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 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sager in view of Nicoll does not teach the claim amendment of a flat sealing surface of the rim opposite the flat sealing surface. However, drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). MPEP 2125. In this case, Nicoll clearly teachings a flat sealing surface of the rim opposed to the flat sealing surface as depicted in Fig. 2 of that reference (further evidenced by the shadow lines in that figure). Further delineation is needed to adequately define the claims from the prior art of record.
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) 1, 4-9, 13-15, and 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sager (US Patent No. 3,386,632), and further in view of Nicoll, Sr. et al. (US Patent No. 4,890,760 herein after Nicoll).
Re: Claim 1, Sager disclosing the claims invention including a dispensing system for a liquid product, comprising: a container (1), comprising a dispenser opening (7); a container neck (23), wherein the dispenser opening and the container neck are located on a common face (2) of the container (Fig. 1-4); a dispenser (9) attached to the dispenser opening of the container; and a venting closure (11) attached to the vent opening of the container neck (Figs. 4, 9, 10, 11, variety venting closures may be employed) except for a self-venting. However, Nicoll teaches a self-venting closure (18, 34) attached to the container neck (18) (Depicted in Fig. 1-2, permanently attached and Fig. 3, removable), the self-venting closure comprising: a deck (28) with a peripheral mounting skirt (22); a valve seat (28) within the deck; a mounting hole (30) within the valve seat; a plurality of vent openings (32) within the valve seat outwardly spaced around the mounting hole (Fig. 2, Col. 2, lines 44-51, deck with mounting hole and apertures), and wherein an underside of said valve seat includes a circular flat land area (28) disposed outward of said plurality of vent openings (Fig. 2); and an elastomeric umbrella valve (34) having an axial mounting stem (38) received within the mounting hole, and having a frustoconical valve flap (42) arranged on an underside of the valve seat, said frustoconical valve flap extending radially outward from the mounting stem and cooperating with plurality of vent openings to allow air to flow into the container (Fig. 4, Para. 40, flap depicted with a frustoconical shape for opening vent openings); wherein frustoconical valve flap terminates with a peripheral annular sealing rim, the sealing rim having a flat sealing surface extending in parallel facing relation with the flat circular land area and which is engaged with the circular flat land area, the sealing rim further having a flat surface opposed to the flat sealing surface (Depicted Fig. 2, rim sealing flat against flat and parallel with the circular land area, opposing flat surfaces depicted).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the venting closure as taught by Nicoll, since Sager depicts in Figs. 4, 9, 10, 11 a variety of venting closures may be used, and Nicoll states in col. 1, lines 40-45 that such a modification provides a vent closure that is simple in construction and design and therefore relatively inexpensive to manufacture, restoring atmospheric pressure within the container automatically ensuring consistent flow from the container.
Re: Claim 4, Sager disclosing the claims invention including the container neck comprises a neck (23) projecting from the container (Depicted in Fig. 4).
Re: Claim 5-6, Sager disclosing the claims invention including the container neck further comprises a mounting formation comprising threads (27) (Fig. 4).
Re: Claim 7, Sager disclosing the claimed invention including wherein the dispensing opening and the container neck are located on a side surface of the container (Depicted in Fig. 1).
Re: Claim 8, Sager disclosing the claims invention including dispenser comprises a tap dispenser (116) (Fig. 9).
Re: Claim 9, Sager teaches the self-venting closure capable of many different attachments as depicted in Figs. 4, 9, 10, 11, and further in view of Nicoll discloses the claimed invention including many different attachment including the self-venting closure is permanently attached to the vent opening (Nicoll: Fig. 2, integral structure thus permanently attached). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to permanently attach the self-venting closure to the vent opening as taught by Nicoll, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Re: Claim 13, Sager as modified by Nicoll discloses the claimed invention including the flat sealing surface disengages from the underside of the deck when there is a vacuum in the container (Nicoll: Col. 3, lines 1-5, opens under a vacuum).
Re: Claim 14, the rejection from claim 1 above covers the limitations recited in this claim.
Re: Claim 15, the rejection from claim 9 above covers the limitations recited in this claim.
Re: Claim 19, Sager as modified by Nicoll discloses the claimed invention including the valve flap cooperates with the at least one vent opening to seal an interior of the container from atmosphere (Nicoll: Col. 3, lines 1-5, opens under a vacuum).
Re: Claim 20, Sager as modified by Nicoll discloses the claimed invention including the valve flap elastically deforms when there is a vacuum in an interior of the container (Nicoll: Col. 3, lines 1-5, opens under a vacuum).
Re: Claim 21, Sager disclosing the claims invention including wherein the dispensing opening and the container neck are located on a side surface of the container (Depicted in Fig. 1).
Re: Claim 22, Sager disclosing the claims invention including dispenser comprises a tap dispenser (9) (Fig 2).
Re: Claim 23, the rejection from claim 1 above covers the limitations recited in this claim.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sager (US Patent No. 3,386,632) and Nicoll, Sr. et al. (US Patent No. 4,890,760 herein after Nicoll) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leonoff (US Patent No. 8,561,851).
Re: Claim 2, Sager discloses the claimed invention including a container except for the manner in which it was manufactured. However, Leonoff discloses a container made from blow molding (Col. 5, lines 14-17, blow molded container)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a blow molded container as taught by Leonoff, since Leonoff states column 1, lines 44-45 that such a modification permits consistent outside bottle geometry for easy manufacturing.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sager (US Patent No. 3,386,632) and Nicoll, Sr. et al. (US Patent No. 4,890,760 herein after Nicoll) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Flinn (US Patent No. 5,433,353).
Re: Claim 16, Sager teaches the self-venting closure capable of many different attachments as depicted in Figs. 4, 9, 10, 11 except for specifying ultrasonic welding. However, Flinn teaches a self-venting closure is ultrasonically welded to the container (Flinn: Col. 4, lines 24-30, ultrasonic welding).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time of the effective filing date to include attachment via ultrasonic welding as taught by Flinn, since Smith states in para. 33 that the container can receive the vent closure by any direct attachment, and further Flinn states in column 4, lines 26-29 that such a modification is the preferred method of attachment in order to prevent heat warpage of the check valve which may diminish its effectiveness.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754