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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention 1 in the reply filed on 7/1/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because element 192 has been used to reference the spring feature in Fig. 8b and the gap in Fig. 10b.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(h)(3) because the plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. MPEP 608.02 V. At least figures 4, 8B, 9A, 10A, 11A, and 13 are not indicated by a broken line.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference character "132" has been used to designate both upper magnet and upper sled magnet; reference character "192" has been used to designate both gap and spring feature.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 19-27 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 19 recites the limitation “wherein a first depth of the recess near adjacent the first opening". The scope of the claim is not clear as the limitation appears to be incomplete, regarding whether the first depth of the recess is near the first opening or adjacent the first opening. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein a first depth of the recess adjacent the first opening”.
Claims 19 and 21 recite the limitation “a second ramped surface arranged adjacent each the first ramped surface, wherein…”. However, the scope of the claim is unclear since a portion of the limitation appears omitted, there being only one first ramped surface currently claimed. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “a second ramped surface arranged adjacent the first ramped surface, wherein…”
Claim 21 recites the limitations "the upper sled magnet" and “the lower sled magnet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,718,455 (Jinkins et al., the Patent hereinafter). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 of the Patent substantially recites that of current claim 1: A lid assembly comprising: a rim for engaging an opening of a container; a middle wall extending below the rim, a top surface of the middle wall defining a recess, the recess having a first opening and a second opening, and a bottom surface; and a slider mechanism configured to be manually slid to selectively provide a closed position by covering both the first opening and the second opening, and an open position, wherein the slider mechanism covers the second opening; the slider mechanism comprising: an upper sled configured to be positioned within the recess on the top surface of the middle wall; and a lower sled configured to be positioned proximate the bottom surface of the middle wall, wherein magnetic attraction between the upper sled magnet and the lower sled magnet magnetically couples the upper sled to the lower sled.
The Patent does not claim and wherein an upper surface of the recess includes a first engaging member with a first ramped surface and a second ramped surface arranged adjacent [each] the first ramped surface, and the upper sled comprising: a first channel extending along a lower surface of the upper sled, wherein the first channel includes a first channel engaging member with a first channel ramped surface, and wherein when the slider mechanism is in the closed position, the first channel engaging member is forward of the first engaging member, and when the slider mechanism is in the open position, the first channel engaging member is rearward of the first engaging member
However, the Patent does claim a similar feature on the bottom surface of the middle wall: “a bottom surface of the middle wall defining a first ramped feature positioned on a first side of the second opening, and a second ramped feature positioned on a second side of the second opening, the lower sled further comprising: an inner surface having a lower sled ramp protruding therefrom, wherein the lower sled ramp is configured to slide across the first ramped feature as the slider mechanism moves between the open position and the closed position”, and claim 19 recites “wherein the lower sled moves away from the upper sled as the lower sled ramp slides from the first and second trough depressions to the first and second crest surfaces” where the ramp feature of the lower sled is thereby “forward” of the crest surface(s) when open and moved behind or “rearward” of the crest surface(s) when closed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have located the first ramped feature/”first engaging member with first ramped surface” instead on the upper surface of the middle wall, and the lower sled ramp instead on the bottom of the upper sled to achieve the same results of serving to retain the slider mechanism in either the closed or open position, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs 99-100, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of Jinkins et al. (the Patent) in view of US Patent No. 6,752,287 (Lin hereinafter), US Patent No. 6,578,726 (Schaefer hereinafter), and US Patent No. 3,339,772 (Miller hereinafter).
Claim 17 of the Patent substantially recites the limitations of current claims 1 and 5, except a sidewall defining a groove for placement of a gasket.
However, with reference to Figs. 10 and 12, Lin teaches a lid assembly including a sidewall (36) having a groove (38) for placement of a gasket (40).
PNG
media_image1.png
768
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided a sidewall with groove for a gasket to the lid of the Patent as taught by Lin to facilitate sealing of the lid to a container.
The Patent in view of Lin fails to claim a knob air vent that extends from the seal surface to the lower surface, wherein the knob air vent includes a first vent opening at the lower surface, a second vent opening at the seal surface, a vent inner surface between the first vent opening and the second vent opening, a first rounded entry portion extending from the first vent opening to the vent inner surface, and a second rounded entry portion from the second vent opening to the vent inner surface; the first vent opening having a first diameter; the second vent opening having a second diameter; wherein the first diameter is smaller than the second diameter.
However, with reference to Figs. 3-5, Schaefer teaches a lid assembly for a beverage container wherein a lower element (52) has conically shaped vents (56) with a smaller diameter at a lower end and a larger diameter at an upper end of each vent (column 4, lines 45-54).
PNG
media_image2.png
393
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, with reference to Fig. 5, Miller teaches a rounded entry portion (11) of a fluid passage for streamline laminar flow during passage of the fluid (column 3, lines 13-18).
PNG
media_image3.png
222
254
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the knob air vent of the Patent to have included an inverted cone shape as taught by Schaefer for the purposes of reducing leakage of beverage into regions above the vent (column 4, lines 45-54), and to have rounded the entry portions of the vent of the Patent in view of Lin and Schaefer as taught by Miller for the purposes of facilitating streamline laminar flow of fluid (i.e. vented air acting as a fluid) in to and out of the vent for efficient venting therethrough (Miller, column 3, lines 13-18). Note that Applicant has not recited any criticality for the cone shaped vent or rounded entry portions, as the specification states that the vents may be cylindrical , and that “The geometry of the air vent 2202 may allow air to be released from the container at a rate to prevent any adverse pressure buildup between the contents of the container and the slider mechanism”, but does not attribute this function to the cone shape or the rounded entry portions (paragraph 107), noting that a cylindrical vent without rounded entry portions would still be capable of performing the disclosed function of venting air, and no specific benefits are attributed to the disclosed/claimed vent geometry.
The Patent in view of Lin, Schaefer, and Miller claims the invention of claim 2, except wherein a ratio of the first diameter to the second diameter is within a range of 0.70:1 and 0.90:1.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed the vent diameters of the claimed ratio since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 107, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
The Patent in view of Lin, Schaefer, and Miller claims the invention of claims 3 and 4, except wherein a first radius of the first rounded entry portion is smaller than a second radius of the second rounded entry portion, and wherein a ratio of the first radius of the first rounded entry portion to the second radius of the second rounded entry portion is within a range of 0.7:1 and 0.8:1.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have changed the sizes of the radii of the rounded entry portions, since it has been held that the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV, A). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 107, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations regarding the relative radii of the entry portions.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed the Patent vent entry portion radii in view of Lin, Schaefer, and Miller of the claimed ratio since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 107, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
The Patent in view of Lin, Schaefer, and Miller claims the invention of claims 7, 8, and 9, except wherein an upper surface of the recess includes a first engaging member with a first ramped surface and a second ramped surface arranged adjacent each other, wherein the first engaging member is received within a first channel arranged on a lower surface of the upper sled, and wherein the first channel includes a first channel engaging member with a first channel ramped surface, wherein when the slider mechanism is in the open position the first channel ramped surface faces the first ramped surface of the first engaging member.
However, as in re claim 1 above, the Patent does claim a similar feature on the bottom surface of the middle wall: “a bottom surface of the middle wall defining a first ramped feature positioned on a first side of the second opening, and a second ramped feature positioned on a second side of the second opening, the lower sled further comprising: an inner surface having a lower sled ramp protruding therefrom, wherein the lower sled ramp is configured to slide across the first ramped feature as the slider mechanism moves between the open position and the closed position”, and claim 19 recites “wherein the lower sled moves away from the upper sled as the lower sled ramp slides from the first and second trough depressions to the first and second crest surfaces” where the ramp feature of the lower sled is thereby “forward” of the crest surface(s) when open and moved behind or “rearward” of the crest surface(s) when closed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have located the first ramped feature/”first engaging member with first ramped surface” (of the Patent in view of Lin, Schaefer, and Miller) instead on the upper surface of the middle wall, and the lower sled ramp instead on the bottom of the upper sled to achieve the same results of serving to retain the slider mechanism in either the closed or open position, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs 99-100, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claims 22-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of Jinkins et al. (the Patent) in view of US Patent No. 6,578,726 (Schaefer hereinafter), and US Patent No. 3,339,772 (Miller hereinafter).
The Patent claims the invention of claims 22 and 26 including wherein the lower sled further comprises: a knob extending from an outer surface, wherein the knob having a lower surface; a seal surface opposite the lower surface of the knob; and a knob air vent that extends from the seal surface to the lower surface, but not wherein the knob air vent includes a first vent opening at the lower surface, a second vent opening at the seal surface, a vent inner surface between the first vent opening and the second vent opening, a first rounded entry portion extending from the first vent opening to the vent inner surface, and a second rounded entry portion from the second vent opening to the vent inner surface; the first vent opening having a first diameter; the second vent opening having a second diameter; and wherein the first diameter is smaller than the second diameter.
However, as in re claims 1 and 5 above, Schaefer and Miller teach conical shaped vents and rounded entry portions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the knob air vent of the Patent to have included an inverted cone shape as taught by Schaefer for the purposes of reducing leakage of beverage into regions above the vent (column 4, lines 45-54), and to have rounded the entry portions of the vent of the Patent in view of Lin and Schaefer as taught by Miller for the purposes of facilitating streamline laminar flow of fluid (i.e. vented air acting as a fluid) in to and out of the vent for efficient venting therethrough (Miller, column 3, lines 13-18). Note that Applicant has not recited any criticality for the cone shaped vent or rounded entry portions, as the specification states that the vents may be cylindrical , and that “The geometry of the air vent 2202 may allow air to be released from the container at a rate to prevent any adverse pressure buildup between the contents of the container and the slider mechanism”, but does not attribute this function to the cone shape or the rounded entry portions (paragraph 107), noting that a cylindrical vent without rounded entry portions would still be capable of performing the disclosed function of venting air, and no specific benefits are attributed to the disclosed/claimed vent geometry.
The Patent in view of Schaefer, and Miller claims the invention of claim 23, except wherein a ratio of the first diameter to the second diameter is within a range of 0.70:1 and 0.90:1.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed the vent diameters of the claimed ratio since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 107, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
The Patent in view of Schaefer, and Miller claims the invention of claims 24 and 25, except wherein a first radius of the first rounded entry portion is smaller than a second radius of the second rounded entry portion, and wherein a ratio of the first radius of the first rounded entry portion to the second radius of the second rounded entry portion is within a range of 0.7:1 and 0.8:1.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have changed the sizes of the radii of the rounded entry portions, since it has been held that the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV, A). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 107, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations regarding the relative radii of the entry portions.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed the Patent vent entry portion radii in view of Schaefer, and Miller of the claimed ratio since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 107, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights