DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “periphery wall thickness” is believed to be in error for --peripheral wall thickness--. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “mounting module”, “transportation device” and “sprayer module” in claims 1, 14 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) 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 § 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 20 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 20 recites the broad recitation “a transportation vehicle”, and the claim also recites “the transportation vehicle including a golf cart or a landscaping vehicle” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fauci 5,775,591.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Fauci teaches a portable liquid-delivery system (figure 1) comprising: a portable container (10) configured to store an internal liquid (10 is a water bottle), the portable container having a peripheral wall extending along a central axis between a top wall and a bottom wall (peripheral wall of 10 extending between base and top with cap 16 in figure 1), the portable container including a cutout (indented section 11) disposed partially inward between the peripheral wall and the central axis (as shown in figure 1); a mounting module (152) configured to mount the portable container to a transportation device (152 mounts bottle 10 to carrying case 114, which is a mobile device that can be transported); and a sprayer module (hose 18 and spray nozzle 22) that dispenses the internal liquid externally from the portable container (Col. 2, ll. 59-62).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Fauci teaches that the sprayer module includes a wand for spraying the internal liquid (22 acts as a wand for spraying liquid from spray head 28, Col. 2, ll. 59-62).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Fauci teaches a clip (24) configured to attach the wand to the portable container (as shown in figure 1).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Fauci teaches the portable container comprises two openings at the top wall (openings for 16 and 88 in figure 1, where the top wall is defined where the bottle 10 begins to taper radially inward).
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, Fauci teaches one opening of the at least two openings (opening for 16) is adapted to accommodate a pump (12) configured to pressurize an interior of the container (Col. 2, ll. 40-42), the pump being either a manually-actuated pump or an electrically-actuated pump (manually actuated, Col. 2, ll. 42-45).
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 1, 2, 10, 11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griggs 4,176,770 in view Fauci.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Griggs teaches a portable liquid-delivery system (figure 2) comprising: a portable container (1) configured to store an internal liquid (as shown in figure 2), the portable container having a peripheral wall extending along a central axis between a top wall and a bottom wall (wall surrounded by 5 between ends at 17 and opposite end in figure 2), the portable container including a cutout (delimited by 24, 25, and 6) disposed partially inward between the peripheral wall and the central axis (as shown in figure 3); a mounting module configured to mount the portable container to a transportation device (strap 5 mounting 1 to vehicle as shown in figure 1), and a neck (15) at the top end of the bottle (as shown in figure 2). However, Griggs does not teach a spraying module that dispenses the internal liquid externally from the portable container. Fauci teaches connecting a spray wand (22 and hose 18 acts as a wand) and pressurization system (12) to a water tank (10). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the water bottle of Griggs with the spraying wand and pressurization system of Fauci, in order to allow the bottle to be used for quick clean-up jobs (abstract).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Griggs in view of Fauci teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Griggs further teaches the peripheral wall has a first thickness and the cutout has a second thickness, the second thickness being greater than the first thickness to increase structural strength of the portable container (the thickness across the cutout between 24 and 25 is greater than a thickness of the peripheral wall as shown in cross-section of figure 3, where it is not claimed that the thickness of the walls surrounding the cut-out have a different thickness, see claim 3 of the instant application).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Griggs in view of Fauci teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Griggs further teaches the mounting module includes a support bracket (2) configured for mounting to a hitch extender (2 is capable of being mounted to a hitch extender, where the extender is not positively recited).
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, Griggs in view of Fauci teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Griggs further teaches the support bracket (2) is configured for mounting to a vehicle selected from a group consisting of an automobile, a golf cart, and a truck (bracket 2 is capable of being mounted to the tubing of a golf cart or truck, where the vehicle being mounted to does not change the structure of the bracket).
In regards to Independent Claim 14, Griggs teaches a portable liquid-delivery system (figure 2) comprising: a portable container (1) configured to store an internal liquid (liquid shown in figures 2 and 3), the portable container having a peripheral wall extending along a central axis between a top wall and a bottom wall (wall surrounded by 5 between ends at 17 and opposite end in figure 2), the portable container including a cutout having a generally U-shape (cutout with u-shape delimited by 24, 26 and 6 in figure 2), the cutout having a greater thickness than the peripheral wall (the thickness across the cutout between 24 and 25 is greater than a thickness of the peripheral wall as shown in cross-section of figure 3, where it is not claimed that the thickness of the walls surrounding the cut-out have a different thickness, see claim 3 of the instant application); a mounting module configured to mount the portable container to a transportation vehicle (strap 5 mounting 1 to vehicle as shown in figure 1), and a neck (15) at the top end of the bottle (as shown in figure 2). However, Griggs does not teach a spraying module that dispenses the internal liquid externally from the portable container. Fauci teaches connecting a spray wand (22 and hose 18 acts as a wand) and pressurization system (12) to a water tank (10). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the water bottle of Griggs with the spraying wand and pressurization system of Fauci, in order to allow the bottle to be used for quick clean-up jobs (abstract).
Regarding Dependent Claim 15, Griggs in view of Fauci teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Griggs further teaches the cutout extends completely between the top and bottom walls (as shown in figure 2).
In regards to Independent Claim 14 and Dependent Claim 16, Griggs teaches a portable liquid-delivery system (figure 2) comprising: a portable container (1) configured to store an internal liquid (liquid shown in figures 2 and 3), the portable container having a peripheral wall extending along a central axis between a top wall and a bottom wall (wall surrounded by 5 between ends at 17 and opposite end in figure 2), the portable container including a cutout having a generally U-shape that extends partially between the top and bottom walls (cutout with u-shape delimited by 37 and 6 as shown in figure 2, which extends a portion of the length along the bottle between the ends as shown in figure 2), the cutout having a greater thickness than the peripheral wall (the thickness across the cutout between ends 37 in figure 2 is greater than a thickness of the peripheral wall as shown in cross-section of figure 2, where it is not claimed that the thickness of the walls surrounding the cut-out have a different thickness, see claim 3 of the instant application); a mounting module configured to mount the portable container to a transportation vehicle (strap 5 mounting 1 to vehicle as shown in figure 1), and a neck (15) at the top end of the bottle (as shown in figure 2). However, Griggs does not teach a spraying module that dispenses the internal liquid externally from the portable container. Fauci teaches connecting a spray wand (22 and hose 18 acts as a wand) and pressurization system (12) to a water tank (10). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the water bottle of Griggs with the spraying wand and pressurization system of Fauci, in order to allow the bottle to be used for quick clean-up jobs (abstract).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauci as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang CN 112913664 A.
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Fauci teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Fauci does not teach three feet extending from the bottom wall of the container. Yang teaches that three feet extending from the bottom wall of the container (three rounded bumps 9 shown symmetrically about base of container 1 in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the feet of Yang on the base of the container of Fauci, in order to prevent the container from skidding (paragraph [0025]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauci as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Thompson 2016/0091130.
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Fauci teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Fauci does not teach that the wand consists at least in part from stainless steel. Thompson teaches that a part of a wand for water (abstract) can be made at least in part with stainless steel (claim 12 of Thompson). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to fabricate at least a portion of the wand of Fauci out of stainless steel, as taught by Thompson, in order to prevent corrosion or rusting of the wand (claim 12 of Thompson).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauci as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lampe 2016/0243570.
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Fauci teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Fauci does not teach using a pressure valve for releasing pressure in the container. Lampe teaches using a pressure relief valve on a tank for spraying a fluid (paragraph [0128]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the pressure relief valve of Lampe on the container of Fauci, in order to depressurize the container when the internal pressure exceeds a desired pressure level (paragraph [0128]).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampe 2016/0243570 in view of Yang CN 112913664 A.
In regards to Independent Claim 17 and Dependent Claims 18 and 19, Lampe teaches a portable liquid-delivery system (figure 2A) comprising: a portable container (201) configured to store an internal liquid (247), the portable container having a peripheral wall extending along a central axis between a top wall and a bottom wall (wall of 201 between base and top including 223 in figure 2A), the portable container including a cutout (hole at 223) having a greater thickness than the peripheral wall (width of hole at 223 is greater than thickness of wall shown in figure 2A); and a sprayer module (203) having a wand (235) that dispenses the internal liquid externally from the portable container (paragraph [0079]). However, Lampe does not teach that three feet symmetrically extend from the bottom wall of the container. Yang teaches that three feet symmetrically extend from the bottom wall of the container (three rounded bumps 9 shown symmetrically about base of container 1 in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the feet of Yang on the base of the container of Lampe, in order to prevent the container from skidding (paragraph [0025]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 20, Lampe in view of Yang teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Lampe further teaches a mounting module (strap 363 allows mounting of container) configured to removably attach the portable container to a transportation vehicle, the transportation vehicle including a golf cart or a landscaping vehicle (strap 363 can be placed over a portion of a golf cart or landscaping vehicle to attach the container to the vehicle).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 3, that there are two generally parallel cutout walls, where the plurality of cutout walls have a thickness greater than a peripheral wall thickness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights