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 Amendment
Claims 1, 4, 6-9 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are currently amended.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 10-16 are canceled.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 1: “pushing part” reads as “a part (generic placeholder) for pushing (function)…”
Claim 2: “pressing part” reads as “a part (generic placeholder) for pressing (function)…”
Claim 4: “hook part” reads as “a part (generic placeholder) for hooking (function)…”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiyan (JPS63218054A; Applicant provided prior art) in view of Coon (US 8443970), Pucci (US 20220177205), and Elliott (US 5853109).
Regarding claim 1, Jiyan discloses, A container cap comprising: a cap body (See annotated fig. below) coupled to a container inlet (See annotated fig. below) of a container (See annotated fig. below) in which contents are contained; and an upper lid (See annotated fig. below) coupled to the cap body to cover an upper side of the cap body, wherein the cap body comprises an outlet plate (See annotated fig. below) which is fractured from an upper plate part (See annotated fig. Below) to form a discharge hole (a hole is formed when punctured by pressing part; See annotated fig. below) through which the contents contained in the container are discharged, and the upper lid comprises a pushing part (See annotated fig below), the pushing part being formed in correspondence to the outlet plate, wherein the pushing part comprises: a pushing plate (See annotated fig. below), an elastic defamation part (See annotated fig. below) coupling the pushing part with the upper lid so as to be able to be moveable vertically with respect to the upper lid; wherein the elastic deformation part is elastically deformed and the pushing plate is moved downward when the user pushes the pushing part (Fig. 9) ; and a pressing part for pressing the outlet plate downwards when the pushing plate moves downwards, the pressing part protrudes from a bottom surface of the pushing plate and the pressing part presses the outlet plate by the downward movement of the pushing plate, wherein the upper lid is hinge-coupled to the cap body (Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
497
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The limitation “for fracturing the outlet plate by a vertical movement; […] a pushing plate configured to be pushed by a user” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim.
Jiyan does not disclose the outlet plate is partitioned by the cut line formed on the upper plate part and wherein disclose the pressing part is formed in correspondence to a cut line fractured with respect to the upper plate part
Coon disclose the outlet plate is partitioned by the cut line formed on the upper plate part (Fig. 4) and a pressing part that is formed in correspondence to a cut line (28) fractured with respect to the upper plate part (Fig. 3, and 4).
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 Jiyan to incorporate outlet plate is partitioned by the cut line formed on the upper plate part and wherein pressing part that is formed in correspondence to a cut line fractured with respect to the upper plate part as taught by Coon for easy rupture of the outlet plate.
However, Jiyan does not explicitly disclose, a ring-shaped gasket closely contacting an inner circumferential surface of the container inlet to seal the container extends downward from a bottom surface of the upper plate.
Pucci discloses, a container comprising a cap , a ring-shaped gasket (See annotated fig. below) closely contacting an inner circumferential surface (See annotated fig. below) of the container inlet to seal the container extends downward from a bottom surface of the upper plate.
PNG
media_image2.png
472
547
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Jiyan to have a ring-shaped gasket closely contacting an inner circumferential surface of the container inlet to seal the container extends downward from a bottom surface of the upper plate as taught by Pucci for the purpose of forming a seal with the neck of the bottle (para 80).
While, Jiyan as modified does not disclose, wherein the outlet plate and the upper lid forms one body; Elliott discloses a closure (40) comprising an outlet plate (44) and the upper lid (94) forms one body (“FIGS. 1-4, a membrane 44 is adhered to the closure 40 across an interior region of the closure 40 as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3”), 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 Jiyan to have the outlet plate and the upper lid forms one body as this would allow for better flow of the content when the cap body is off since the membrane/outlet plate would be moved with the cap body.
Regarding claim 8, Jiyan as modified discloses, the outlet plate is eccentric from a center of the upper plate part (Fig. 8-9).
Regarding claim 9, Jiyan as modified does not disclose, the upper plate part is inclined downwards towards the outlet plate.
Coon is in the field of endeavor and discloses, the , the upper plate part (22) is inclined downwards towards the outlet plate ( 17; fig. 57).
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 Jiyan to incorporate upper plate part is inclined downwards towards the outlet plate as taught by Coon for the purpose of allowing excess fluid to go back to the container.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiyan-Coon- Pucci-Elliott as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 20110147414).
Regarding claim 4, Jiyan as modified does not explicitly disclose, the pushing part has reinforcing structure inside the pressing part for reinforcing structural strength of the pushing part.
Chen in in the field of endeavor and discloses a pushing part (52) has a reinforcing structure (53) inside the pressing part for reinforcing structural strength of the pushing part (para 24, “The purpose of the strips 53 is to strengthen the circular column 52.”) , the reinforcing part being formed inside the pressing part (Fig. 5).
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 Jiyan to incorporate the pushing part has reinforcing structure inside the pressing part for reinforcing structural strength of the pushing part as taught by Chen for the purpose of strengthen the pushing part.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiyan-Coon-Pucci-Elliott as applied to claim 1 in view of Kaneko (JP 2011-79566; provided by applicant) and Hunt (US 4221291).
Regarding claim 6, Jiyan as modified appears to disclose the cut line forms an open curve (Coon, Fig. 5-7; since the shape of the blade corresponds to the shape of the cut) so that the outlet plate is fractured from the upper plate part in a state of being partially coupled with the upper plate part; in the event, this is not disclosed; Kaneko is in the field of endeavor and disclose a weakened portion (See annotated fig. below) with an open curve so that the outlet plate is fractured from the upper plate and in a state of being partially coupled with the upper plate part. The shape of the weakened part corresponds to the shape of the pressing part (31) .
Hunt is in the field of endeavor and discloses a weakened portion (34) that forms an open curve (Col. 4; line 64-68) with a tab for the purpose of preventing the lose/fractured part from falling into the bottle (Col. 5; line 23-25; “The tab portion 36 prevents the bottom wall 32 from completely separating from the remainder of the inner member 22 and falling into the container.”).
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 Jiyan to have a cut line forms an open curve so that the outlet plate is fractured from the upper plate part in a state of being partially coupled with the upper plate part as taught by Kaneko for the purpose of preventing the lose part from completely separating from the remainder of the plate/liner as suggested by Hunt.
PNG
media_image3.png
265
695
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 200445206) in view of over Jiyan (JPS63218054A; Applicant provided prior art) and in view of Coon (US 8443970).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses, A container cap comprising: a cap body (See annotated fig. below) coupled to a container inlet (See annotated fig. below) of a container (1) in which contents are contained; and an upper lid (20) coupled to the cap body to cover an upper side of the cap body, wherein the cap body (See annotated fig. below) comprises an outlet plate (See annotated fig. below) which is fractured from an upper plate part (See annotated fig. Below) to form a discharge hole (a hole is formed when pushed by the pressing part; See annotated fig. below) through which the contents contained in the container are discharged, and the upper lid comprises a pushing part (See annotated fig below), the pushing part being formed in correspondence to the outlet pate, wherein the pushing part comprising a pushing plate (See annotated fig. below) , the pushing plate is moved downward when the user pushes the pushing part a pressing part (See annotated fig. below) for pressing the outlet plate downward when the pushing plate moves downward (Fig. 1-5), the pressing part protrudes from a bottom surface of the pushing plate and wherein the pressing part presses the outlet plate by the downward movement of the pushing plate, wherein the outlet plate is partitioned by a cut line (See annotated fig. below) and wherein the pressing part is formed in correspondence to the cut out line fractured with respect to the upper plate , wherein the upper lid is hinge-coupled (31) to the cap body, and wherein a ring-shaped gasket (See annotated fig. below) closely contacting an inner circumferential surface of the container inlet to seal the container extends downward from a bottom surface of the upper plate part and the outlet plate and the upper lid forms one body.
PNG
media_image4.png
599
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Park does not explicitly disclose, an elastic deformation part coupling the pushing part with the upper lid wherein the elastic deformation part is elastically deformed. Jiyan is in the field of endeavor and discloses the use of an elastic deformation part (See annotated fig. of claim 1 above ) coupling the pushing part with the upper lid wherein the elastic deformation part is elastically deformed.
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 Park to incorporate an elastic deformation part coupling the pushing part with the upper lid wherein the elastic deformation part is elastically deformed as taught by Jiyan for the purpose of preventing any small particle from entering the small cavity and thereby improving the hygiene of the cap.
While Park does not explicitly appear to disclose “ cut line formed on the upper plate part” Coon discloses cut line that is formed on the upper plate part and 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 Park to have the cut line on the upper plate part as taught by Coon for the purpose of easiness of separation of the outlet plate when pressed downwards.
The limitation “for fracturing the outlet plate by a vertical movement; […] a pushing plate configured to be pushed by a user, […] configured to couple the pushing part with the upper lid so as to be able to move vertically with respect to the upper lid” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses, the cut line forms an open curve so that the outlet plate is fractured from the upper plate part in a state of being partially coupled with the upper plate part (Fig. 6 shows the outlet plate is hanging from the upper part).
(The cover plate 12 is pressed by the pressing portion 23 of the outlet stopper member 20 to be described later is cut along the notch groove 11b except for the connection holding portion 12c is separated from the edge portion 13, After being separated, it is inclined in a state of being connected to the edge portion 13 by the connection holding portion 12c.)
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses, a hook part (See annotated fig below) is formed on a bottom surface of the upper plate part
The limitation “to maintain a folded state after the outlet plate is pressed and folded by the pushing part and hooked by the hook part” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Here, the structure work as a hook because the weight of this structure is maintaining a folded state after the outlet plate is pressed and folded by the pushing part.
PNG
media_image5.png
381
530
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses, wherein the upper plate part is inclined downward toward the outlet plate (Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicants argument with regards to Jiyan failing to disclose limitation of claim 1 “wherein the outlet plate and the upper lid forms one body” is considered but not persuasive as this is disclosed by newly incorporated prior art of Elliott.
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 SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736