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 Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 18 June 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-10 & 12-20 have been amended, claim 11 has been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-10 & 21-20 are presently pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
490 (fig. 6)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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:
Paragraph 37 states that, in fig. 5, a first obtuse angle θ1 is greater than about 135°, while a second obtuse angle β1 is greater than about 225° degrees. However, as best understood, if the flat portion of surface 378 is parallel to mating plane 380 (as appears to be shown), then the first obtuse angle θ1 could only be greater than 135° if the second obtuse angle β1 was a corresponding amount smaller than 225° degrees, while the second obtuse angle β1 could only be greater than 225° degrees if the first obtuse angle θ1 was a corresponding amount smaller than 135°.
Similarly, paragraph 38 states that, in fig. 6, a first obtuse angle θ2 is greater than about 135°, while a second obtuse angle β2 is also greater than about 135° degrees. However, as best understood, the first obtuse angle θ2 could only be greater than 135° if the second obtuse angle β2 was a corresponding amount smaller than 135°, and vice versa.
Applicant’s remarks filed 18 June 2026 suggest that paragraph 37 (para. 41 as published) and figure 5 were intended to establish an embodiment where the first obtuse angle is greater than 135° and the second obtuse angle is greater than 225°, while paragraph 38 (para. 42 as published) and figure 6 were intended to establish an embodiment where the first obtuse angle is greater than 135° and the second obtuse angle is greater than 135°, however, this is not found to be persuasive for several reasons.
First, the underside surfaces (384, 488) are reasonably depicted as flat and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis in each embodiment.
With respect to FIG. 5 and para. 37 (published as para. 41), the mating surface 380 is referred to as “a mating plane 380”. While the angle indicator line at 380 in fig. 5 appears to slope downward, the actual mating plane on the cap appears, like all of the other embodiments in the application, to be substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis / parallel to the underside surface. In other words, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably interpreted the minor slope in the annotation (which deviates from the actual geometry of the depicted component) as a drafting error, rather than an intentional design choice.
By contrast, if the surface at 380 were actually sloped as shown, the surface would likely define a conical mating surface rather than a mating plane, which is not described. Alternatively, if the surface was sloped as shown and was still planar, then the sides of the cap would be uneven / asymmetric, with the angle β1 changing circumferentially around the cap, which is also not described.
Moreover, even if FIG. 5 is taken as shown, and the term “mating plane” interpreted broadly to include a conical sloping surface, the downward slope shown in FIG. 5 would suggest an even smaller angle β1 than if the surface 380 were parallel to the flat underside surface 384.
That is, if the surfaces 380 and 384 were parallel, the sum of θ1 + β1 would be 360° (e.g., 135° + 225°). If the surface 380 were sloped downward toward the rim as appears to be shown in fig. 5, then the sum of θ1 + β1 would be reduced by a corresponding amount.
Given a flat underside surface (384), the only way the first obtuse angle could be greater than 135° while the second obtuse angle is greater than 225° would be for the mating surface 380 to slope upward toward the rim, not downward, which is not shown nor reasonably described in the specification as originally filed.
Similarly, with the embodiment of FIG. 6 and para. 38 (published as para. 42), the surface 484 is described as a “cylindrical bore”, reasonably suggesting an angle parallel with the longitudinal axis (and thus perpendicular to the flat underside surface 488). As such, the sum of θ2 + β2 would be 270° (e.g., 135° + 135°). Given a flat underside surface (488), the only way the first obtuse angle could be greater than 135° while the second obtuse angle is also greater than 135° would be for the bore 484 to be a tapered / conical bore which tapers outward toward the rim (like 486), which is not reasonably shown nor described in the specification as originally filed.
"To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’" In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).
See also MPEP § 2163.02: Whenever the issue of written description arises, the fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, inventor was in possession of the invention as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). [MPEP § 2163.02].
MPEP § 2163.03(V): the written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 & 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5: “defining,” should read “defining:”
Claim 1, line 7: “the cover” should read “the central cover portion”
Claim 1, line 8: “comprises,” should read “comprises:”
Claim 8, line 3: “and,” should read “and”
Claim 8, line 6: “the cover” should read “the central cover portion”
Claim 8, line 6: “defining,” should read “defining:”
Claim 8, line 11: “wherein the a first obtuse angle” should read “wherein the first obtuse angle”
Claim 16, line 8: “comprise,” should read “comprise:”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10 & 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 & 16 each requires the internal surface to comprise a “threshold radius” which “is configured to inhibit stagnation of a cleaning fluid along the internal surface during cleaning operations” but also requires the internal surface to comprise “a first obtuse angle” and “a second obtuse angle”. As best understood in view of the specification, the threshold radius is a feature of one set of embodiments (e.g., figs. 3, 4, 11) while the first and second obtuse angles are features of alternative embodiments (e.g., figs. 5 & 6).
The specification as originally filed does not appear to provide sufficient support for a combined embodiment having both a threshold radius and first / second obtuse angles along an internal surface. Claims 4, 5, 19 & 20 further define the threshold radius which, as noted, does not appear to be sufficiently disclosed as a feature usable in combination with the first and second obtuse angles.
Claims 2, 6, 7 & 17 require the cavity to define a threshold length configured to enable cleaning fluid to flow across the compliant gasket. However, as with the threshold radius in claims 1 & 16, the threshold length (CL1, CL2) is disclosed only as a feature of the embodiments comprising a threshold radius (e.g., figs. 3 & 4) and is not disclosed as a feature of the embodiment wherein the internal surface comprises first and second obtuse angles (e.g., figs. 5 & 6).
It is also unclear how the cap could include a threshold length while the second obtuse angle is formed between a mating plane of the rim portion of the cap and the sloping surface of the cavity.
Claim 9, similar to claims 2 & 17, requires the cavity to define a threshold length configured to enable cleaning fluid to flow across the compliant gasket, which is a feature of the embodiments wherein the internal surface defines a threshold radius (e.g., figs. 3 & 4).
Claims 14 & 15 further define the threshold length.
However, claim 8, from which claim 9 depends, requires the internal surface to comprise first and second obtuse angles, a feature of the alternative embodiments having angled, rather than radiused, corners (e.g., figs. 5 & 6). The specification as originally filed does not appear to provide sufficient support for a combined embodiment having both a threshold length and first / second obtuse angles along an internal surface. It is also unclear how the cap could include a threshold length while the second obtuse angle is formed between a mating plane of the rim portion of the cap and the sloping surface of the cavity.
Claims recited in the section heading above but not specifically discussed are rejected due to dependency upon at least one rejected claim.
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 1-10 & 12-20 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 1 recites “a rim portion defining a mating surface configured to receive a compliant gasket along the mating surface extending along a mating plane”. It is unclear if “extending along a mating plane” is defining the compliant gasket or the mating surface.
Claim 1 further recites “a second obtuse angle positioned adjacent the first obtuse angle formed between a mating plane of the rim portion of the cap and the sloping surface of the cavity”. It is unclear if “a mating plane of the rim portion” is intended to refer to the same “mating plane” recited in line 3 (which is recited merely as “a mating plane”, not necessarily “a mating plane of the rim portion”).
Claims 1 & 16 each require the internal surface to comprise a “threshold radius” which “is configured to inhibit stagnation of a cleaning fluid along the internal surface during cleaning operations” but also requires the internal surface to comprise “a first obtuse angle” and “a second obtuse angle”. Claims 4, 5, 19 & 20 further define the threshold radius.
As set forth in MPEP § 2173.03, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
The specification as originally filed discloses a first set of embodiments (figs. 3, 4, 11) wherein the cavity defines a threshold radius (and threshold length), but does not define two obtuse angles; and a second set of embodiments (figs. 5 & 6) where the cavity defines two obtuse angles, but does not comprise a threshold radius or threshold length.
As the specification does not appear to describe any embodiment having both first and second obtuse angles and a threshold radius along the internal surface, the combination of such limitations in claims 1 & 16 causes the claims to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
Claims 2, 6, 7 & 17 require the cavity to define a threshold length configured to enable cleaning fluid to flow across the compliant gasket. However, as with the threshold radius in claims 1 & 16, the threshold length (CL1, CL2) is disclosed only as a feature of the embodiments comprising a threshold radius (e.g., figs. 3 & 4) and is not disclosed as a feature of the embodiment wherein the internal surface comprises first and second obtuse angles (e.g., figs. 5 & 6), causing the claims to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
It is also unclear how the cap could include a threshold length while the second obtuse angle is formed between a mating plane of the rim portion of the cap and the sloping surface of the cavity.
Claims 3, 10, & 18 recite “a cap diameter that equals a gasket diameter”, which is ambiguous or vague. As best understood in view of the specification, this limitation was likely intended to mean that the cap has a diameter (i.e., an inner diameter of the cavity) which is equal to an inner diameter of the compliant gasket. However, the claim does not necessarily require the “gasket diameter” to be a diameter of the recited compliant gasket, so the term might be seen to read on a diameter of another unspecified gasket.
The term “cap diameter” is similarly broad. While not necessarily an issue in isolation, when the limitation “a cap diameter that equals a gasket diameter” is considered as a whole, the resulting limitation is so broad as to fail to clearly delineate the boundaries of the subject matter, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 4-7, 14, 15, 19 & 20 each recite limitations in the form of “wherein the threshold [radius / length] is greater than at least [X] of an inch”.
The phrases “greater than” and “at least” are conflicting terms (i.e., at least X value [≥] and greater than X value [>] differ as to whether the reference value is included in the range).
When used together, the meaning becomes obfuscated: the range is defined as greater than (>) at least (≥) X of an inch (i.e. Y > [≥X]). It is unclear whether the dimension must be at least that value, or greater than that value, and further appears to cause unnecessary complexity by requiring the value to be greater than a range of values rather than greater than a defined minimum. In one possible interpretation, as “at least X” defines an open-ended range (from X to ∞), the limitation “greater than at least [X] of an inch” might be seen to require the value to be greater than infinity, which is clearly unintended. The phrase “greater than at least” is thus ambiguous, opaque, or otherwise vague, causing the scope of the corresponding claims to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. The limitations should be amended to clearly require the values to be “greater than” (>) the threshold value or “at least” (≥) the threshold value, but not both.
Claim 9 requires the cavity to define a threshold length configured to enable cleaning fluid to flow across the compliant gasket, which is a feature of the embodiments wherein the internal surface defines a threshold radius (e.g., figs. 3 & 4). Claims 14 & 15 further define the threshold length. However, claim 8, from which claim 9 depends, requires the internal surface to comprise first and second obtuse angles, a feature of the alternative embodiments having angled, rather than radiused, corners (e.g., figs. 5 & 6), causing the claims to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
It is also unclear how the cap could include a threshold length while the second obtuse angle is formed between a mating plane of the rim portion of the cap and the sloping surface of the cavity.
Claim 12 recites “The hygenic cap of claim 11”, however, claim 11 has been cancelled. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claim 16 recites “A method of manufacturing a hygienic cap for sealing a fitting” comprising various steps of “structuring” (i.e., structuring a rim portion, structuring a central cover portion, structing the internal surface, etc.).
As best understood, these “structuring” limitations were likely intended be interpreted collectively and broadly to encompass substantially any manufacturing method which results in the corresponding structure (i.e., a method comprising manufacturing a cap having the recited structure). However, the claims might also be interpreted such that each of the structuring steps is intended to be a separate, discrete manufacturing step, causing the scope of the claims to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
Claims recited in the section heading above but not specifically discussed are rejected due to dependency upon at least one rejected claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 8, 12 & 13 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Love (GB 732,442 A) in view of Schmidt et al. (NPL: “Sanitary Design and Construction of Food Equipment: FSHN0409”; hereafter Schmidt), Obara et al. (US 4,988,130; hereafter Obara), and Brigham (WO 2017/066866 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Love discloses (fig. 5) a hygienic cap (32) for sealing a fitting (i.e., flange 4’ of pipe 6), comprising:
a rim portion (i.e., 33) defining a mating surface (i.e., flat planar surface facing a corresponding planar surface of flange 4’, as shown) configured to receive (in annular groove 9) a compliant gasket (10; “resilient sealing ring”) along the mating surface (as shown); and
a central cover portion(i.e., the central portion generally indicated at 32) integrally formed with the rim portion (as shown), the cover portion forming a cavity (as shown) including an internal surface comprising a side surface (i.e., sidewall surface connecting the mating plane to the underside surface) and an underside surface of the cover and further defining,
a first transition radius / fillet along the internal surface of the cavity (i.e., connecting the underside surface and the side surface), and
a second obtuse angle positioned adjacent the first transition radius / fillet formed between the mating plane of the rim portion of the cap and the side surface of the cavity (i.e., the ~270° angle transition from the side surface to the mating plane surface at the mouth of the cavity),
wherein the internal surface encloses one end of the cavity (as shown),
wherein the first transition radius / fillet is configured to inhibit stagnation of a cleaning fluid along the internal surface during cleaning operations (see below).
Regarding the limitation wherein the first transition radius / fillet is configured to inhibit stagnation of a cleaning fluid along the internal surface during cleaning operations, as set forth in MPEP § 2114(II), a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP § 2114(I).
In the instant case, the first transition radius / fillet shown by Love, which provides a relatively smooth, radiused transition between the side surface and the underside surface, would reasonably function to inhibit stagnation of a cleaning fluid along the internal surface during cleaning operations, in at least the same manner as applicant’s disclosed embodiment in FIG. 11, which appears to depict a substantially similar cavity structure having substantially similar proportions.
Love does not explicitly disclose the side surface of the internal surface to be a sloping surface, wherein the first transition along the internal surface of the cavity is a first obtuse angle, wherein the second obtuse angle is positioned adjacent the first obtuse angle and formed between the mating plane of the rim portion of the cap and the sloping surface of the cavity, wherein the first obtuse angle is configured to inhibit stagnation of a cleaning fluid along the internal surface during cleaning operations.
Schmidt (“Sanitary Design and Construction of Food Equipment: FSHN0409”) explains “To ensure safe food and adequate sanitation programs, the equipment used for processing and handling food products must be designed, fabricated, constructed, and installed according to sound sanitary design principles. This ensures the equipment can be adequately cleaned and sanitized, and that surfaces are resistant to daily exposure to corrosive food products and cleaning/sanitizing chemicals. Equipment that does not meet basic sanitary design principles, or is installed or used improperly cannot be adequately cleaned and sanitized.”
Schmidt also briefly explains several governmental and industry sanitation standards, including “3-A Sanitary Standards”, which “may also be required under many state and local regulations”
In a section entitled “Construction and Fabrication”, Schmidt states “Food equipment should be designed and fabricated in such a way that all food contact surfaces are free of sharp corners and crevices. All mating surfaces must also be continuous (e.g., substantially flush).”, “Piping systems installed in modern food processing systems designed for cleaning-in-place (CIP), require special consideration and close monitoring with regard to drainage”.
In subsection “A. Internal Angles”, Schmidt teaches: “Internal angles should be coved or rounded with defined radii as shown in Fig. 3. Equipment standards specify appropriate radii for specific equipment applications and components. For example, radii requirements stated in the 3A Sanitary Standards indicate that “all internal angles 135 degrees or less should have a minimum radii of 1/4 inch (6.35 mm).” For convenience, FIG. 3 of Schmidt is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
160
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Finally, in subsection “C. Connections, Attachments, and Ancillary Equipment”, Schmidt explains that “Care should be taken when connecting pipes, gauges, thermometers, probes, or other equipment to food contact surfaces. It is necessary to ensure the connection does not create a dead end or an area where food product can accumulate and is not accessible to cleaning solutions”.
As set forth in MPEP § 2123(I), a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
As set forth in MPEP §2141.03(I), "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The "hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988).
In view of the above, when considering the “internal angles” section of Schmidt explaining that the 3A Sanitary Standards indicate that “all internal angles 135 degrees or less should have a minimum radii of 1/4 inch (6.35 mm)”, a person having ordinary skill in the art, and ordinary creativity, would understand that internal angles could be rounded to meet the internal radius requirement, but would also understand that the angles could instead be modified to be greater than 135 degrees, whereby no radius would be required.
It is generally known in the art to form a central cover portion of a cap with a cavity defining at least one obtuse angle along an internal surface of the cavity.
PNG
media_image2.png
578
1010
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In particular, Obara teaches (fig. 2) a cap (20) comprising a cavity defining a first obtuse angle (approx. 135° degrees; or otherwise broadly between 90° and 180°) between a flat end surface of the cavity and a sloping surface adjacent the underside of the cap; and a second obtuse angle (approx. 225° degrees; or otherwise broadly between 180° and 270°), between the sloping surface and a planar surface facing the corresponding fitting.
A similar cavity arrangement is shown by Brigham (fig. 3) wherein a cap / plug (30) comprises a rim portion (44, 46, 48) for coupling to a structure, and a central cover portion integrally formed with the rim portion defining a cavity (as shown) having a first obtuse angle between a flat underside surface and a sloping side surface, and a second obtuse angle between the sloping side surface and a planar bottom surface.
To facilitate clarity, the following illustration is provided. In each case, a sidewall is provided connecting a lower planar surface and an upper underside surface. The central diagram depicts the simplest form, with a cylindrical sidewall, however, as taught by Schmidt, the 90° corner may be prohibited by certain standards (e.g., 3A Sanitary Standards). The radius-based solution on the left corresponds to the original design of Love, while the alternative obtuse-angle based solution on the right corresponds to geometries shown in the designs of Obara and Brigham.
PNG
media_image3.png
216
811
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hygienic cap of Love such that the internal surface of the cavity comprises a sloping surface (i.e., a sloped sidewall) and an underside surface of the cover, a first obtuse angle along the internal surface of the cavity (i.e., a first obtuse angle between the flat underside surface and the sloping sidewall surface, with an angle greater than 135° so as to comply with design standards), the second obtuse angle positioned adjacent the first obtuse angle formed between the mating plane of the rim portion of the cap and the sloping surface of the cavity, in view of the combined teachings of Schmidt, Obara, and Brigham, as the simple substitution of one known cavity geometry / transition profile (i.e., the original cylindrical sidewall and radius / fillet-type profile of Love) for another (i.e., a sloping sidewall surface and obtuse angle profile, as in Obara and Brigham) to obtain predictable results (i.e., a cavity design which avoids sharp edges less than about 135°, and so may substantially meet sanitary design requirements, but which may simplify design or manufacture relative to a radiused / rounded profile, e.g., by avoiding the need for specialized rounded-profile tools or mold profiles, etc.).
The resulting first obtuse angle, being greater than 135° (so as to comply with the appropriate design standards), reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the first obtuse angle is configured to inhibit stagnation of a cleaning fluid along the internal surface during cleaning operations, at least in the same manner as applicant’s disclosed embodiments.
Regarding claim 12, the hygenic cap of Love, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitations wherein the second obtuse angle is greater than about one-hundred and thirty-five degrees (135°) and the first obtuse angle is greater than about one-hundred and thirty-five degrees (135°).
As explained for claim 8, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first obtuse angle so as to be greater than about one-hundred and thirty-five degrees (135°) in order to comply with appropriate design standards which prohibit internal angles of 135° or less (e.g., 3A Sanitary Standards, as suggested by Schmidt).
The second obtuse angle (nominally about 225°), would be reduced by the corresponding amount that the first obtuse angle exceeds 135°, but would necessarily remain greater than 180° (or else the mating plane and underside surface would become coplanar).
Regarding claim 13, the hygenic cap of Love, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the first obtuse angle is greater than about one-hundred and thirty-five degrees (135°), or wherein the second obtuse angle is greater than about two-hundred and twenty-five degrees (225°).
As explained for claims 8 & 12, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first obtuse angle so as to be greater than about one-hundred and thirty-five degrees (135°) in order to comply with appropriate design standards which prohibit internal angles of 135° or less (e.g., 3A Sanitary Standards, as suggested by Schmidt).
Examiner’s Comment on Claims 1-7, 9, 10 & 14-20
Claims 1-7, 9, 10 & 14-20 are not currently rejected on prior art grounds as they appear to simultaneously require mutually exclusive features and it is unclear how such combinations of limitations would reasonably be interpreted in view of the various issues set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & (b) in this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 June 2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to independent claims 1 & 16, applicant’s amendments to the claims have incorporated new limitations which overcome the grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 set forth in the previous action but now appear to require mutually exclusive combinations of features and/or appear to result in new embodiments having combinations of features not sufficiently described the application as originally filed.
With respect to independent claim 8, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive for at least the reasons set forth below.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (e.g., that Obara and Brigham allegedly do not show a second obtuse angle formed between the mating plane of the rim portion of the cap and the sloping surface of the cavity), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
As set forth in the amended grounds of rejection in this action, Love already discloses a mating plane perpendicular to the cap axis and, when the cap of Love is modified to include a pair of obtuse angles in view of the cited references, the resulting combination reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the second obtuse angle is formed between a mating plane of the rim portion of the cap and the sloping surface of the cavity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights