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 drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cup integrally formed with and sealed to the pin, as claimed in claim 4, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1, 2, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,713,850 and 12,264,781. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,713,850 and 12,264,781 anticipates claim 1 of the instant application. Accordingly, instant application claim 1 is not patentably distinct from U.S. Patent No. 11,713,850 and 12,264,781.
Here, U.S. Patent No. 11,713,850 claim 1 requires:
A nozzle assembly comprising: a valve assembly configured to be coupled to a tank, the valve assembly including a valve body having a first end, a second end, and a first passage extending therebetween, and a valve disposed in the first passage; and a regulator assembly configured to be coupled to the valve assembly, the regulator assembly including a regulator body having a first end, a second end, and a second passage extending therebetween, a nozzle coupled to the regulator body and having an outlet in communication with the second passage, a spindle having a first end disposed in the second passage and a second end surrounded by the nozzle, and a piston assembly disposed in the second passage, the piston assembly including a piston biased in a first position where the piston contacts and opens the valve, and being independently movable relative to the valve to a second position away from the valve thereby closing the valve.
Also, U.S. Patent No. 11,713,850 claim 1 requires:
A nozzle assembly comprising: a valve assembly configured to be coupled to a tank, the valve assembly including a valve body having a first end, a second end, and a first passage extending therebetween, and a valve disposed in the first passage, the valve including a pin and a first biasing member that biases the pin in a closed position; and a regulator assembly configured to be coupled to the valve assembly, the regulator assembly including a regulator body having a first end, a second end, and a second passage extending therebetween, a nozzle coupled to the regulator body and having an outlet in communication with the second passage, a spindle having a first end disposed in the second passage and a second end surrounded by the nozzle, and a piston assembly disposed in the second passage, the piston assembly including a piston biased in a first position to contact the pin thereby moving the pin to an open position to open the valve, and movable to a second position away from the valve such that the pin moves to a closed position closing the valve.
While instant application claim 1 only requires:
A nozzle assembly comprising: a valve assembly configured to be coupled to a tank, the valve assembly including a valve body having a first end, a second end, and a first passage extending therebetween, and a valve disposed in the first passage; and a regulator assembly configured to be coupled to the valve assembly, the regulator assembly including a regulator body having a first end, a second end, and a second passage extending therebetween, and a piston assembly disposed in the second passage, the piston assembly including a piston movable between a first position to contact and open the valve, and a second position away from the valve such that the valve closes, the piston being independently movable relative to the valve.
Thus it is apparent that the more specific U.S. Patent No. 11,713,850 and 12,264,781 claim 1 encompasses instant application claim 1. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the above paragraph, where Applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, Applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since instant application claim 1 is anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 11,713,850 and 12,264,781 claim 1 and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then instant application claim 1 is obvious over U.S. Patent No. 11,713,850 and 12,264,781 claim 1.
Similarly, claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of the instant application are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1, 2, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,713,850 and 12,264,781, respectively, for the same reason set forth above.
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, 2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Snyder et al. (US 10,597,221, hereafter “Snyder”).
Regarding claim 1, Snyder discloses a nozzle assembly (10) comprising: a valve assembly (20, 92) configured to be coupled to a tank (via 38), the valve assembly including a valve body (20) having a first end (the left end of 20 with reference to Fig. 4), a second end (the right end of 20 with reference to Fig. 4), and a first passage (the internal bore formed through 20) extending therebetween, and a valve (92) disposed in the first passage; and a regulator assembly (comprising at least 22, 24, 53, 54) configured to be coupled to the valve assembly, the regulator assembly including a regulator body (22) having a first end (the left end of 22 with reference to Fig. 4), a second end (the right end of 22 with reference to Fig. 4), and a second passage (the internal bore formed through 22) extending therebetween, and a piston assembly (53) disposed in the second passage, the piston assembly including a piston (53) movable between a first position (the position as shown in Fig. 4) to contact and open the valve, and a second position (the position as shown in Fig. 6) away from the valve such that the valve closes, the piston being independently movable relative to the valve.
Regarding claim 2, Snyder further discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, wherein the valve includes a pin (56) and a first biasing member (the spring directly biasing 56 within 52 as shown in Fig. 4) that biases the pin in a closed position (as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Snyder further discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, wherein the piston includes a passage (the center passage through the piston as shown in Fig. 4) through which fluid flows from the tank.
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) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder in view of Tarczewski et al. (US 2013/0284957, hereafter “Tarczewski”).
Regarding claim 5, Snyder further discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, wherein the valve body includes threads (38) on an inner surface thereof (Fig. 3) for mating with threads on an outer surface of the valve body in the first passage, but fails to disclose the valve includes threads on an outer surface thereof for mating with threads on an inner surface of the valve body in the first passage.
Tarczewski discloses a nozzle assembly which comprises multiple stages of threads to connect the nozzle assembly throughout and to the tank. (Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the threads and mating means of Snyder such that the valve body includes threads on an outer surface for mating with threads on an inner surface of the valve body in the first passage as taught by Tarczewski since the equivalence of threads and any other means for fastening is recognized for their use in the pressurized tank and nozzle art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation for making such an equivalent substitution would be to provide a simple and efficient means for fastening necessary parts to each other. (Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 8, Snyder further discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, wherein the valve body includes threads (38) on an inner surface thereof for mating with threads on an outer surface of a neck of the tank, but fails to disclose wherein the valve body includes threads on an outer surface thereof for mating with threads on an inner surface of a neck of the tank.
Tarczewski discloses a nozzle assembly which comprises multiple stages of threads to connect the nozzle assembly throughout and to the tank. (Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the threads and mating means of Snyder such that the valve body includes threads on an outer surface thereof for mating with threads on an inner surface of a neck of the tank as taught by Tarczewski since the equivalence of threads and any other means for fastening is recognized for their use in the pressurized tank and nozzle art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation for making such an equivalent substitution would be to provide a simple and efficient means for fastening necessary parts to each other.
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder in view of Stone (US 8,132,564).
Regarding claim 6, Snyder further discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the valve body includes at least one seal groove along an outer surface thereof that receives a seal for sealing to the tank.
Regarding claim 6, Snyder further discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the valve body includes at least one seal groove along an outer surface thereof that receives a seal for sealing to the tank.
Stone teaches a nozzle assembly wherein the valve body includes at least one seal groove (the groove that accommodates 41) along an outer surface thereof that receives a seal (41) for sealing to the tank.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the mating means at the first end of Snyder to include external threads and a seal groove with a seal ring as taught by Stone since the equivalence of threads and any other means for fastening is recognized for their use in the pressurized tank and nozzle art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation for making such an equivalent substitution would be to provide a simple and efficient means for fastening necessary parts to each other.
Regarding claim 9, Snyder further discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the piston includes a seal groove that receives a seal to seal the piston to the regulator body.
Stone teaches a nozzle assembly wherein the valve body includes at least one seal groove (the groove that accommodates 41) along an outer surface thereof that receives a seal (41) for sealing to the tank.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the mating means at the first end of Snyder to include external threads and a seal groove with a seal ring as taught by Stone since the equivalence of threads and any other means for fastening is recognized for their use in the pressurized tank and nozzle art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation for making such an equivalent substitution would be to provide a simple and efficient means for fastening necessary parts to each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights