Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/028,786

DROPPER SYSTEM WITH PRE-POSITIONED WIPER

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jan 17, 2025
Examiner
ARNETT, NICOLAS ALLEN
Art Unit
3753
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Bottle Barons LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
841 granted / 1039 resolved
+10.9% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1068
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
35.9%
-4.1% vs TC avg
§102
27.5%
-12.5% vs TC avg
§112
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1039 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 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. Currently, no claim limitation is being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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 2-15 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 and 3 each recite the limitation "the annular gap". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites an “annular recess” and it appears that “the annular gap” refers to this recess. However, consistent terminology must be used. Claims 4-15 are dependent from claim 2, either directly or indirectly and are rejected on the same grounds. 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 4,768,682 to Friedrich (Friedrich). Regarding claim 1, Friedrich discloses a dropper system (title/abstract) comprising: a bulb , wherein the bulb (42) comprises: a body of the bulb (Fig. 3 shows the body of the bulb 42), wherein the body of the bulb comprises: a closed end (closed upper end); an open end (bottom open end) opposing the closed end; and a cavity extending between the closed end and the open end (the interior space of the bulb); a collar (see Figs. 3 and 4; at the bottom of the bulb 42 is an extending portion in the shape of a collar into which pipette 44 is inserted) extending axially from the open end of the body (Fig. 4), wherein the collar comprises: a pipette coupling member (the section of the collar including groove 48) that is recessed into an inner surface of the collar (shown in Fig. 4), wherein the pipette coupling member is configured to retain at least a portion of a pipette proximate the cavity of the body (pipette 44 is inserted into the coupling member of the collar with rib 46 seated into the coupler 48, the pipette being proximate the cavity of the bulb; Fig. 4); wherein the inner surface is tapered between the pipette coupling member and an opening of the collar (as shown in Fig. 4 there are at least two tapered sections of the inner surface between the pipette coupling and an opening of the collar; near the upper end of pipette 44, the inner surface is tapered and the lower end of groove 48 is tapered); and a flange (50) that extends radially from an outer surface of the collar (Fig. 4), wherein the flange comprises: a lip (54) protruding axially about a perimeter of the flange such that an annular recess (the recess is the space formed between flange 50, ring 54, and edge 56; see Fig. 4) is formed between the outer surface of the collar and the lip (Fig. 4). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 16 is allowed. Claims 2-15 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. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the cited documents disclose various droppers which include a wiper. However, none of the documents disclose the wiper is pre-positioned around a collar of a bulb with a flange of the wiper positioned within a gap of the collar such that when the dropper is inserted into a bottle, the wiper engages the neck of the bottle and remains inserted into the bottle when the dropper is withdrawn therefrom. In the cited documents, the wipers are inserted into the neck of the bottle separately from the dropper rather than being positioned in the bottle by the dropper. The examiner finds no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the cited documents to include the claimed configuration, absent the teachings of Applicant’s disclosure. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLAS A ARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M- F, 8AM - 3PM. 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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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. /NICOLAS A ARNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753 March 10, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 17, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Apr 14, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569915
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTING RAW MATERIAL POWDER TO A PLURALITY OF ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING MACHINES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570517
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MONITORING FLUID OR MATERIAL TRANSFER INTO A RECEIVING TANK OR RECEPTACLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566021
SELF-METERING FLUID DISPENSING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12557736
System, method and apparatus for filling a feed mixer
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12552657
STERILE FILLING METHOD FOR ADDITIVE PRODUCT CONTAINERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+20.9%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1039 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month