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 .
Status of Claims
Receipt is acknowledged of claims, filed on 04/24/2025, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of an Information Disclosure Statement, filed 04/24/2025, which has been placed of record in the file. An initialed, signed and dated copy of the PTO-1449 or PTO-SB-08 form is attached to this Office action.
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 following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Base (claim 1)
Storage region (claim 1)
Passage (claim 1)
Actuator (claim 1)
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.
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:
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;
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
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.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,399,712 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are either anticipated by the claims of the ‘712 with only minor changes to grammar and synonyms or otherwise are an obvious variant.
Regarding claim 1, claims 1, and 9 of the ‘712 patent also claims Metering system (Col 12 lines 59-60), comprising:
a base at least partially defining a storage region, the storage region configured to hold a loose material, the base at least partially defining a cavity (Col 12 lines 61-64);
a movable component defining a passage (Col 12 lines 65-67); and
an actuator configured to move the movable component between a first position and a second position (Col 12 lines 65-67 and Col 13 lines 57-60),
when the movable component is in the first position, the cavity is in fluid communication with the storage region such that the cavity is configured to receive a portion of loose material from the storage region, and when the movable component is in the second position, the cavity is in fluid communication with the passage such that the passage is configured to receive the portion of the loose material from the cavity (Col 12 lines 65-67 to Col 13 lines 1-20).
Regarding claims 2-20, the claims are either anticipated by the claims 1-25 of the ‘712 with only minor changes to grammar and synonyms or otherwise are an obvious variant.
Claims 1-20 are further rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11447277 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are either anticipated by the claims of the ‘277 with only minor changes to grammar and synonyms or otherwise are an obvious variant.
Regarding claim 1, claims 1 of the ‘277 patent also claims Metering system (Col 12 lines 63-65), comprising:
a base at least partially defining a storage region, the storage region configured to hold a loose material, the base at least partially defining a cavity (Col 12 lines 63-67 to Col 13 lines 1-3);
a movable component defining a passage; and an actuator configured to move the movable component between a first position and a second position (Col 13 lines 4-12),
when the movable component is in the first position, the cavity is in fluid communication with the storage region such that the cavity is configured to receive a portion of loose material from the storage region, and when the movable component is in the second position, the cavity is in fluid communication with the passage such that the passage is configured to receive the portion of the loose material from the cavity (Col 13 lines 13-20 and Col 14 lines 1-22).
Regarding claims 2-20, the claims are either anticipated by the claims 1-25 of the ‘277 with only minor changes to grammar and synonyms or otherwise are an obvious variant.
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stewart (US 3718164 A).
Regarding claim 1, Stewart discloses a metering system for loose material (powder, 21; See also Abstract), the metering system comprising:
a base (Hopper 20, with base plate 10; Fig. 2) at least partially defining a storage region (interior of 10 and 20; collectively called hopper region), the storage region configured to hold a loose material (Powder, 21), the base (10) at least partially defining a cavity (11)
a movable (12) component defining a passage (13); and
an actuator (25) configured to move the movable component (12) between a first position (Closed; Fig. 3) and a second position (open; Fig. 4),
when the movable component (12) is in the first position (Fig. 3), the cavity (11) is in fluid communication with the storage region (hopper region) such that the cavity (11) is configured to receive a portion of loose material (21) from the storage region (hopper region), and
when the movable component (12) is in the second position (open; Fig. 4), the cavity (11) is in fluid communication with the passage (13) such that the passage (13) is configured to receive the portion of the loose material (21) from the cavity (11).
Stewart further discloses:
Regarding claim 3, further comprising: a plurality of walls (hopper walls) cooperating with the base (10 and 12) to define the storage region (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the plurality of walls includes a first wall, a second wall opposite the first wall, and a pair of end walls, each of the pair of end walls between the first wall and the second wall (Stewarts hopper 20 inherently includes opposing first and second walls and a pair of end walls between them to form the enclosed storage region to hold the powder, as is standard for a rectangular hopper accommodating multiple apertures; See Fig.1).
Regarding claim 5, wherein positions of the first wall and the second wall are fixed with respect to the base (Stewart’s hopper 20 walls are fixed to base plate 10).
Claim(s) 1-5, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williams (US 20120000165 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Williams discloses a metering system for loose material (“MST” [0017]), the metering system comprising:
a base (12, 14, 26) at least partially defining a storage region (feed system 50; Fig. 1A), the storage region configured to hold a loose material (“MST”), the base (12, 14, 26) at least partially defining a cavity (16)
a movable (36) component defining a passage (34, 37 and 41); and
an actuator (32) configured to move the movable component (36) between a first position (Fig. 1A) and a second position (Fig. 1B),
when the movable component (36) is in the first position (Fig. 1A), the cavity (space inside of 16) is in fluid communication with the storage region ([0024]) such that the cavity (space inside of 16) is configured to receive a portion of loose material (MST) from the storage region ([0024]), and
when the movable component (36) is in the second position (Fig. 1B), the cavity (space inside of 16) is in fluid communication with the passage (34, 37 and 41) such that the passage (34, 37 and 41) is configured to receive the portion of the loose material (MST) from the cavity (space inside of 16; [0023]-[0025]).
Williams further teaches:
Regarding claim 2, further comprising: a pressure source (via 18) configured to be fluidly connected to the cavity, the pressure source configured to facilitate movement of the portion of the loose material from the cavity through the passage ([0025]).
Regarding claim 3, further comprising: a plurality of walls (hopper walls) cooperating with the base (12, 14, 26) to define the storage region (Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the plurality of walls includes a first wall, a second wall opposite the first wall, and a pair of end walls, each of the pair of end walls between the first wall and the second wall (William hopper inherently includes opposing first and second walls and a pair of end walls between them to form the enclosed storage region to hold the MST, as is standard for a rectangular hopper accommodating multiple apertures; See Fig.A1).
Regarding claim 5, wherein positions of the first wall and the second wall are fixed with respect to the base (William’s hopper walls are fixed; Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the actuator (32) includes an electric motor or a pneumatic actuator ([0023]).
Regarding claim 20, further comprising: a source of atomized water (20; Fig. 1A) configured to be fluidly connected to the cavity (Fig. 1A; [0005] “the apparatus can also include an atomized water source for supplying water to the cavity and/or dosing tube between dosing operations so as to remove residual MST contained therein”).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weir (US 2877937 A).
Regarding claim 1, Weir discloses a metering system for loose material (“spices, flour, sugar” Col 1 lines 15-21), the metering system comprising:
a base (1) at least partially defining a storage region (fixed body member,1 installed in the container partially defines the storage region above compartments; See Col 3 lines 1-15; and Figs. 1-2 showing body 1 as base with compartments open to container storage), the storage region configured to hold a loose material (container interior above body (1) configured to hold loose material for delivery to compartments) holds lose material for deliver), the base at least partially defining a cavity (fixed body 1 defines multiple compartments (2A-2D); Fig. 4)
a movable (rotatable cap 8) component defining a passage (10); and
an actuator (manual rotation rim, 12) configured to move the movable component (8) between a first position (position where inlet 11 aligns with cavity 2B; Fig. 4) and a second position (position where inlet 11 aligns with cavity 2c/d upon rotation; Col 3 lines 1-65),
when the movable component (8) is in the first position (position where inlet 11 aligns with cavity 2B; Fig. 4), the cavity (fixed body 1 defines multiple compartments (2A-2D); Fig. 4) is in fluid communication with the storage region ([container body 1]) such that the cavity is configured to receive a portion of loose material (sugar, flour etc) from the storage region (space inside container body 1; Col 3 lines 1-65), and
when the movable component (8) is in the second position (position where inlet 11 aligns with cavity 2c/d upon rotation; Col 3 lines 1-65), the cavity (space inside container body 1) is in fluid communication with the passage (10) such that the passage (10) is configured to receive the portion of the loose material from the cavity (space inside of container body 1; Fig. 4-5).
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.
Claim 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 20120000165 A1) in view of Brown (US 3,244,328).
Regarding claim 10, Williams discloses a metering system for loose material (“MST” [0017]) including the movable component (36) is in the first position (Fig. 1A); but is silent with regards to a vacuum source configured to be fluidly connected to the cavity and facilitate movement of the portion of the loose material from the storage region to the cavity.
Brown in a related invention teaches a metering system for loose material including a vacuum source (Fig. 1) configured to be fluidly connected to the cavity and facilitate movement of the portion of the loose material from the storage region to the cavity (Col 3 lines 29-64)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metering system of Williams by incorporating a vacuum source as taught by Brown in order to increase the speed of filling.
Regarding claim 11, further comprising: a pressure source (18 of william) configured to be fluidly connected to the cavity; and a valve (Controller 30; [0005] and [0027] “for controlling the apparatus and sequencing the various components thereof”) fluidly connected to the cavity, the pressure source, and the vacuum source but Williams is silent regarding the valve being a three-way valve. Brown further teaches a manifold (19) that selectively connects vacuum and pressure sources to the cavities via implied valving or control means for switching between vacuum and pressure modes.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Williams as modified to include a three-way valve fluidly connected to the cavity, pressure source, and vacuum source, as a routine and predictable implementation of Browns manifold and/or Williams controller. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating a three way valve is a simple substitution of one known fluid control element for another. This modification would allow efficient, controlled cycling without separate connections, ensuring complete fill and discharge while maintaining uniform bulk density
Regarding claim 12, further comprising: a controller (30 of williams) configured to selectively communicate pressurized gas from the pressure source or vacuum to the cavity ([0026]-[0027] of Williams).
Claim 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (US 3718164 A) in view of Williams (US 20120000165 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Stewart discloses a metering system for loose material including the actuator as rejected in claim 1 above but is silent with regards to the actuator includes an electric motor or pneumatic actuator.
Williams in a related invention teaches a metering system for loose material wherein the actuator (32) includes an electric motor or a pneumatic actuator ([0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuator of Stewart by substitution it with pneumatic actuator as taught by Williams for simpler integration and reduced maintenance in high-speed production setting, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, actuating the movable element.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the base (10 and 20 of Stewart) defines a first cavity and a second cavity, the first cavity including the cavity (Stewart’s base plate discloses multiple apertures 11; Figs. 1-4).
Claim 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 20120000165 A1) in view of Williams (US 20110277878 A1; Hereinafter William’s ‘878).
Regarding claim 16, Williams discloses a metering system for loose material (“MST” [0017]) including the base (12, 14, 26) that defines a throughole (Fig. 1A); but is silent with regards to a pin at least partially in a through hole, and the pin cooperates with a wall of the through hole to define the cavity.
William’s ‘878 in a related invention teaches a metering system for loose material including a pin (38, Figs. 2A and 4) at least partially in a through hole, and the pin cooperates with a wall of the through hole to define the cavity ([0023] “A series of pins 38 (shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B) are fixed in each of the through holes of the lower disk 18 and extend into the aligned through holes in the metering disk 12, such that an upper screen 36 of each pin 38 forms the bottom of each of the plurality of cavities 14”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metering system of Williams by incorporating a pin as taught by William’s ‘878 in order to increase or decrease a fill volume of the cavity ([0005]).
Regarding claim 17, wherein the pin is configured to be moved to modify a volume of the cavity ([0005] and [0025] of Williams ‘828).
Regarding claim 18, Williams discloses a metering system for loose material (“MST” [0017]) including the pin and the cavity as explained above; but is silent with regards to a screen between the cavity and the pin.
William’s ‘878 in a related invention teaches a metering system for loose material including a screen (36) between the cavity and the pin (38; Fig. 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metering system of Williams by incorporating the screen as taught by William’s ‘878 in order to increase or decrease a fill volume of the cavity ([0005] and [0026]).
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (US 3718164 A) in view of Morrow et al. (US 4964546 A).
Regarding claim 19, Stewart discloses a metering system for loose material including the actuator and the movable component configured to move to the second position such that the portion of the loose material remains in the cavity (Stewart discloses the movable component 12, moves from first to second position, Figs. 3-4, retaining a measured portion of material in cavities 11 during movement) as rejected in claim 1 above but is silent with regards to wherein the movable component is configured to move excess of the loose material within the storage region during movement from the first position to the second position such that the portion of the loose material remains in the cavity.
Morrow in a related invention teaches a metering system for loose material wherein during movement of the movable component (11) from first position (Fig. 2) to discharge (second position; (Fig. 3), a means (brush, 22) dislodges and moves excess granules rearward over bin/cavity (12; Col 5 lines 1-67 and Col 6 lines 1-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sliding plate of Stewart by incorporating a brush assembly as taught by Morrow to over excess loose material back to the storage bin during movement to the second position, as this would enhance precision by dynamically preventing overfill and jamming during slide (Abstract). The combination yields predictable results, as adding a moving brush to a pre-movement blade is a simple enhancement of known leveling techniques in sliding dispensers, and combining known elements according to known methods for predictable improvements in flow control and portion accuracy. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Claim 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (US 3718164 A) in view of Williams (US 20120000165 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Stewart as modified discloses a metering system for loose material including the actuator as rejected in claim 14 above but is silent with regards to the actuator includes an electric motor or pneumatic actuator.
Williams in a related invention teaches a metering system for loose material wherein the actuator (32) includes an electric motor or a pneumatic actuator ([0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuator of Stewart by substitution it with pneumatic actuator as taught by Williams for simpler integration and reduced maintenance in high-speed production setting, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, actuating the movable element.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the base (10 and 20 of Stewart) defines a first cavity and a second cavity, the first cavity including the cavity (Stewart’s base plate discloses multiple apertures 11; Figs. 1-4).
Claim 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weir (US 2877937 A).
Regarding claim 13, Weir discloses a metering system for loose material including an actuator (manual actuator rim, 12) as rejected in claim 1 above but is silent with regards to the actuator includes an electric motor or pneumatic actuator.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to substitute an a motor actuator for a manual actuator, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, motivated by automation for consistent, hands-free operation in high volume setting. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192. Doing this yield a predictable rotational motion without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the base (base body 1 of container) defines a first cavity (2A) and a second cavity (2B-2D), the first cavity including the cavity (cavity of body 1).
Regarding claim 15, wherein in the first position (position where inlet 11 aligns with cavity 2B; Fig. 4), the passage (10) of the movable component (8) is in fluid communication with the second cavity (2c or 2D; Figs. 4-5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited. Those references not relied upon are directed mainly toward the general field of metering systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731