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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 13-14 and 18-19 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 13 requires “one or more bayonet pins”, “one or more L-shaped channels”, and “a hitch or detent” in lines 1-4. These structures have already been introduced in claim 7, from which claim 13 depends, therefore it is unclear if the applicant is introducing new structure or referring to structure already claimed. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as referring to structure already claimed.
Claim 14 requires “one or more bayonet pins”, “one or more L-shaped channels”, and “a hitch or detent” in lines 1-4. These structures have already been introduced in claim 7, from which claim 13 depends, therefore it is unclear if the applicant is introducing new structure or referring to structure already claimed. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as referring to structure already claimed.
Claim 18 requires “one or more bayonet pins”, and “one or more L-shaped channels” in lines 1-3. These structures have already been introduced in claim 16, from which claim 13 depends, therefore it is unclear if the applicant is introducing new structure or referring to structure already claimed. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as referring to structure already claimed.
Claim 19 requires “one or more bayonet pins”, and “one or more L-shaped channels” in lines 1-3. These structures have already been introduced in claim 7, from which claim 13 depends, therefore it is unclear if the applicant is introducing new structure or referring to structure already claimed. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as referring to structure already claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisch et. al (US 2002/0164554 A1) in view of Affleck (US 3,749,270) and further in view of Millard (US 3,394,836).
With respect to claim 7 Kisch discloses a canister system, comprising: a canister [reference character 12] adapted to contain a liquid therein [Page 1, Paragraph 4], the canister having an opening [Figures 1 and 3, inner portion of Canister Neck 20 defines an opening, Page 2, Paragraph 20], the opening defined by a boss [reference character 20] extending from a surface of the canister; a wick [reference character 24] disposed through the opening and adapted to be in contact with the liquid; a sealing ring or gasket [reference character 90] disposed on a surface of the cap or on the surface of the canister, wherein the sealing ring or the gasket is sized to be compressed between the surface of the cap and the surface of the canister when the cap is attached to the boss; and a cap [reference character 26] that securely and removably attaches to the boss and covers the wick by a press and twist child-resistant fit [paragraph 0044]. Finally, Kisch discloses that the ring or gasket creates a force that pushes the cap away from the surface of the canister1.
Kisch discloses a push and twist type closure, however, Kisch does not disclose a cap that securely and removably attaches to the boss and covers the wick, wherein the cap securely and removably attaches to the boss by
a mechanism of attachment selected from the group consisting of: one or more bayonet pins extending inwardly from
an internal surface of the cap and cooperating with one or more L-shaped channel disposed on an external surface of
the boss, and one or more bayonet pins extending outwardly from the external surface of the boss and cooperating with one or more L-shaped channel disposed on the internal surface of the cap, wherein each L-shaped recess comprises a hitch or detent configured to trap the bayonet pin behind the hitch or detent to prevent inadvertent rotation
of the cap.
Affleck discloses a child resistant bottle with a push and twist type closure that includes a cap [reference character 7] that securely and removably attaches to a boss [the neck of bottle 11], wherein the cap securely and removably attaches to the boss by a mechanism of attachment selected from the group consisting of: one or more bayonet pins [reference character 8] extending inwardly from an internal surface of the cap and cooperating with one or more L-shaped channels [see annotated Fig. below] disposed on an external surface of the boss wherein each L-shaped recess comprises a hitch or detent [see annotated Fig. below] configured to trap the bayonet pin behind the hitch or detent to prevent inadvertent rotation of the cap [see column 2 lines 63-column 3 line 8]. Affleck additionally discloses a ring or gasket creates a force that pushes the cap away from the surface of the canister [see column 2 lines 55-67].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the canister system of Kisch with the child-resistant cap as seen in Affleck. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as child-resistant caps are well known ways to seal a container and prevent inadvertent removal.
Kisch does not disclose that the seal formed by the sealing ring or gasket is airtight.
Millard teaches making an airtight seal (Seals 108, 110) to prevent fuel spillage (Columns 4-5, Lines 23-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
canister system of Kisch by making the fuel retention seal of Kisch airtight as taught by Millard. One of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to better prevent fuel spillage from the canister
during shipping and handling, as well as to better enhance flame extinguishing function of the cap of Kisch (Page 3,
Paragraph 38). By providing a seal that is airtight, no air can get to the flame and extinguishing is ensured. Furthermore, Millard teaches sealing vapors and fumes which would enhance safety as fuel vapors are flammable even if the liquid itself does not leak (Column 1, Lines 10-21).
PNG
media_image1.png
270
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 13 the combination of Kisch, Affleck, and Millard disclose that the mechanism of attachment comprises one or more bayonet pins extending inwardly from the internal surface of the cap and configured to cooperate with one or more L-shaped recesses channels disposed on the external surface of the boss, wherein each L-shaped recess channel comprises a hitch or detent configured to trap the bayonet pin behind the hitch or detent to prevent inadvertent rotation of the cap, and wherein compression of the sealing ring or the gasket creates a force that pushes the cap away from the surface of the canister and maintains the bayonet pin trapped behind the hitch or detent while maintaining the airtight seal [these limitations are repeated from claim 7, see rejection for claim 1].
With respect to claim 14 the combination of Kisch, Affleck, and Millard do not disclose that the mechanism of attachment comprises one or more bayonet pins extending outwardly from the external surface of the boss and cooperating with one or more L-shaped channels disposed on the internal surface of the cap, wherein each L-shaped channel comprises a hitch or detent configured to trap the bayonet pin behind the hitch or detent to prevent inadvertent rotation of the cap, and wherein compression of the sealing ring or the gasket creates a force that pushes the cap away from the surface of the canister and maintains the bayonet pin trapped behind the hitch or detent while maintaining the airtight seal. However, moving the pins to the boss and the channel to the cap requires an obvious rearrangement of parts of the invention, which is within the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to provide the pins on the boss and channels on the cap, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art In re Japikse. 86 USPQ 70.
With respect to claim 15 Kisch discloses a supporting rod [reference character 52] having an open-ended housing [reference character 10] disposed on an end of the supporting rod, wherein the canister is sized to be disposed within the housing so that the opening is directed away from the supporting rod [see Fig. 1].
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisch et. al (US 2002/0164554 A1) in view of Affleck (US 3,749,270) and further in view of Millard (US 3,394,836).
With respect to claim 16 Kisch discloses a cap body [reference character 26] having an internal surface and configured to securely and removably attach to a boss [reference character 20] of a canister [reference character 12]; a sealing ring or gasket [reference character 90] disposed on a surface of the cap, wherein the sealing ring or the gasket is sized to be compressed when the cap is attached to the boss. Kisch further discloses a mechanism of attachment that prevents inadvertent removal of the cap body from the boss [reference character 0044].
Kisch does not disclose that the mechanism of attachment is one or more bayonet pins extending inwardly from the internal surface of the cap body and configured to cooperate with one or more L-shaped channels disposed on an external surface of the boss, or one or more L-shaped channels disposed on the internal surface of the cap body and configured to cooperate with one or more bayonet pins extending outwardly from the external surface of the boss, wherein compression of the sealing ring or the gasket creates a force that prevents inadvertent removal of the cap from the boss while maintaining the airtight seal.
Affleck discloses a child resistant bottle with a push and twist type closure that includes a cap [reference character 7] that securely and removably attaches to a boss [the neck of bottle 11], wherein the cap securely and removably attaches to the boss by a mechanism of attachment selected from the group consisting of: one or more bayonet pins [reference character 8] extending inwardly from an internal surface of the cap and cooperating with one or more L-shaped channels [see annotated Fig. below] disposed on an external surface of the boss wherein each L-shaped recess comprises a hitch or detent [see annotated Fig. below] configured to trap the bayonet pin behind the hitch or detent to prevent inadvertent rotation of the cap [see column 2 lines 63-column 3 line 8]. Affleck additionally discloses a ring or gasket creates a force that pushes the cap away from the surface of the canister [see column 2 lines 55-67].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the canister system of Kisch with the child-resistant cap as seen in Affleck. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as child-resistant caps are well known ways to seal a container and prevent inadvertent removal.
Kisch does not disclose that the seal formed by the sealing ring or gasket is airtight.
Millard teaches making an airtight seal (Seals 108, 110) to prevent fuel spillage (Columns 4-5, Lines 23-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
canister system of Kisch by making the fuel retention seal of Kisch airtight as taught by Millard. One of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to better prevent fuel spillage from the canister
during shipping and handling, as well as to better enhance flame extinguishing function of the cap of Kisch (Page 3,
Paragraph 38). By providing a seal that is airtight, no air can get to the flame and extinguishing is ensured. Furthermore, Millard teaches sealing vapors and fumes which would enhance safety as fuel vapors are flammable even if the liquid itself does not leak (Column 1, Lines 10-21).
With respect to claim 17 the combination of Kisch, Affleck, and Millard disclose that the cap of claim 16 [see rejection of claim 16 above]. Kisch further discloses wherein the sealing ring or the gasket [Sealing Member 90] is made of compressible material [Page 3, Paragraph 0043 of Kisch]. While Kisch does not use the phrase “compressible material,” Kisch does disclose the sealing member to be an o-ring gasket seal which implies it must be a compressible material, otherwise it would be unable to seal the threads.
With respect to claim 18 the combination of Kisch, Affleck, and Millard discloses that the mechanism of attachment comprises one or more bayonet pins extending inwardly from the internal surface of the cap body and configured to cooperate with one or more L-shaped channels disposed on an external surface of the boss [see rejection for claim 16], wherein each L-shaped channel comprises a hitch or detent [see annotate Fig. above] configured to trap the bayonet pin behind the hitch or detent to prevent inadvertent rotation of the cap, and wherein compression of the sealing ring or the gasket creates a force that maintains the bayonet pin trapped behind the hitch or detent while maintaining the airtight seal [see rejection for claims 16 and 7].
With respect to claim 19 the combination of Kisch, Affleck, and Millard discloses that the mechanism of attachment comprises one or more bayonet pins extending inwardly from the internal surface of the cap body and configured to cooperate with one or more L-shaped channels disposed on an external surface of the boss [see rejection for claim 16], wherein each L-shaped channel comprises a hitch or detent [see annotate Fig. above] configured to trap the bayonet pin behind the hitch or detent to prevent inadvertent rotation of the cap, and wherein compression of the sealing ring or the gasket creates a force that maintains the bayonet pin trapped behind the hitch or detent while maintaining the airtight seal [see rejection for claims 16 and 7].
Kisch, Affleck, and Millard do not disclose that the pins are on the boss and the channels are on the cap, however this modification requires an obvious rearrangement of parts of the invention, which is within the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to provide the pins on the boss and channels on the cap, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art In re Japikse. 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 The resilient gasket taught by Kisch would produce a force that would result in a force that pushes the cap away from the canister/boss.
Prosecution Insights