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 .
Response to Amendments
As a result of a telephonic interview with the Examiner, Applicant filed a supplemental amendment on 27 February 2026 to the claims to conform to conventional US practice and to remove preferences.
By this Amendment, the Applicant amended Claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, and 13-15, and added Claims 16-21. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 was amended, and Claim 20 was added in the supplemental filing of 27 February 2026. Claims 14 and 20 are both dependent upon Claim 13, and are presented below in their entirety for comparison purposes:
14. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 13, further comprising: adjusting an injection angle of fluid injected into the interior volume of the tank via the injection element in dependence of the position of the inner pipe.
20. (New) The method according to claim 13, further comprising: adjusting an injection angle of fluid injected into the interior volume of the tank via the injection element dependence of the position of the outlet end of the inner pipe.
It appears that the subject matter of Claims 14 and 20 are identical (Examiner ignores the apparent typographical error of Claim 20). Since both claims depend upon Claim 13, Examiner recommends cancellation of Claim 20. However, clarification is requested should Applicant decline to delete the claim.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “injection element” of all claims, interpreted as “any concentric piping arrangement”, as described at least at pg. 2, lines 19-20 of Applicant’s specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim requires “wherein an opening is provided in the wall of the tank for each injection element, and wherein each of the openings is configured to be at least partially blocked by a cover element.” However,
- Antecedent, independent Claim 9 only establishes a single injection element. The “each injection element” clause of Claim 10 renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear how many of these components are required.
- Claim 10 established “an opening”, but further modifies “each opening”, indicating plural openings (for plural injection elements). This renders the claim indefinite as it is also unclear how many “openings” are required.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stover et al. (US 6,662,828).
In the present office action, the claims are presented in the order of dependence as filed by Applicant, and not in numerical order.
Regarding Claim 1, Stover et al. discloses an injection element for injecting a fluid into a tank, comprising:
- an outer pipe (Fig 1, and at least Col 9, lines 26-35, outer nozzle 94) and an inner pipe (inner nozzle 100) arranged at least partially inside the outer pipe (94),
- wherein the inner pipe (100) is extractable at least partially out of an outlet end of the outer pipe (the Stover reference teaches block 72 as comprising concentric outer nozzle 94, telescoping nozzle 106, and inner nozzle 100. The reference further teaches driving arm 28 moving both items 106 and 100 away from block 72 into bottle 18, and further teaches item 106 extending even further into bottle 18. See the movement of the aforementioned items at Figs 2-5, and an extensive explanation at least at Col 9, line 26- Col 11 line 20),
- wherein an inlet end of the outer pipe (94) is configured to be connected with a fluid providing device (see Fig 2, Examiner's annotations),
- wherein the outer pipe (94) is configured to be arranged mainly outside (shown at Figs 2-5) of an interior volume of the tank (18) and the outlet end of the outer pipe (94) is configured to be connected (via bottle guide 18, see at least Figs 2-5 and Col 11, line 63 -Col 12, line 7) with an opening in a wall of the tank (18), and
- wherein the injection element is configured to be in fluid communication (see Figs 3-5) with the tank (18) regardless of extraction of the inner pipe (100).
PNG
media_image1.png
1090
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
934
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Stover et al. discloses an injection element for injecting a fluid into a tank, wherein the injection element is configured such that a position of an outlet end of the inner pipe (100) is adjustable relative to the outlet end of the outer pipe (94) and/or relative to the wall of the tank (18) and/or relative to a circumference of the tank (18) and/or relative to a center of the tank (18). See Examiners explanation in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Figs 2-5, and Col 9, line 26- Col 11 line 20.
Regarding Claim 2, Stover et al. discloses an injection element for injecting a fluid into a tank, wherein the outer pipe (94) is configured to be arranged such that the outer pipe (94) does not project (as shown at Figs 2-5) through the wall of the tank (18) into the interior volume of the tank (18),
and wherein,
- in a first state (Fig 2), the inner pipe (100) does not project through the wall of the tank (18) into the interior volume of the tank (18), and
- in a second state (Figs 3-5), in which the inner pipe (100) is at least partially extracted out of the outlet end of the outer pipe (94), the inner pipe (100) projects at least partially through the wall of the tank (18) into the interior volume of the tank (18).
Regarding Claim 3, Stover et al. discloses an injection element for injecting a fluid into a tank, wherein the outer pipe (94) is configured to be arranged such that, in the first state, the outlet end of the outer pipe and/or an outlet end of the inner pipe (100) are arranged flush with an inner surface of the wall of the tank (18). The Stover reference teaches insertion of the inner pipe 100 into tank 18 via driving arm 28, and additionally teaches (see Col 13, lines 16-18) "the depth of the nozzle in the bottle 18 may be adjusted by moving the bumper stud 78 up or down." Examiner broadly interprets these teachings as being "configured" to align the outlet end of the inner pipe (100) flush with the inner surface of the wall of the tank 18. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art could just simply stop the movement of inner nozzle 100 once it is flush with tank 18.
Regarding Claim 4, Stover et al. discloses an injection element for injecting a fluid into a tank, wherein a flow pattern of a fluid flow inside the interior volume of the tank (18) is adjustable by moving the inner pipe (100) relative to the outer pipe (94). As shown above in the rejection of Claim 1, Stover et al. teaches inner nozzle 100 moving into the interior of bottle 18. Examiner broadly considers this teaching as reading upon Claim 4, as the flow pattern would inherently be "adjusted" based upon any movement of the outlet of nozzle 100.
Regarding Claim 5, Stover et al. discloses an injection element for injecting a fluid into a tank, wherein the injection element is configured such that a position of the inner pipe (100) is adjustable relative to the outlet end of the outer pipe (94) and/or relative to the wall of the tank (18) and/or relative to a circumference of the tank (18) and/or relative to a center of the tank (18). See Examiners explanation in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Figs 2-5, and Col 9, line 26- Col 11 line 20.
Regarding Claim 11, Stover et al. discloses A method of operating a tank having an injection element according to claim 1, the method comprising:
- in a first state (Fig 2), controlling the injection element such that the inner pipe (100) of the injection element does not project through the wall of the tank (18) into the interior volume of the tank (18), and
- in a second state (Figs 3-5), controlling the injection element such that the inner pipe (100) of the injection element projects at least partially into the interior volume of the tank (18).
Regarding Claim 12, Stover et al. discloses A method of operating a tank having an injection element according to claim 1, further comprising: adjusting a flow pattern of a fluid flow inside the interior volume of the tank (18) by moving the inner pipe (100) relative to the outer pipe (94). As shown above in the rejection of Claim 1, Stover et al. teaches inner nozzle 100 moving into the interior of bottle 18. Examiner broadly considers this teaching as reading upon Claim 12, as the flow pattern would inherently be "adjusted" based upon any movement of the outlet of nozzle 100.
Regarding Claim 19, Stover et al. discloses A method of operating a tank having an injection element according to claim 1, further comprising: adjusting a position of the outlet end of the inner pipe (100), relative to an outlet end of the outer pipe (94) and/or relative to the wall of the tank (18) and/or relative to a circumference of the tank (18) and/or relative to a center of the tank (18). See Examiner's explanation in the rejection of Claim 1 above, and Figs 2-5 and Col 9, line 26 - Col 11 line 20.
Regarding Claim 13, Stover et al. discloses A method of operating a tank having an injection element according to claim 1, further comprising: adjusting a position of the inner pipe (100) relative to an outlet end of the outer pipe (94) and/or relative to the wall of the tank (18) and/or relative to a circumference of the tank (18) and/or relative to a center of the tank (18). See Examiner's explanation in the rejection of Claim 1 above, and Figs 2-5 and Col 9, line 26 - Col 11 line 20.
Regarding Claim 9, Stover et al. discloses a tank arrangement, comprising:
- a tank (18) and at least one injection element (10) for injecting a fluid into a tank (18),
- wherein the injection element comprises an outer pipe (94) and an inner pipe (100) arranged at least partially inside the outer pipe (94),
- wherein the inner pipe (100) is extractable at least partially out of an outlet end of the outer pipe (94),
- wherein an inlet end of the outer pipe (94) is configured to be connected with a fluid providing device (see Fig 2, Examiner's annotations),
- wherein the outer pipe (94) is configured to be arranged mainly outside (shown at Figs 2-5) of an interior volume of the tank (18) and the outlet end of the outer pipe (94) is configured to be connected (via bottle guide 18, see at least Figs 2-5 and Col 11, line 63 -Col 12, line 7) with an opening in a wall of the tank (18), and
- wherein the injection element is configured to be in fluid communication (see Figs 3-5) with the tank (18) regardless of extraction of the inner pipe (100). Please see Examiner's rejection of Claim 1 above, Figs 1-5, and Col 9, line 26 - Col 11, line 20).
Regarding Claim 10, Stover et al. discloses a tank arrangement, wherein an opening (Fig 2, Examiner's annotations) is provided in the wall of the tank (18) for each injection element, and wherein each of the openings is configured to be at least partially blocked by a cover element (bottle 18 is "configured" to be blocked/covered by a threadable cap, as clearly shown by the threads in Fig 2).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 6, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stover et al.
Regarding Claim 6, Stover et al. discloses an injection element for injecting a fluid into a tank, comprising at least two injection elements according to claim 1, wherein the at least two injection elements are configured to be arranged at predetermined positions relative to the wall of the tank (18).
Although the Stover reference teaches a single "injection element" 10 to fill a single "tank" 18, one of ordinary skill in the art would simply duplicate the injection element 10 (if desired) to achieve the structure of Applicant's Claim 6. The court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the present case, duplicating injection element 10 would have the predictable result of faster filling (if desired) of tank 18. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 15, Stover et al. discloses A method of operating a tank having an injection element according to claim 1, further comprising: designing dimensions of the injection element, comprising a length of the outer pipe (94) and the inner pipe (100) and/or a shape and size of a cross section of the outer pipe (94) and the inner pipe (100) and/or a radius of curvature of the outer pipe (94) and the inner pipe (100), in dependence of the tank (18) and/or in dependence of a desired hydraulic behavior in the interior volume of the tank (18).
Although the Stover reference does not discuss relative dimensions of the disclosed invention, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. In the present case, Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct (e.g., "design") the device of the Stover reference to the appropriate dimensions for the specific task at hand.
Regarding Claim 18, Stover et al. discloses a tank (18) arrangement comprising: a tank wall (tank 18 inherently has a "wall"; see also Examiner's annotations at Fig 2) and the injection system according to claim 6 (see the rejection of Claim 6 above).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stover et al. as modified above, and in further view of KR 20210094221 A (identified by Applicant on the Information Disclosure Statement filed 29 January 2025).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, the Stover reference as modified above teaches the claimed invention, to include an injection system comprising multiple injection elements for injecting a fluid into a tank (see the rejections of Claims 1 and 6 above), but is silent on said injection system
- comprising an injection element row with at least two injection elements arranged in a vertical row relative to the wall of the tank, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 8, or
- comprising at least two injection element rows wherein each injection row comprises at least two injection elements and the at least two injection element rows are arranged at predetermined positions relative to a circumference of the wall of the tank, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 17.
KR 20210094221 A, however, teaches the limitations of both Claims 8 and 17, notably an injection element row (see at least Fig. 6, item 200) with at least two injection elements (“spraying elements” 210) arranged in a vertical row relative to the wall of the tank (100), wherein each injection row (200) comprises at least two injection elements (210) and the at least two injection element rows are arranged at predetermined positions relative to a circumference of the wall of the tank (clearly shown at Fig 6). See also at least paras 26-32 in the Espacenet English translation of the disclosure.
Stover et al. and the ‘221 reference above each teach injecting fluid into a tank. The 221 reference additionally teaches the ability to inject fluid into the tank from multiple locations, angles, and velocities according to the type of fish kept within the tank, useful for mitigating stagnation of the water within the tank. It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the injection elements of the Stover reference in the manner as taught by the ‘221 reference, in order to gain the advantages of controlling injection angles and velocities while also mitigating stagnation of the water within the tank.
PNG
media_image3.png
930
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 14 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stover et al., in view of Nelson (US 2007/0193956).
Regarding Claims 14 and 20, Stover et al. teaches the claimed invention, to include a method of operating a tank having an injection element according to claim 1, but is silent on said method further comprising: adjusting an injection angle of fluid injected into the interior volume of the tank via the injection element in dependence of the position of the inner pipe.
Nelson, however, teaches adjusting an injection angle of fluid injected into the interior volume of the tank (para 52: "The present protein skimmers can be constructed for installation on the interior or exterior of a tank (usually an aquarium tank)") via the injection element (injection nozzles) in dependence of the position of the inner pipe (100).
Specifically, Nelson teaches ("exemplary injection nozzles" at Figs 5 and 6, and para 141.
Neslon also teaches (see paras 56-59) using injection nozzles to produce "turbulent mixing, while also typically producing circulation" (para 56) wherein said circulation is "enhanced by proper direction of the injector stream" (para 57).
Nelson additionally teaches (para 57) " A preferred angle can depend on injection velocity, stream injector diameter, size of mixing chamber, and location and shape of baffles, as well as other factors", and (para 58) "the user can adjust the injection angle, e.g., based on visual examination of circulation pattern... In certain embodiments, the injector angle is adjusted to create upper and a lower counterrotating circulation patterns or side-by-side counter-rotating circulation patterns.".
Examiner interprets these teachings of Nelson as reading upon Applicant's claim.
The Stover and Nelson references each teach injecting fluid into a tank. The Nelson reference additionally teaches angling the injected fluid in order to achieve turbulent mixing, thereby preventing fluid stagnation, which is desirable for most fluids. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the injection apparatus of Stover et al. by adding the angling mechanisms as taught by Nelson, in order to gain the advantages of producing turbulent mixing and preventing fluid stagnation.
Regarding Claim 21, Stover et al. teaches the claimed invention, to include a method of operating a tank having an injection element according to claim 1, but is silent on said method further comprising adjusting a circular speed of the fluid in the tank in dependence of an injection angle of fluid injected into the interior volume of the tank via the injection element.
Nelson, however, teaches adjusting a circular speed of the fluid in the tank (para 52 teaches a tank as shown above in the rejections of Claims 14 and 20) in dependence of an injection angle of fluid injected into the interior volume of the tank via the injection element. Please see Examiner's rationale presented in the rejections of Claims 14 and 20 above, Figs 5-6, and paras 52 and 56-59.
Additionally, Nelson teaches (para 99) that adjustment of the injector nozzle angle "can also alter the stream velocity".
The Stover and Nelson references each teach injecting fluid into a tank. The Nelson reference additionally teaches angling the injected fluid in order to achieve turbulent mixing, thereby preventing fluid stagnation, which is desirable for most fluids. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the injection apparatus of Stover et al. by adding the angling mechanisms as taught by Nelson, in order to gain the advantages of producing turbulent mixing and preventing fluid stagnation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious an injection element for injecting a fluid into a tank, comprising at least two injection elements according to claim 1, wherein the at least two injection elements are configured to be arranged at predetermined positions relative to the wall of the tank (per Claim 6), configured such that the inner pipes of the at least two injection elements are simultaneously extractable at least partially out of the corresponding outlet ends of the outer pipes of the at least two injection elements, as further required by Claim 7.
Specifically, Examiner concludes that although it would have been obvious to merely duplicate an injection element, as shown above in the rejection of Claim 6, it would not have been obvious without impermissible hindsight to further modify said injection element(s) to achieve the configuration required by Claim 7. There would be no obvious reason to further modify the Stover reference to achieve these configurations, and doing so would like “break” the workings of the Stover reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- US 6315012 B1 teaches “an apparatus for introducing a fluid into a container (and) includes a supply leading into the interior of the container…the supply is in the form of a telescopic tube which can be extended by the pressure of the fluid into the interior of the container and is mounted above the highest level in the container.”
- US 20100154717 A1 teaches many elements of the currently claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753