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 .
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Figures 1 – 18 are missing.
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1; line 4, “customer would download” should be “a customer downloads”, “adding a login” should be “add a login”.
In line 6, “Purchasing” is narrative;
In lines 7 and 8, “to customer” should be “to the customer”;
In line 9, “location. All tanks” should be “location; all tanks have”;
In line 10, “a autofill” should be “an autofill”;
In line 11, “Setting Up Dispensing System at Dispensing Locations” is narrative and wording should not be capitalized.
In lines 14 – 16, “dispensing tanks with storage within the main enclosure, distribution tank has bottom flange connecting attachments fill lines, regulator, valves and sits on a distribution tank pedestal” is narrative and grammatically incorrect.
In line 25, “with a with a dispenser” is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 1 is replete with similar narrative language too numerous to point out in this office action, and should be corrected.
Regarding claim 2; line 1, “The purchasing system” should be “The dispensing system”;
line 2, “purchase” should be “purchasing”. The claim is narrative.
Regarding claim 3; line 1, “The purchasing system” should be “The dispensing system”;
line 2, “purchase” should be “purchasing”. The claim is narrative.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is narrative.
Regarding claim 5, “The propane tank filling apparatus” should be “The dispensing system”. The claim is narrative and contains periods (.).
Regarding claim 6, “The dispensing tank” should be “The dispensing system”; “has open” should be “has an open”; “allow motorized” should be “allow a motorized”.
Regarding claim 7, “The user propane storage tank” should be “The dispensing system”.
Regarding claim 8, “The access door” should be “The dispensing system”.
Regarding claim 9, “The user propane tank moving system” should be “The dispensing system”.
Regarding claim 10, “The placement apparatus…” should be “The dispensing system”.
Regarding claim 11, “The distribution tank” should be “The dispensing system”.
Regarding claim 12, “The main enclosure” should be “The dispensing system”.
Regarding claim 13, “The storage and placement system” should be “The dispensing system”.
Regarding claim 14, “The user tank storage and placement system” should be “The dispensing system”.
Regarding claim 15, “The user propane tank storage and placement system” should be “The dispensing system”.
Regarding claim 16, “The main enclosure system” should be “The dispensing system”. “17” should be deleted.
Regarding claim 17, “The carousel” should be “The dispensing system”.
Regarding claim 18, “A side door delivery with the main enclosure” should be “The dispensing system”. The “user tanks” should be “user propane tanks”.
Regarding claim 19, “A user tank delivery system” should be “The dispensing system”. The “tanks” should be the “user propane tanks”.
Regarding claim 20, “The user propane tank storage system” should be “The dispensing system”. The “tanks” should be the “user propane tanks”.
Regarding claim 21, “The user propane tank storage system” should be “The dispensing system”. “can be” should be “are”.
Regarding claim 22, “The user tank storage system” should be “The dispensing system”.
Claims 1 – 22 should be corrected for similar objected to matter and incorrect grammatical language.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 – 22 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only.
Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is a mix of an apparatus and method claim. If Applicant intends to claim an apparatus, the claims should define the structure of the apparatus and include functional language. If Applicant intends to claim a method, steps of using the dispensing system should be defined.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “distribution tank”, in line 14, "the users propane storage tanks" in line 22; “the exit point”, “the placement apparatus”, in line 29; “the automated system”, line 31; “the entry door” and “the start button”, line 35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Multiple sentences make up the claim should be corrected to read as a single sentence.
Regarding claim 1, the phrases "such as", “which also can”, “which may be”, etc… renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 recites the limitation, “dispensing station”, lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation, “the dispensing station”, line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation, “the tank”, line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation, “each carousel”, line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Multiple sentences make up the claim and should be corrected to read as a single sentence.
Claim 6 recites the limitation, “motorized drawer”, line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is made up of multiple sentences and should be corrected to read as a single sentence.
Claim 9 recites the limitation, “the exit pass-through open slot”, line 7, and “each carousel, lines 7 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Multiple sentences make up the claim and should be corrected to read as a single sentence.
Claim 10 recites the limitation, “the standard user propane tank base”, lines 2 and 3, “the holder” and “the storage system”, line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation, “the storage system”, line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation, “the user input” and “the dispensing point”, lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation, “the dispensing point”, lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation, “the carousel”, line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation, “the slide mechanism”, line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation, “the dispensing point”, line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 10-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tilhof (10738943).
Regarding claim 1, the Tilhof reference discloses a propane gas dispensing system, comprising: Setting up an account; customer would download an app, create an account, adding a login, password, two- step authentication and payment information (i.e., mobile phone and/or other electronic ways; see col. 5, lines 35 – 38 and col. 8, lines 61-67);
Purchasing;
when a user propane tank (3) is filled, a confirmation code is emailed or texted to
customer, these steps may also be completed at a built-in display (4) at a dispensing location (Fig. 1). All tanks have an RFID # for identification and also to ensure that the user propane tank is properly filled by a autofill dispenser (see col. 6, lines 16-21);
Setting Up Dispensing System at Dispensing Locations;
Utilizing a self-contained main enclosure (2) to hold all components comprising;
a structural frame (17);
dispensing tanks with storage within the main enclosure, distribution tank (16) has bottom flange connecting attachments fill lines (26), regulator, valves (27) and sits on a distribution tank pedestal;
measuring and communication equipment (reading device, weighing machine 13 and sensors; see col. 8, lines 16-33 and 61-67) incorporated into the dispensing tank;
a storage location within a main enclosure (see col. 11, lines 2-5) for multiple new user propane tanks;
placement apparatus for placing the user propane tank accessible to users;
a user propane tank moving system (see col. 8, lines 34-47);
an access door covering the entry point of the placement apparatus (see col. 9, lines 22-27); a robotic picker system (6) that places the users propane storage tanks in position to be filled and removes the user propane storage tank after it is filled to a user tank movement system (8); automatic filling of the user propane tanks, [with a] with a dispenser tank with dispensing connection (7) that automatically connects to the user propane tank; an exit location where user propane storage tanks can be released once filled; secure storage device (grip arms) that will release one user propane tank at a time; an access door (fire door) covering the exit point of the placement apparatus;
an autofill nozzle (7) for cases where it is not practical to insert a user propane tank into
the automated system, such as with some RV applications, the autofill nozzle, autofill
valve are also available on the distribution tank and the amount dispensed is incorporated into the billing;
wherein the user simply put a user propane tank, new or used, into a fixed placement apparatus inside the entry door, closes the door and pushes the start button and retrieves a tank from the exit location;
a code entry system for people who purchase with their cell phone; and a payment system (4), which also can issue codes, located at the main enclosure for refilling tanks and includes a credit card reader system (see col. 5, lines 35-38);
a control system (see col. 7, lines 1-26), which may be one or more controllers, the control system consisting of a start button, moving the user propane tank placement apparatus to a location where a robotic picker (6) can pick up the user storage device, a sensor device that notifies the dispenser that the user propane tank is in the proper position (see col. 6, lines 36-46), activates the user propane tank device filling procedure, measures the amount of propane dispensed (weighing machine 13), disconnects the user propane tank dispenser system, activates the user propane tank movement system to move the user propane tank to the exit position, which once the user propane tank reaches that position activates a signal for the user to take the user propane tank away, and the control system then calculates a billing amount, prepares an invoice and sends it to the card reader or a central payment processing site (see col. 6, line 52 – col. 7, line 25).
Regarding claim 7, see col. 6, lines 16 – 23 and lines 54 – 67.
Regarding claim 10, see col. 10, lines 1-12.
Regarding claim 11, the Tilhof distribution tank (16) is integral to the structure, but it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the distribution tank (16) at a remote location, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 12, suction head (9) removes gas that is leaked and leftover gas within the bottle. See col. 7, lines 35 – 47.
Regarding claim 16, the structure in Figure 3 can be construed as a “building”.
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.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tilhof.
Regarding claim 8, the Tilhof reference discloses the invention (discussed supra), but doesn’t disclose the door being a Plexiglas window with an opaque plastic bezel and opening upward. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to employ an upward opening door as defined above on the Tilhof device, since applicant has not disclosed that the above defined door solves any stated problem and it appears that the invention would perform equally with or without the defined door.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 9, 13-15 and 17-22 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Jacques et al. (FR2714146) reference discloses an automatic gas bottle filling system (Fig. 1) having a carousel (4), conveyors (5, 6) and identification elements.
The Kosaka (EP0661493) reference discloses an automatic gas bottle filling system (Fig. 1) having a carousel (A), conveyors (1, 2), control panel (B) and programmable control means (15, 33).
The Kurutepe et al. (EP1998100) reference discloses an automatic gas cylinder filling system (Fig. 1) having a carousel (10), reading station (2) to read an information card on the cylinder, camera (3), conveyor (11), and scale (14).
The Tilhof (10738943) reference discloses an automatic gas cylinder filling system (Figure 1) having a payment device (4), turntable (5), robot (6), filling head (7), interior room (2), leakage test head (11), weighing machine (13) and a door (unlabeled).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753