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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 02/19/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE 102024104627.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “closure means is designed for dissipating electrostatic charges of the liquid” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 10, 12, and 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 10 recites the limitation "the dip tube". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the axial direction” and “the top of the dip tube". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitations "The dispensing system according to claim 9” and “the dispensing head". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub Non. 2005/0082076 (Przytulla et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1 and 2a-2c, Przytulla et al. discloses: A container (10) for storing a liquid (“liquid” paragraph 0038), with a container opening (see fig. 2b) and with a closure means (18 and 34) designed for closing the container opening, characterized in that the closure means is designed for dissipating electrostatic charges of the liquid in that it is made of electrically dissipative material (paragraphs 0038 and 0052).
[AltContent: textbox (Dip Tube Head/ Opening)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
778
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
779
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Przytulla et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the closure means is a closure stopper (18).
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Przytulla et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the closure means (18) is designed such that it can be opened with a grounded tool (i.e. any tool used to remove closure 18 and/or 34 for venting/emptying/filling can be a grounded tool and not affect the structure of the closure/container of Przytulla et al.).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended (i.e. for opening with a grounded tool) to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II.
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Przytulla et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein in that the closure means consists of plastic containing electrically conductive particles (“parts are made of electroconductive plastic material, e.g. additives like TiO2, nano-clay, soot, nano-composite, metal fibers” paragraph 0052).
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Przytulla et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein in that the conductive particles are soot or carbon particles (“soot” paragraph 0052).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Przytulla et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein in that it has an outer layer (12) consisting of electrically dissipative material and an inner layer (14) consisting of electrically insulating material (paragraph 0038).
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Przytulla et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the closure means (18) is electrically conductively connected to the outer layer (12) (paragraph 0040).
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Przytulla et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein an element made of electrically conductive or electrically dissipative material (tube 16, paragraph 0048) is present, which is connected electrically conductively to the outer layer (12) consisting of electrically dissipative material (paragraph 0038) which protrudes into the container (16 protrudes into container) and can be brought into contact with the liquid (paragraph 0038).
In re claim 9, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Przytulla et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein it has a dip tube (16) consisting of electrically dissipative material (paragraph 0038).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Przytulla et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the dip tube (16) is the element.
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Przytulla et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the dip tube (16) has a dip tube head mounted in the container opening and in that an opening of the dip tube head can be closed off using the closure means (18 and 34 considered as closure means), whereby the container opening is closed off (see Fig. 2a above).
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Przytulla et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the dip tube (16) has a liquid channel (shown hollow in Figs. 2a and 2c) running in the axial direction (e.g. vertically in Figs. 2a and 2c), wherein the opening out of the liquid channel on the top of the dip tube forms the opening that can be closed off using the closure means (see Figs. 2a and 2c).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Przytulla et al. as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,957,328 (Osgar hereinafter).
In re claim 13, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Przytulla et al. discloses A dispensing system with at least one container according to claim 1, but not characterized in that a dispense head is present that is designed for filling the container with liquid and/or for dispensing liquid from the container.
However, Osgar teaches a liquid chemical dispensing system wherein a dispense head (14) is present that is designed for filling the container with liquid and/or for dispensing liquid from the container (column 4, lines 36-41).
PNG
media_image3.png
734
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided a dispense head as taught by Osgar to the system of Przytulla et al. for the purposes of facilitating filling/emptying of the liquid contents to/from the container in a controllable fashion.
In re claim 14, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Przytulla et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the dispense head (Osgar 14) can be connected to the container opening while the closure means (i.e. at 34 of Przytulla et al. and/or closure 30 of Osgar) is released.
In re claim 15, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Przytulla et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the dispense head can be connected to the dip tube while the closure means is released (see Osgar Fig. 1 above and column 4, teaches removal of closure to mount dispense head to dip tube, lines 36-41).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US PG Pub No. 2016/0257460 to Tomlinson discloses a static dissipating downtube and valve formed of electrically conductive plastic (see Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733