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 filed 03/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues, on pp. 3-4 of the remarks, that the combination of Kisch and Kim do not provide for the new limitations requiring that “…wherein compression of the sealing ring or the gasket creates a force that pushes the cap away from the surface of the canister to prevent inadvertent removal of the cap from the boss while maintaining the airtight seal” [claim 1 lines 14-15 and claim 7 lines 17-19, equivalent in claim 16 lines 15-16] because Kisch “does not teach the gaskets dual functionality” [pp. 2 of the response] and that Kim’s child resistant closure teaches away from the claimed invention because “Kim's resilient member allows the locking lugs to disengage from the locking notches. In other words, in Kim, compression force is used to release the lock and facilitate removal, not prevent it” (emphasis in original) [pp. 2 of the remarks]. The examiner respectfully disagrees. At the outset, the sealing ring is taught by Kisch and not Kim. Kim is relied upon to provide structure to the push-to-twist type closure already disclosed by Kisch. Therefore, the gasket of Kisch will be addressed here. As can be seen in the free body diagram below, 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
230
946
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisch et al (US 2002/0164554 A1), hereinafter Kisch, in view of Kim (US 2021/0009303), hereinafter Kim, and in view of Millard (US 3,394,836), hereinafter Millard.
With respect to claim 1 Kisch teaches a canister system (Figure 1, Torch 10) comprising: a canister (Figure 1, Canister 12) adapted to contain a liquid therein (Page 1, Paragraph 18), 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 (Figure 1, Canister Neck 20), extending from a surface of the canister (Figure 1, Outer Surface 18); a wick (Figure 3, Wick 24), disposed through the opening and adapted to be in contact with the liquid (Figure 1, Wick 24 and Page 2, Paragraph 20); and a cap (Figure 3, Lid 26) that securely and removably attaches to the boss and covers the wick (Page 3, Paragraph 42), a sealing ring or gasket (Figure 4, Sealing Member 90) disposed on a surface of the cap (Page 3-4, Paragraph 43), wherein the sealing ring or gasket is sized to be compressed between the surface of the cap and the surface of the canister when the cap forms a seal between the cap and the boss when the cap is attached to the boss (Figures 1 and 4, Canister 12, Lid 26, and Sealing Member 90 and Pages 3-4, Paragraph 43), and wherein the cap includes a mechanism of attachment that prevents inadvertent removal of the cap from the boss; (Page 4, Paragraph 44). Finally, Kisch discloses that wherein compression of the sealing ring or the gasket creates a force that pushes the cap away from the surface of the canister to prevent inadvertent removal of the cap from the boss while maintaining the airtight seal [see response to arguments above].
Kisch discloses a push and twist type closure, but does not disclose the details of the structure. Kim provides the details of this push and twist type closure.
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 Kim. 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.
Additionally, 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 of claim 2 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 6 Kisch, Millard, and Kim teach the canister system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Kisch further teaches wherein the canister system comprises a supporting rod having an open-ended housing disposed on an end of the rod , wherein the canister is sized to be disposed within the housing so that the opening is directed away from the rod (Page 2, Paragraph 27, Page 3, Paragraph 32, and Receptacle 29, Top Opening 33, and Pole 52).
Claim(s) 7 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisch et al (US 2002/0164554 A1), hereinafter Kisch, in view of Kim (US 2021/0009303), hereinafter Kim, and in view of Millard (US 3,394,836), hereinafter Millard.
With respect to claim 7 Kisch teaches a canister system (Figure 1, Torch 10) comprising: a canister (Figure 1, Canister 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 (Figure 1, Canister Neck 20), extending from a surface of the canister (Figure 1, Outer Surface 18); a wick (Figure 3, Wick 24), disposed through the opening and adapted to be in contact with the liquid (Figure 1, Wick 24, Top Opening 33 and Page 2, Paragraph 20); 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; a cap (Figure 3, Lid 26) that securely and removably attaches to the boss and covers the wick by a press and twist child-resistant fit (Page 4, Paragraph 44). Kisch discloses that the ring or 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 [see response to arguments above].
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 recesses 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 recesses 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.
Kim discloses a bottle having a cap [reference character 24a/b] that securely and removably attaches to a boss [reference character 14], 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 36] extending inwardly from an internal surface of the cap and cooperating with one or more L-shaped recesses [see Fig. 4] 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 recesses disposed on the internal surface of the cap, wherein each L-shaped recess comprises a hitch or detent [reference characters 52 and 54] configured to trap the bayonet pin behind the hitch or detent to prevent inadvertent rotation of the cap.
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 Kim. 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 13 Kisch, Kim, and Millard further discloses wherein the mechanism of attachment is one or more bayonet pins (Locking Lugs 36) extending inwardly from the internal surface of the cap (Cap 24) and configured to cooperate with one or more L-shaped recesses (Grooves 32, 44) disposed on an external surface of the boss (Neck 14) (Page 6, Paragraphs 31-33), wherein each L-shaped recess comprises a hitch of 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 [see response to arguments above]. While Kim does not explicitly use the term bayonet pins, Kim discloses locking lugs which are identical in function and structure.
With respect to claim 14 Kisch, Kim, and Millard further discloses wherein the mechanism of attachment is one or more bayonet pins (Locking Lugs 36) extending inwardly from the internal surface of the cap (Cap 24) and configured to cooperate with one or more L-shaped recesses (Grooves 32, 44) disposed on an external surface of the cap (Neck 14) (Page 6, Paragraphs 31-33), wherein each L-shaped recess comprises a hitch of 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 [see response to arguments above]. While Kim does not explicitly use the term bayonet pins, Kim discloses locking lugs which are identical in function and structure.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisch et al (US 2002/0164554 A1), hereinafter Kisch, in view of Kim (US 2021/0009303), hereinafter Kim, and in view of Millard (US 3,394,836), hereinafter Millard.
With respect to claim 16 Kisch teaches a cap for a canister (Figure 1, Torch 10) comprising: a cap body (Figure 3, Lid 26) having an internal surface and configured to securely and removably attach to a boss of a canister;
a sealing ring or gasket (Figure 4, Sealing Member 90) disposed on a surface of the cap (Page 3-4, Paragraph 43), wherein the sealing ring or gasket is sized to be compressed when the cap is attached to the boss (Figures 1 and 4, Canister 12, Lid 26, and Sealing Member 90 and Pages 3-4, Paragraph 43),wherein the cap includes a mechanism of attachment that prevents inadvertent removal of the cap from the boss; (Page 4, Paragraph 44). Kisch discloses a push and twist type closure, but does not disclose the details of the structure. Kim provides the details of this push and twist type closure. 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 Kim. 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. Finally, Kisch discloses that compression of the sealing ring or the gasket creates a force that prevents inadvertent removal of the cap from the boss while maintaining the seal [see response to arguments above].
Kisch does not disclose wherein the sealing ring or gasket forms an airtight seal when the cap is attached to the boss.
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 of claim 2 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, Kisch, Millard, and Kim disclose 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 43). 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 Kisch, Kim, and Millard further discloses wherein the mechanism of attachment is one or more bayonet pins (Locking Lugs 36) extending inwardly from the internal surface of the cap (Cap 24) and configured to cooperate with one or more L-shaped recesses (Grooves 32, 44) disposed on an external surface of the boss (Neck 14) (Page 6, Paragraphs 31-33), wherein each L-shaped recess comprises a hitch of 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 [see response to arguments above]. While Kim does not explicitly use the term bayonet pins, Kim discloses locking lugs which are identical in function and structure.
With respect to claim 19 Kisch, Kim, and Millard further discloses wherein the mechanism of attachment is one or more bayonet pins (Locking Lugs 36) extending inwardly from the internal surface of the cap (Cap 24) and configured to cooperate with one or more L-shaped recesses (Grooves 32, 44) disposed on an external surface of the cap (Neck 14) (Page 6, Paragraphs 31-33), wherein each L-shaped recess comprises a hitch of 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 [see response to arguments above]. While Kim does not explicitly use the term bayonet pins, Kim discloses locking lugs which are identical in function and structure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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