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 Group I-A (claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 5/13/26 is acknowledged. Claims 6-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The examiner notes that upon the finding of an allowable generic claim, all non-elected claims depending from the allowable generic claim will be considered for rejoinder.
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 1-5 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 1 (and depending claims 2-5) recites the limitation "the peripheral wall of the casing,” but does not expressly introduce “a peripheral wall” before introducing “the peripheral wall.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to mean “a peripheral wall.”
Claim 5, which depends directly from claim 1, introduces the limitations, “the first generally cylindrical shape” and “the second generally cylindrical shape.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should be noted that “a first generally cylindrical shape” and “a second generally cylindrical shape” are introduced in claim 4, but claim 5 does not depend from claim 4. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the above limitations in claim 5 to mean “a first generally cylindrical shape” and “a second generally cylindrical shape.”
35 USC § 103 Rejection
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mary et al (US 2022/0214015) in view of Rudnianyn (FR 3079027) and Oda (US 2005/0013095).
Regarding claim 1, Mary discloses a pressurised fluid container (20), comprising a container body (20a) having an internal volume (internal volume of 20b) for holding a pressurised fluid and being equipped with a fluid dispensing valve, the pressurized fluid container comprising:
a valve body (body of 21)
an electronic device (3) comprising a casing (34)
a protective cover (1, 2) arranged around the valve body, comprising an opening (25) comprising a peripheral edge (formed by sub-shells 2a and 2b) surrounding the casing of the electronic device;
wherein at least part of the peripheral wall of the casing of the electronic device is shaped so as to cooperate with at least part of the peripheral edge of the opening of the protective cover in order to keep the electronic device secured to the protective cover,
Mary is silent regarding: 1) a valve body comprising an end fitting housing opening outwards; 2) a casing comprising an end fitting configured to be housed in the end fitting housing of the valve body; 3) when the end fitting of the casing is housed in the end fitting housing of the valve body; and 4) wherein the peripheral wall of the casing of the electronic device comprises at least one peripheral groove and the peripheral edge of the opening of the protective cover comprises at least one shoulder, or vice versa, with said shoulder being inserted into said peripheral groove in order to ensure that the electronic device is secured to the protective cover.
However, Rudnianyn teaches: 1) a valve body (30; Fig. 7) comprising an end fitting housing (32) opening outwards; 2) a casing (16) comprising an end fitting (15; Figs. 3, 6, 7) configured to be housed in the end fitting housing of the valve body; and 3) when the end fitting of the casing is housed in the end fitting housing of the valve body (Fig. 7). The advantage of employing Rudnianyn’s end fitting and corresponding valve body housing arrangement is to facilitate assembly and dissembly of the electric device and the valve body. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mary to employ the end fitting and corresponding valve body housing arrangement taught by Rudnianyn, in order to facilitate assembly and disassembly of the electronic device from the valve body.
In addition, Oda teaches: 4) wherein the peripheral wall of the casing of the electronic device comprises at least one peripheral groove (26a, 26b) and the peripheral edge (24a, 24b) of the opening of the protective cover comprises at least one shoulder (23b), or vice versa, with said shoulder being inserted into said peripheral groove (23b inserted into 26a, 26b) in order to ensure that the electronic device is secured to the protective cover. Oda is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of securing a component housing within an opening of a surrounding casing and is relied upon for its teaching of complementary groove and projection retention features provided on the peripheral surface of the housing and the peripheral edge of the opening to secure the housing within the opening. The advantage of securing the electronic device to the protective cover by fitting a projecting portion of the casing into a groove in the peripheral edge of the opening is to provide secure, detachable retention while facilitating assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Mary, as modified by Rudnianyn, to secure the electronic device in the protective cover opening using a peripheral lip received in a groove at the opening edge, as taught by Oda, to provide secure, detachable retention.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Oda further teaches wherein the peripheral wall of the casing of the electronic device and the peripheral edge of the opening of the protective cover are shaped so as to have matching shapes (flange-like sealing lip 23b fits into corresponding grooves 26a, 26b) enabling the electronic device to be secured to the protective cover.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Rudnianyn further teaches wherein the end fitting of the casing assumes a first generally cylindrical shape (15; Fig. 7) and is devoid of external threading (pin/recess connection 31, 14; Fig. 7); and/or the end fitting housing of the valve body assumes a second generally cylindrical shape (32 receives 15; Fig. 7) and is devoid of an internal tapping (pin/recess connection 31, 14; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Rudnianyn further teaches wherein the first generally cylindrical shape of the end fitting (15, Fig. 7) of the casing (16) and the second generally cylindrical shape of the end fitting housing (32) of the valve body (30) match each other (15 received within 32).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPE DAVID ANGWIN whose telephone number is (571)-270-3735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5 EST. 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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. 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: httos://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.
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights