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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-10 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 2 recites “an inflatable membrane” in the first line, however claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, already recites “an inflatable membrane” and as such it is unclear if these recitations are meant to refer to the same inflatable membrane or two separate inflatable membranes. This appears to be a double inclusion and the claims will be interpreted as only reciting a single membrane. See MPEP 2173.05(o).
Claim 3 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to being dependent upon claim 2.
Claim 4 recites “at least a closing device according to claim 1” and then proceeds to recite “said closing device comprising…at least a bottom wall and at least a peripheral wall” which appear to be double inclusions of the bottom wall and peripheral wall as they’re already recited in claim 1. Claim 4 also recites “an outlet of phytosanitary product in line 5 and lines 9-10 which also appears to be a double inclusion. Further, claim 4 recites “said bottom wall comprising at least two through openings, a first opening and a second opening…” however claim 1 not only already recites the first and second opening but also a third opening which does not seem to be a requirement here and creates a potential contradiction in the claim language in that it’s unclear if the third opening recited in claim 1 is in fact necessitated in claim 4. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained and the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claims 5-10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to being dependent upon claim 4.
Claim 8 recites “a third through opening” however claim 4, which claim 8 depends from directly, recites “at least a closing device according to claim 1” which already recites “a third opening” and as such it’s unclear if the recitation of claim 8 is meant to refer back to this opening or a completely separate third opening. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained and the claim is rendered indefinite.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ware et al. (US Pub No 2014/0117043 A1).
Re claim 1, Ware et al. show a closing device (Fig. 6, 640) configured to cooperate with a hydraulic flushing circuit, with a pneumatic circuit for agricultural spraying system, with an outlet of phytosanitary product and with a can of phytosanitary product, the closing device comprising:
[Symbol font/0x2D] at least a bottom wall (dome shaped upper wall of 640); and
[Symbol font/0x2D] at least a peripheral wall (cylindrical shaped lower wall of 640);
the closing device being configured to close the can (600),
the peripheral wall (cylindrical shaped lower wall of 640) protruding from the bottom wall (dome shaped upper wall of 640), said bottom wall comprising at least three through openings, namely a first opening (connected to 690), a second opening (connected to 680; paragraph 0051) and a third opening (see annotated figure), the first opening being configured to be connected to the outlet of phytosanitary product allowing the said phytosanitary product to be discharged from said can (paragraph 0051 – “the terminal apparatus 690 may be operably coupled to the dispenser 600 via tubing 664, for example. Furthermore, terminal apparatus 690 may include a dispense actuator…”), the second opening being on the one hand configured to open in a sealed manner into an inflatable membrane (paragraph 0051 – “the pressure source 680 may be in fluid communication with the interior of the dispensing system overpack or liner”) and on the other hand configured to be connected to an inlet of the pneumatic circuit (680), so as to allow an overpressure to be generated in the can by the expansion of the inflatable membrane by means of the pneumatic circuit, said third opening (see annotated figure) being configured to be connected to an inlet of said hydraulic flushing circuit (the tubing shown is fully capable of being connected to an inlet).
PNG
media_image1.png
721
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Ware et al. show an inflatable membrane (102), said inflatable membrane being connected to the second opening of the bottom wall (paragraph 0051 – “the pressure source 680 may be in fluid communication with the interior of the dispensing system overpack or liner”), said inflatable membrane being configured to expand and/or contract by means of the pneumatic circuit (paragraph 0027), the inflatable membrane being disposed on the same side (102 and the cylindrical shaped lower wall of 640 are below the dome shaped upper wall of 640) of the bottom wall (dome shaped upper wall of 640) as the peripheral wall (cylindrical shaped lower wall of 640).
Re claim 3, Ware et al. disclose the inflatable membrane is a flexible expandable membrane (paragraph 0027).
Re claim 4, Ware et al. show an extracting device (Fig. 6) of phytosanitary product from a can (600) of phytosanitary product, comprising:
[Symbol font/0x2D] at least a closing device according to claim 1 (see above);
[Symbol font/0x2D] at least a pneumatic circuit (680); and
[Symbol font/0x2D] at least an outlet (664) of phytosanitary product;
said closing device comprising at least an inflatable membrane (102), at least a bottom wall (dome shaped upper wall of 640) and at least a peripheral wall (cylindrical shaped lower wall of 640) protruding from the bottom wall, said bottom wall comprising at least two through openings, a first opening (connected to 690) and a second opening (connected to 680; paragraph 0051), the first opening being connected to an outlet (664) of phytosanitary product allowing the said phytosanitary product to be discharged from said can (600), the second opening being on the one hand connected to the inflatable membrane (paragraph 0051 – “the pressure source 680 may be in fluid communication with the interior of the dispensing system overpack or liner”) and on the other hand connected to a pneumatic circuit inlet (680), said inflatable membrane (102) being configured to expand and/or contract by means of the pneumatic circuit (paragraph 0027), the inflatable membrane being disposed on the same side of the bottom wall as the peripheral wall (102 and the cylindrical shaped lower wall of 640 are below the dome shaped upper wall of 640).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ware et al. (US Pub No 2014/0117043 A1) in view of Wilting (US Pub No 2004/0135003 A1).
Re claim 5, Ware et al. show the pneumatic circuit comprises at least a duct (694; paragraph 0055), a distributor (paragraph 0055), and a compressed air inlet (in 680), the duct connecting the closing device to the distributor (paragraph 0055), which is itself connected by said duct to the compressed air inlet (in 680), said pneumatic circuit being configured to allow the expansion of the inflatable membrane.
Ware et al. does not teach a pressure regulator.
However, Wilting shows a pressure regulator (46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the pressure circuit of Ware et al. include a pressure regulator as taught by Wilting in order to regulate the operating pressure (Wilting - paragraph 0025).
Re claim 6, Ware et al. as modified by Wilting disclose the pneumatic circuit further comprises a vacuum generator (Ware – paragraph 0082), said duct connecting the vacuum generator to the distributor, said vacuum generator being configured to suck in the air contained in the inflatable membrane, causing its contraction.
Re claim 7, Ware et al. as modified by Wilting show the pneumatic circuit (Ware – 680) further comprises a duct (694; paragraph 0055), an air flushing distributor (paragraph 0055) and a pressure regulator (Wilting – 46), said duct connecting the compressed air inlet to the pressure regulator, which is itself connected by said duct to the air flushing distributor, which is itself connected to the outlet of phytosanitary product, said pneumatic circuit being configured to allow air flushing of the outlet of phytosanitary product (Ware – paragraph 0055 – “the pressure source 680 may be in fluid communication with the interior of the dispensing system overpack or liner”).
Re claim 8, Ware et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach a hydraulic flushing circuit and wherein the bottom wall of the closing device has a third through opening connected to an inlet of said hydraulic flushing circuit, configured to allow the flushing of the can and the inflatable membrane.
However, Wilting shows a hydraulic flushing circuit (52/54/56) and wherein the bottom wall (bottom wall of 12) of the device has a through opening (opening in the bottom wall of 12) connected to an inlet (56) of said hydraulic flushing circuit, configured to allow the flushing of the can and the inflatable membrane (paragraph 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the assembly of Ware et al. include a hydraulic flushing circuit as taught by Wilting to perform a cleaning process of the system (Wilting – paragraph 0030).
Re claim 9, Ware et al. show a liquid spraying system (Fig. 6) comprising an extracting device according to claim 4 (see above) and further comprising a can (600) configured to contain a phytosanitary product and to which said closing device (640) is fixed, the can (600) being on the one hand connected, by the first opening (connected to 690) of the closing device, to a duct (664) of the outlet of the treatment liquid configured to convey the phytosanitary product from the can to at least one spray nozzle (paragraph 0056), the can being on the other hand connected by the third opening (see annotated figure) of the closing device to an inlet duct (hose shown in figure 6), and said can being connected by the second opening (connected to 680) of the closing device to an inlet duct of the pneumatic circuit (680) and to the inflatable membrane (102), said inlet duct of the pneumatic circuit being configured to convey fluid into the inflatable membrane so that it expands into the enclosure of the can (600), the expansion of said inflatable membrane being configured to pressurize the phytosanitary product in the can so as to create a flow of said phytosanitary product towards the outlet of the phytosanitary product (paragraphs 0027 & 0055).
Ware et al. does not teach a hydraulic flushing circuit configured to convey flushing liquid into the can so that said flushing liquid flushes said can.
However, Wilting shows a hydraulic flushing circuit (52/54/56) and wherein the bottom wall (bottom wall of 12) of the device has a through opening (opening in the bottom wall of 12) connected to an inlet (56) of said hydraulic flushing circuit, configured to allow the flushing of the can and the inflatable membrane (paragraph 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the assembly of Ware et al. include a hydraulic flushing circuit as taught by Wilting to perform a cleaning process of the system (Wilting – paragraph 0030).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights