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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-11 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 at line 6 recites the limitation “the fluid”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 1 at line 8 recites the limitation “the seat ring”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 6 at line 2 recites the limitation “the body tube”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 7 at line 3 recites the limitation “the piston”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a piston tube”. This appears to be a duplication of the piston tube limitation from claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 recites a plug face, a limitation which was previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 11 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPub 2004/0149784 (Solignac).
In Re claim 1 Solignac in Figure 1 discloses a nozzle system which opens and closes a flow line (flow line formed inside of hollow valve stem 7) near a nozzle tip (dispensing fitting 4), characterized in that the opening and closing of the flow line near the nozzle tip is accomplished through the movement of a piston (paragraph 45), the nozzle system comprising: at least one plug slot (slot shown near lower end of valve member 6) through which fluid from a piston tube passes through a plug (fluid passes from conduit inside valve stem 7 through the slot in valve member 6), and at least one plug face that presses against and lifts off from a seat ring to open and close the flow line (hemispherical portion of valve member 6 presses seat ring 5).
In Re claim 2 Solignac discloses a gap in the seat ring through which the fluid from the flow line passes through the seat ring to reach the nozzle tip (portion of seat 5 which is open when valve member 6 is raised), creating space between the plug and the seat ring when the plug is retracted for the fluid to flow (Paragraph 49).
In Re claim 3 Solignac discloses a seat ring that as a results of the movement of the plug and seating on the plug face, allows for an opening and closing of the flow line (seating portion of element 5).
In Re claim 4 Solignac discloses a nozzle system in which a plug face diameter (end of valve element 6), is larger than the inside diameter of a seat ring (relative size of valve element 6 and seat ring 5 shown in Figure 1).
In Re claim 5 Solignac discloses a flow line which comprises the following components through which fluid to be filled passes a chamber (conduit 2 could be used for mixing), a piston (portion of 9b which extends into the flow line), a piston tube (inside of stem 7), a plug (6), a plug slot (horizontal gap in element 6 shown in Figure 1), a gap (hole in element 5), a seat ring (element 5), and a nozzle tip (4).
In Re claim 6 Solignac discloses a nozzle tip adapter that connects the nozzle tip and a body tube with each other (portion of tube element opposite nozzle 4 connects to body 1 which forms an outer tube for the fluid flow path, meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of an adapter connecting the two parts).
In Re claim 7 Solignac discloses a piston (9) and a cylinder (portion of body 1 through which piston 9 moves).
In Re claim 9 Solignac discloses a chamber (element 2) which could be used to mix the fluid.
In Re claim 10 Solignac discloses a piston tube (inside of stem 7) through which fluid passes until it reaches the plug.
In Re claim 11 Solignac discloses a plug face (lower end of element 6) which presses against an upper part of the nozzle tip (seat 5) to open and close the flow line.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solignac.
In Re claim 8 Solignac discloses many limitations, but doesn’t disclose a compressed air inlet/outlet to provide movement of the piston. Solignac relies on a generic “motor” to provide this movement (Paragraph 52).
The use of compressed air and a piston to provide a linear movement to a component was old and well known at the effective filing date of the invention.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make use of a pneumatic piston to provide the driving force for the operation of the Solignac apparatus, since the substitution of one known element for another known element to achieve predictable results requires only ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 5,255,720 discloses a nozzle system for container filling comprising a plug slot through which fluid passes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KAROL NIESZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, 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.
/JASON K NIESZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753