is based on the pressure measurements performed by the system.
However, Sondheimer teaches a controller (42) is provided with a program for opening a container’s (20) lid that is based on a pressure measurement performed by a system (col. 3 ll. 60-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the controller of Galliano with the pressure measurement of Sondheimer, in order to determined when it is safe to release the payload (col. 3 ll. 60-67).
15. Claim(s) 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galliano (US 6,854,409) in view of Potter et al. (US 2007/0022936; “Potter”).
Regarding claim 12, Galliano discloses wherein the controller (36) is provided with a program for opening the container (12; via actuator 24; col. 3 ll. 33-35; Fig. 1).
Galliano is silent regarding the controller is provided with a program for opening the container that is based on a pre-determined timing.
However, Potter teaches a controller (208) is provided with a program for an object ejection system (100) that is based on a pre-determined timing (para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the controller opening the container of Galliano with the time-based control of Potter, in order to open the lid at the proper time to release the payload.
Regarding claim 13, Galliano discloses the controller (36).
Galliano fails to disclose further comprising a timing component that is suitable to communicate with the controller.
However, Potter teaches a timing component (234) that is suitable to communicate with the controller (208; para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the controller of Galliano with the timing component of Potter, in order to supply appropriate command signals to the controller (para. [0026]).
16. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galliano (US 6,854,409) in view of Hickey (US 4,566,367).
Regarding claim 14, Galliano discloses the controller (36).
Galliano fails to disclose wherein the controller is remotely controlled.
However, Hickey teaches a controller is remotely controlled (col. 3 ll. 11-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the controller of Galliano with the remote controlling of Hickey, in order to release the payload from a safe location.
17. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galliano (US 6,854,409).
Regarding claim 21, Galliano discloses wherein the flexible element (20) is provided with a tear strip suitable to allow pressure comparison between both sides of the flexible element (20; col. 2 ll. 52-65).
Galliano fails to disclose perforations It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply perforations since it was known in the art that perforations allow tearing.
Allowable Subject Matter
18. Claim 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Regarding claim 22, Galliano discloses a method for opening a container (12) that is closed with a lid (22), which is located under pressure (col. 2 ll. 33-34), comprising:
a) providing mechanical means (24) suitable to allow the opening of said lid (22) of said container (12);
b) providing a flexible element (20) suitable to be connected to said container (12; Fig. 1), and suitable to be inflated (col. 2 ll. 61-65); and
c) providing a pressure-regulating subsystem (30) suitable to produce an increase of pressure inside said container (12) up to a value that causes the inflation of said flexible element (20) and its tearing (col. 3 ll. 18-33).
Galliano fails to disclose the pressure-regulating subsystem comprising tubing components.
It would not have been obvious to modify Galliano with the tubing components because it would require reconfiguring the apparatus of Galliano to incorporate tubes that would render Galliano inoperable.
19. Claims 5, 18 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 5, the most relevant prior art is Galliano (US 6,854,409).
Galliano discloses an opening system (10), a controller (36).
Galliano fails to disclose the remainder of the limitation, mainly the tubing components.
It would not have been obvious to modify Galliano with the tubing components because it would require reconfiguring the apparatus of Galliano to incorporate tubes that would render Galliano inoperable.
Regarding claim 18, the most relevant prior art is Galliano (US 6,854,409).
Galliano discloses the flexible element (20) and the container (12).
Galliano fails to disclose the flexible element is external to the container.
It would not have been obvious to modify Galliano with the aforementioned limitation because placing the flexible element outside of the container of Galliano would render said flexible element functionless. The flexible element of Galliano needs to be placed inside the container to seal the muzzle end of the container (col. 2 ll. 56-57).
Regarding claim 20, the most relevant prior art is Galliano (US 6,854,409).
Galliano discloses the device (30) suitable to raise pressure in the container.
Galliano fails to disclose the device being a compressed gas tank.
It would not have been obvious to modify Galliano with the aforementioned limitation because Galliano teaches away from using a compressed gas tank (col. 1 ll. 36-45).
Conclusion
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYAMINDAE JALLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1927. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30am-5:00pm and alternating Fridays from 7:30am-4:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHELLEY SELF, can be reached on (571)272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
21. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/EYAMINDAE C JALLOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731