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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 11; “once” should be replaced with –one--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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. Note: Claims 2-4 without a 102 rejection below does not mean they are allowable subject matter but that they are unclear and can’t be rejected currently with a reference.
The claims (claims 1-9) are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, using terms “its”, “itself”, “this” and “so-called”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the envelope" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the distal end" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the boss" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the end" in Line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the at least one radial conduit" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the at least one radial conduit is the same as the radial duct, radial fluid outlet duct, radial internal part or a new element.
Regarding Claim 3, line 6; it is unclear what is meant by “between the channel and the channel”.
Regarding Claim 4, line 3; it is unclear what is meant by “between the channel and the channel”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the internal part of the boss" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
****Due to the unclear nature of claims 2-4, a rejection with references has not been applied to 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 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naulin (WO2020225262).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood by Examiner, Naulin discloses an outlet boss 4 (Figure 2) for a pressurized-fluid storage tank comprising: an axial central part along an axis XX' A (Figure 2) passing through the envelope 2 (Figure 2) of said tank and itself having passing through it at least one channel (figure 2) communicating by its proximal end with the inner chamber of the fluid storage tank and the distal end of which is closed along its axis of the same direction XX' as the boss (Figure 2), a radial internal part (Figure 2) securing said boss to the envelope of the tank and able to withstand the pressure forces of the fluid on this boss (Figure 2), and an axial external part (figure 2) comprising at least one radial fluid outlet duct 8 (Figure 2) for the fluid that communicates with the channel towards its distal end, wherein: said boss forms in once piece an integrated dispensing head (figure 2), the end of the at least one radial duct opens, with one of its ends, on the outside of the boss (Figure 2) which at least one radial duct communicating, by its opposite end, with channel, is able to receive, at its end, any fluid outlet connector element 19 (Figure 2) and the channel of said boss constitutes a simple communication duct 8 (figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood by Examiner, Naulin discloses its axial central part A (Figure 2), passing through the envelope 2 (Figure 2) of said tank and itself having passing through it at least one channel (Figure 2), comprises a cylindrical part forming a protrusion beyond the radial part referred to as the internal part of the boss (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood by Examiner, Naulin discloses the axial central part comprises at least one second channel 7b (figure 5) which passes axially through this central part and which is suitable for receiving any measurement sensor (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood by Examiner, Naulin discloses the so-called axial external part (figure 2) thereof comprises at least two ducts 8 (Figure 2) arranged radially with respect to the axis XX' and distributed over the periphery of this axial external part (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 8, as best understood by Examiner, Naulin discloses a storage tank 1 (Figure 2) for pressurized fluid comprising at least one outlet boss 4 (figure 2) for this fluid.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naulin (WO2020225262) in view of Murray (U.S. Patent No. 5287988).
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood by Examiner, Naulin discloses inner lining 23 (Figure 2) covering the whole of the inner part of the envelope of the tank 2 (Figure 2), wherein the radial internal part of the boss is part of this inner lining (Figure 2), the boss being an integral part of this lining (Figure 2). Naulin does not teach the inner lining is metallic. However, Murray teaches a metal liner (Column 3, lines 27-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naulin to include the above, as taught by Murray, in order to strengthen and protect the tank.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm 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://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NATHAN JENNESS can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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.
/ELIZABETH J VOLZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3733