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 .
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.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7 & 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1: “…a fitting ,comprising:…” should read “… a fitting, comprising:…”
Claim 7, line 2: “one-thirty seconds of an inch” should read “one-thirty second of an inch”;
Claim 15, line 2: “one-thirty seconds of an inches” should read “one-thirty second of an inch”.
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 8-15 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.
Claim 8 initially recites “the cover portion forming a cavity defining at least one obtuse angle along an internal surface of the cavity”, but then refers to “the arcuate internal surface” (lines 7 & 9). As understood in view of the specification, the “arcuate internal surface” is a feature of embodiments having a threshold radius (i.e., figs 3, 4, 11), while the “obtuse angle” limitation is 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 an obtuse angle along an internal surface and an arcuate internal surface.
Regarding claims 12 & 13, claim 11 (from which claims 12 & 13 depend) recites “a second obtuse angle…formed by and between a first sloping surface along the underside of the central cover portion and a cylindrical bore along an internal face of the cavity”. This description corresponds to the description in para. 38 of FIG. 6, the “cylindrical bore” being indicated at 484 therein. Claim 12 recites that “the second obtuse angle is greater than the first obtuse angle”, while claim 13 recites that the first obtuse angle is greater than about 135° and the second obtuse angle is greater than about 225°. However, these are limitations which correspond to the embodiment of FIG. 5 (as described in para. 37) rather than the embodiment of fig. 6.
The specification does not provide sufficient written description support for a combined embodiment which reads on both the limitation of claim 11 and the limitations of claims 12 & 13, which depend from claim 11.
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 2-20 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.
Claims 2, 9 & 17 recite “a threshold length configured to enable the cleaning fluid to flow across the compliant gasket while minimizing head loss in the cleaning fluid”.
The term “minimizing” in this context is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimizing” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 3, 10, & 18 recite “a cap diameter that corresponds to a gasket diameter”, which is ambiguous or vague in several aspects.
First, the term “corresponds to” may be seen as ambiguous or vague. While likely intended to mean that these two diameters are equal, it may also be seen to suggest some other corresponding relationship.
Furthermore, 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 “corresponds 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 (e.g., 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 corresponds to 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 each recite limitations in the form of “wherein the threshold [radius / length] is greater than about at least [X] inches”. Claims 19 & 20 similarly recite limitations in the form of “structuring the threshold radius to be greater than at least about [X] inches”.
It is unclear what range is encompassed by the term “about” in this context, and 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 further obfuscated: the range is defined as greater than (>) about (≈) at least (≥) X inches (i.e. Y > [≈≥X]). It is unclear what actual value the claimed dimension must be greater than: the term “at least” appears to set a minimum value, but the term “about” is seen to encompass amounts above and below the stated value. It is unclear if “about at least” then encompasses amounts below the stated value “at least” value and, if so, how far below the stated value the claimed range extends. If the value must be at least the stated value, then it is unclear how “about at least” is different from simply “at least”. Moreover, it is unclear how “greater than…at least” a value would be distinguished from “greater than” the value. This merely appears to cause unnecessary complexity by requiring the value to be greater than a range of values rather than greater than a defined minimum.
The phrase “greater than about at least” is thus ambiguous, opaque, or otherwise vague, causing the scope of the corresponding claims to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
Claim 8 recites “the cover portion forming a cavity defining at least one obtuse angle along an internal surface of the cavity” but later recites “the arcuate internal surface” (lines 7 & 9). 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.
In the instant case, claim 8 generally appears directed to the embodiments of figs. 5 & 6 (wherein the cavity defines at least one obtuse angle). However, in these embodiments, the internal surface is not arcuate. The feature of an “arcuate internal surface” appears in the alternative embodiments (figs. 3, 4, 11) wherein the cavity has a threshold radius. As the specification does not appear to describe any embodiment having both an obtuse angle along the internal surface and an arcuate inner surface, the combination of such limitations in claim 8 causes the claim to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. To promote compact prosecution, claim 8 will be interpreted as consistent with the embodiments of figs. 5 & 6 in the specification, with the recitations of “arcuate internal surface” interpreted as merely reading “internal surface”. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claim 11 recites “a second obtuse angle adjacent the first obtuse angle”. Claim 8, from which claim 11 depends, recites “at least one obtuse angle” but does not specifically define “a first obtuse angle”. As such, “the first obtuse angle” is seen to lack proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 12 & 13, claim 11 (from which claims 12 & 13 depend) recites “a second obtuse angle…formed by and between a first sloping surface along the underside of the central cover portion and a cylindrical bore along an internal face of the cavity”. This description corresponds to the description in para. 38 of FIG. 6, the “cylindrical bore” being indicated at 484 therein. Claim 12 recites that “the second obtuse angle is greater than the first obtuse angle”, while claim 13 recites that the first obtuse angle is greater than about 135° and the second obtuse angle is greater than about 225°. However, these are limitations which correspond to the embodiment of FIG. 5 (as described in para. 37) rather than the embodiment of fig. 6.
As the specification does not appear to describe any embodiment having the features of claim 11 in combination with the additional limitations of claims 12 and 13, it is unclear how the combination of such limitations as required by claims 12 & 13 would be interpreted, causing these claims to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
See 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 (for example, in Cohn, 438 F.2d at 993, 169 USPQ at 98, “[n]oting that no claim may be read apart from and independent of the supporting disclosure on which it is based, the court found that the claim was internally inconsistent based on the description, definitions and examples set forth in the specification…and therefore indefinite”).
Further regarding claim 13, the claim recites “wherein the first obtuse angle is greater than about one-hundred and thirty-five (135°) degrees, and wherein the second obtuse angle is greater than about two-hundred and twenty-five degrees (225°)”. As best understood, this corresponds to the arrangement of FIG. 5. As noted previously, in FIG. 5, it is unclear how the first obtuse angle could be greater than 135° while the second obtuse angle is also greater than 225°. Rather, the first obtuse angle could only be greater than 135° if the second obtuse angle was a corresponding amount smaller than 225° degrees, while the second obtuse angle could only be greater than 225° degrees if the first obtuse angle was a corresponding amount smaller than 135°. It is unclear how the first angle could be 135° and the second angle could be 225° while the second angle is formed by and between a first sloping surface along the underside of the central cover portion and a cylindrical bore along an internal face of the cavity, as otherwise required by claim 11 from which claim 13 depends.
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 arcuate internal surface, etc.). Claims 17-20 recite additional steps of “structuring”, including steps which appear to further define steps already recited in claim 16 (i.e., structuring the cavity and threshold radius, etc.).
As best understood, these claims 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the threshold length is greater than about at least one-thirty seconds” (1/32) of an inch. However, claim 15 depends from claim 14 which already recites “wherein the threshold length is greater than about at least one-sixteenth inches” (1/16), which is narrower than the range recited in claim 15.
As a result, claim 15 attempts to improperly broaden the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends and therefore fails to further limit subject matter of or otherwise fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1, 4, 5, 16, 19 & 20 (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).
Regarding claim 1, 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 defining a cavity having a threshold radius defined by an arcuate internal surface of the cavity (i.e., the radius providing a transition between the cylindrical sidewalls and the flat end portion of the internal surface; the arcuate internal surface including both the flat end portion and the radius portion),
wherein the arcuate internal surface encloses one end of the cavity (as shown in fig. 5).
Regarding the limitation wherein the threshold radius is configured to inhibit stagnation of a cleaning fluid along the arcuate 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 threshold radius shown by Love, which provides a relatively smooth, radiused transition between the cylindrical sidewalls and the flat end surface, would reasonably function to inhibit stagnation of a cleaning fluid along the arcuate 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.
However, to promote compact prosecution, the following additional teaching is provided.
Schmidt (“Sanitary Design and Construction of Food Equipment: FSHN0409”) first 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”.
If not already seen as such, 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 threshold radius is configured to inhibit stagnation of a cleaning fluid along the arcuate internal surface during cleaning operations (e.g., by forming the threshold radius to be at least ¼ inch, as indicated by the 3A sanitary standards; or otherwise to have at least the minimum radius required by the standards relevant to the particular application, if different than the 3A standard), in view of the teachings of Schmidt, in order to avoid the creation of dead zones or sharp corners (which may otherwise be inaccessible to cleaning solutions or serve as undesired accumulation areas) as required by basic sanitary design principles, to ensure that the equipment can be adequately cleaned and sanitized, and as otherwise may be required by the industrial standards and/or governmental regulations relevant to the particular application (e.g., when used with food products, etc.).
Regarding claims 4 & 5, the hygienic cap of Love, as modified in view of Schmidt to include a minimum threshold radius of 1/4 inch (i.e., as indicated by the 3-A Sanitary Standards) reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitations wherein the threshold radius is greater than about at least one-quarter inches (1/4 or 0.25 inches) (as in claim 4) and wherein the threshold radius is greater than about at least one sixteenth inches (1/16 or 0.0625 inches)(as in claim 5).
With respect to claim 4, as Schmidt teaches that the 3A Sanitary Standards indicate 1/4 inch to be a “minimum” radius, one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand that the threshold radius could also be greater than 1/4 inch.
With respect to claim 5, even the minimum value of 1/4 inch would read on the limitation wherein the threshold radius is greater than about at least one-sixteenth inches (1/16).
Regarding claim 16, Love discloses or otherwise renders obvious a method of manufacturing a hygienic cap for sealing a fitting (i.e., cap 32 in FIG. 5 for sealing fitting 4’ / pipe 6, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above; and which would necessarily be manufactured in some appropriate manner so as to achieve the disclosed structure), the method comprising:
structuring a rim portion (i.e., 33) to define a mating surface (i.e., flat planar surface facing a corresponding planar surface of flange 4’, as shown) to receive a compliant gasket (10; “resilient sealing ring”) along the mating surface (as shown); and
structuring a central cover portion (i.e., the central portion generally indicated at 32) to be integrally formed with the rim portion (as shown);
structuring the central cover portion to define a cavity comprising a threshold radius defined by an arcuate internal surface of the cavity (i.e., the radius providing a transition between the cylindrical sidewalls and the flat end portion of the internal surface; the arcuate internal surface including both the flat end portion and the radius portion),
structuring the arcuate internal surface to enclose one end of the cavity (as shown).
Regarding the limitation wherein the threshold radius is configured to inhibit stagnation of a cleaning fluid along the arcuate internal surface during cleaning operations, the threshold radius shown by Love, which provides a relatively smooth, radiused transition between the cylindrical sidewalls and the flat end surface, would reasonably function to inhibit stagnation of a cleaning fluid along the arcuate 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.
However, to promote compact prosecution, attention is again drawn to the teachings of Schmidt as set forth in the grounds of rejection for claim 1 above, which, for brevity, are not repeated here.
If not already seen as such, 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, and a corresponding method of manufacturing said hygienic cap, such that the threshold radius is configured to inhibit stagnation of a cleaning fluid along the arcuate internal surface during cleaning operations (e.g., by forming the threshold radius to be at least ¼ inch, as indicated by the 3A sanitary standards; or otherwise to have at least the minimum radius required by the standards relevant to the particular application, if different than the 3A standard), in view of the teachings of Schmidt, in order to avoid the creation of dead zones or sharp corners in the resulting cap (which may otherwise be inaccessible to cleaning solutions or serve as undesired accumulation areas) as required by basic sanitary design principles, to ensure that the equipment can be adequately cleaned and sanitized, and as otherwise may be required by the industrial standards and/or governmental regulations relevant to the particular application (e.g., when used with food products, etc.).
Regarding claims 19 & 20, the hygienic cap of Love and the corresponding method of manufacturing said cap, as modified in view of Schmidt above to include a minimum threshold radius of 1/4 inch (i.e., as indicated by the 3-A Sanitary Standards) reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitations wherein the method of manufacturing further comprises structuring the threshold radius to be greater than about at least one-quarter inches (1/4 or 0.25 inches)(as in claim 19) and wherein the method further comprises structuring the threshold radius to be greater than about at least one sixteenth inches (1/16 or 0.0625 inches)(as in claim 20).
With respect to claim 19, as Schmidt teaches that the 3A Sanitary Standards indicate 1/4 inch to be a “minimum” radius, one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand that the threshold radius could also be structured to be greater than 1/4 inch.
With respect to claim 20, structuring the threshold radius to have even the minimum value of 1/4 inch would read on the limitation wherein the method further comprises structuring the threshold radius to be greater than about at least one-sixteenth inches (1/16).
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 17 & 18 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Love and Schmidt as applied to claims 1 & 16 above, and further in view of 3-A Sanitary Standards (NPL: “3-A SSI For Beginners and the Basics of Sanitary Design”; hereafter “3-A”) and Elbich et al. (US 2005/0005984 A1; hereafter Elbich).
Regarding claims 2 & 17, with respect to the limitation of claim 2 wherein the threshold radius is configured to maintain a substantially constant velocity of the cleaning fluid along the arcuate internal surface during the cleaning operations, it is noted that applicant’s own specification appears to disclose that a threshold radius of at least 1/4" (i.e., CR1), and potentially as small as 1/16” (i.e., CR2), may be sufficient to maintain a substantially constant fluid velocity (see paras. 35 & 36).
Thus, the hygienic cap of Love, as modified in view of Schmidt to include a minimum threshold radius of 1/4 inch (i.e., as indicated by the 3-A Sanitary Standards) reasonably reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitations wherein the threshold radius is configured to maintain a substantially constant velocity of the cleaning fluid along the arcuate internal surface during the cleaning operations.
Furthermore, as would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art, the ability of a fluid (e.g., a cleaning fluid) to entrain particles / debris depends at least in part on fluid velocity. So called “dead zones” are formed at regions in which the flowing fluid is unable to maintain a sufficient velocity (i.e., where stagnation occurs), which may lead to sedimentation and eventual accumulation of particles / debris in such regions.
If not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the threshold radius to maintain a substantially constant velocity of the cleaning fluid along the arcuate internal surface during the cleaning operations, in view of the teachings of Schmidt, to avoid the creation of dead zones (stagnation zones) inaccessible to a cleaning solution and/or to avoid the creation of areas where product debris may accumulate, as suggested by Schmidt.
Regarding the remaining limitation of claim 2, wherein the cavity further defines a threshold length configured to enable the cleaning fluid to flow across the compliant gasket while minimizing head loss in the cleaning fluid, and the corresponding limitation of claim 17, wherein the method of manufacturing further comprises structuring the cavity to define a threshold length configured to enable the cleaning fluid to flow across the compliant gasket while minimizing head loss in the cleaning fluid, it is first noted that the cavity of the cap of Love further defines a threshold length (i.e., an axial length of the cavity) which would enable the cleaning fluid to flow across the joint between the cavity and the fitting (i.e., the flow path of the fluid does not dead-end at the joint, but continues into the cavity).
As shown in FIG. 5, the threshold length comprises a first portion corresponding to a cylindrical entry region of the cavity, and a second portion corresponding to the threshold radius. As the threshold radius is providing a transition between a cylindrical sidewall and a flat end wall substantially perpendicular to the side walls (i.e., a 90° transition), the axial length of the threshold radius would be equal to the radius. Thus, when the cap of Love (and associated method of manufacturing) is modified in view of Schmidt to have a threshold radius of at least 1/4 inch, the threshold length would be 1/4” plus the axial length of the cylindrical entry region.
Examination Note: applicant’s own specification appears to disclose that threshold lengths of at least 1/32 inch or at least 1/16 inch may be sufficient to permit cleaning fluid to flow across the compliant gasket while minimizing head loss in the cleaning fluid. See paras. 35-36.
In the original configuration shown by Love, the compliant gasket is recessed from the cavity / main flow path, though still exposed to the cleaning fluid. Thus, while the resulting cavity may be seen to further define a threshold length configured to enable the cleaning fluid to flow across the compliant gasket while minimizing head loss in the cleaning fluid, to promote compact prosecution, the following additional teachings are provided.
First, as previously discussed, Schmidt teaches that standards such as “3-A Sanitary Standards” exist, and compliance with such standards “may also be required under many state and local regulations”, and further teaches that “modern” systems may be designed for “cleaning-in-place (CIP)”, which requires special consideration for drainage.
NPL reference “3-A SSI For Beginners and the Basics of Sanitary Design” (hereafter “3-A”) is a presentation which provides an overview of the principles of sanitary design and, by way of illustrative examples, a brief introduction to 3-A Sanitary Standards.
On page 70 (“D8 Gaskets”), 3-A teaches (D8.4) that gaskets “shall be self-positioning and form a substantially flush interior joint”.
On page 72, 3-A provides a comparison between a “hard to clean recessed seal location” which would not be acceptable for CIP cleaning and require disassembly to clean, and an “easy to clean by CIP” location, wherein the seal is located and compressed to fit flush or with a slight bulge into the flow path. For convenience, the figure is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
406
777
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Returning to the original configuration in FIG. 5 of Love, it can be seen that the inner diameter of the cylindrical portion of the cavity of the cap is substantially the same diameter as the inner diameter of the fitting, but they are separated by the gasket recess.
Elbich teaches (figs 1-4) a hygienic cap (16) configured to seal a fitting (10 / 12), comprising a rim portion defining a mating portion configured to receive a compliant gasket (14) along the mating surface. As can be seen from at least figure 4, the gasket is configured to have an outer diameter substantially equal to the outer diameter of the rim portion of the cap (and the corresponding rim portion of the fitting), and an inner diameter substantially equal to the inner diameter of the fitting, whereby the inner diameter of the gasket is substantially flush with the inner diameter of the fitting, and whereby the gasket seals along the entire width of the annular interface between the cap and that of the fitting, without any free recesses.
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 cap of Love (and the corresponding method of manufacturing the same) to utilize a gasket which extends from an inner diameter substantially flush with the inner diameters of the cavity and fitting, to an outer diameter substantially equal to the outer diameters of the cap rim and fitting rim, thereby extending along the entire width of the annular interface between the cap and the fitting, in view of the teachings of 3-A and Elbich, in order to provide a flush-fit gasket arrangement which is compatible with cleaning-in-place systems and which otherwise further promotes sanitary design practices by avoiding the formation of any open recesses at the interface between the cap and the fitting which might otherwise accumulate debris or be inaccessible for cleaning without disassembly.
The resulting hygienic cap reads on or otherwise renders obvious the remaining limitation of claim 2, wherein the cavity further defines a threshold length (i.e., the length of the cylindrical entry portion plus the threshold radius) configured to enable the cleaning fluid to flow across the compliant gasket (as during a cleaning-in-place operation) while minimizing head loss in the cleaning fluid (i.e., as the gasket inner diameter is flush with the inner diameters of the cavity and fitting, head loss would be minimal for flow across the inner face of the gasket).
Similarly, the corresponding method of making the above hygienic gap as modified reads on or otherwise renders obvious the limitation of claim 17 wherein the method further comprises structuring the cavity to define a threshold length (i.e., the length of the cylindrical entry portion plus the threshold radius) configured to enable the cleaning fluid to flow across the compliant gasket (as during a cleaning-in-place operation) while minimizing head loss in the cleaning fluid (i.e., as the gasket inner diameter is flush with the inner diameters of the cavity and fitting, head loss would be minimal for flow across the inner face of the gasket).
Regarding claim 3, the cap of Love, as modified above to utilize a gasket extending from an inner diameter flush with the inner diameters of the cavity and fitting, to an outer diameter substantially equal to the outer diameters of the cap rim and fitting rim, thereby extending along the entire width of the annular interface between the cap and the fitting, further reads on the additional limitation wherein the cavity further defines a cap diameter that corresponds to a gasket diameter (i.e., the cap outer diameter at the rim corresponding to the gasket outer diameter; the inner diameter of the cap cavity corresponding to the gasket inner diameter).
Regarding claims 6 & 7, the cap of Love, as modified above, reads on the additional limitations wherein the threshold length is greater than about at least one-sixteenth inches (1/16 or 0.0625 inches)(as in claim 6) and wherein the threshold length is greater than about at least one-thirty seconds of an inch (1/32 or 0.03 inches)(as in claim 7).
As previously discussed, the threshold length of the cap of Love, as shown in FIG. 5, comprises a first portion corresponding to a cylindrical entry region of the cavity, and a second portion corresponding to the threshold radius. As the threshold radius is providing a transition between a cylindrical sidewall and a flat end wall substantially perpendicular to the side walls (i.e., a 90° transition), the axial length of the threshold radius would be equal to the radius.
When the cap of Love is modified in view of Schmidt to have a threshold radius of at least 1/4 inch, the threshold length would be 1/4” plus the axial length of the cylindrical entry region, and thus would be greater than about at least 1/16” (as in claim 6) and would be greater than about at least 1/32” (as in claim 7).
Regarding claim 18, the cap of Love, and the corresponding method of manufacturing said cap, as modified above to utilize a gasket which extends from an inner diameter substantially flush with the inner diameters of the cavity and fitting, to an outer diameter substantially equal to the outer diameters of the cap rim and fitting rim, thereby extending along the entire width of the annular interface between the cap and the fitting, further reads on the additional limitation wherein the method further comprises structuring the cavity to define a cap diameter that corresponds to a gasket diameter (i.e., the cap outer diameter at the rim corresponding to the gasket outer diameter; the inner diameter of the cap cavity corresponding to the gasket inner diameter).
Claims 8 & 11 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Love in view of Schmidt, Obara et al. (US 4,988,130; hereafter Obara), and Brigham (WO 2017/066866 A1).
Examination Note: as set forth in the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, claim 8 is being interpreted as consistent with the embodiments of figs. 5 & 6 in the specification, with the recitations of “arcuate internal surface” interpreted as “internal surface”.
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) having a transition (i.e., a radius / fillet) along an internal surface of the cavity,
wherein the internal surface encloses one end of the cavity (as shown in fig. 5),
wherein the transition (i.e., the radius / fillet) is configured to inhibit stagnation of a cleaning fluid along the internal surface during cleaning operations (see discussion in the grounds of rejection for claim 1 above, not repeated for brevity).
Love does not explicitly disclose the limitations wherein the cavity defines at least one obtuse angle along an internal surface of the cavity, wherein the at least one 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_image3.png
578
1010
media_image3.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 along 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 end surface and a sloping surface, and a second obtuse angle between the sloping surface and a planar bottom surface.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would also be aware that many geometric profiles are known to be used to “break” sharp edges; that is, to serve as a gradual transition between mutually angled surfaces. By way of example, when discussing the outer edges of the rim at 46/48, Brigham teaches that “As illustrated, the…edge may be rounded although it will be appreciated that other profiles may also be utilized as well, such as by way of non-limiting example, chamfered, beveled, or routed” (para. 37).
Common and accepted definitions of “chamfer” in this context include: “an obtuse-angled relief or cut at an edge added for a finished appearance and to break sharp edges” (Dictionary.com), “a cut made along an edge or on a corner so that it slopes rather than being at 90°” (Oxford Advanced American Dictionary), “a beveled edge or corner, esp. one cut at a 45° angle” (Webster’s New World College Dictionary), and “a cut that is made in wood or some other material, usually at a 45° angle to the adjacent principal faces” (CollinsDictionary.com).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that chamfering the edge between two perpendicular (90°) faces would result in a sloped third face between the original perpendicular faces, a first oblique angle formed between the first original face and the sloped face, and a second oblique angle formed between the sloped face and the second original face. When a nominal 45° chamfer is used (which would be particularly conventional, as noted in several of the example definitions) between two perpendicular (90°) faces, the resulting first and second obtuse angles would each be 135°. To facilitate clarity, the following illustration is provided:
PNG
media_image4.png
278
639
media_image4.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 cavity defines at least one obtuse angle along an internal surface of the cavity (i.e., a first obtuse angle between the flat end of the internal surface and a sloping chamfer/transition surface, and a second obtuse angle between the sloping surface and the cylindrical bore portion of the cavity), in view of the combined teachings of Schmidt, Obara, and Brigham, as the simple substitution of one known transition / edge-breaking profile (i.e., the original radius / fillet-type profile of Love) for another (i.e., a chamfer, which breaks a single 90° edge into two obtuse angles joined by a sloping surface) 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 hygienic cap, having obtuse angles of about 135°, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the at least one 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 11, the cap of Love, as modified above to include a chamfered transition between the flat end portion of the internal surface and the cylindrical bore portion of the cavity, reads on the additional limitations wherein the cap further comprises a second obtuse angle adjacent the first obtuse angle (i.e., the first obtuse angle defined between the flat end portion and the sloping chamfer surface), the second obtuse angle formed by and between a first sloping surface (i.e., the sloping chamfer surface) along the underside of the central cover portion and a cylindrical bore (i.e., the cylindrical bore portion at the entrance to the cavity, prior to the radius portion in the original arrangement of FIG. 5) along an internal face of the cavity.
Claims 9, 10, 14 & 15 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Love in view of Schmidt, Obara, and Brigham as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of 3-A & Elbich.
Regarding claim 9, with respect to the limitation wherein the cavity further defines a threshold length configured to enable the cleaning fluid to flow across the compliant gasket while minimizing head loss in the cleaning fluid, it is first noted that the cavity of the cap of Love further defines a threshold length (i.e., an axial length of the cavity) which would enable the cleaning fluid to flow across the joint between the cavity and the fitting (i.e., the flow path of the fluid does not dead-end at the joint, but continues into the cavity).
In the original configuration in FIG. 5 of Love, the threshold length comprises a first portion corresponding to a cylindrical entry region of the cavity, and a second portion corresponding to an axial length of the threshold radius. As the threshold radius is providing a transition between a cylindrical sidewall and a flat end wall substantially perpendicular to the side walls (i.e., a 90° transition), the axial length of the threshold radius would be equal to the radius.
As set forth in Schmidt, when applying sanitary design principles such as 3-A, such a threshold radius must be at least equal to the minimum required radius, e.g., 1/4" in the 3-A standards cited by Schmidt. Thus, if such principles were applied to the original configuration of Love, the threshold length would be 1/4” plus the axial length of the cylindrical entry region.
When modifying the cap of Love to include a chamfered transition rather than a rounded transition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain substantially the same threshold length as the original configuration, e.g., to maintain the same overall dimensions as the original (which may enable compatibility with systems having the original design) and/or to avoid inadvertently creating a sharp corner / dead space / stagnation region, which the chamfering or rounding was originally intended to eliminate.
Furthermore, as would be understood, moving the two obtuse angles closer together by reducing the length of the intermediate sloping surface would create a tighter corner, eventually resulting in the chamfer merely approximating the same 90° angle which the chamfer seeks to avoid; in the absence of more explicit requirements, one skilled in the art would understand that the minimum radius set by the standard provides useful guidance for appropriate spacing even on chamfered edges and would be obvious to use, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In the original configuration shown by Love, the compliant gasket is recessed from the cavity / main flow path, though still exposed to the cleaning fluid. Thus, while the resulting cavity may be seen to further define a threshold length configured to enable the cleaning fluid to flow across the compliant gasket while minimizing head loss in the cleaning fluid, to promote compact prosecution, the following additional teachings are provided.
First, as previously discussed, Schmidt teaches that standards such as “3-A Sanitary Standards” exist, and compliance with such standards “may also be required under many state and local regulations”, and further teaches that “modern” systems may be designed for “cleaning-in-place (CIP)”, which requires special consideration for drainage.
NPL reference “3-A SSI For Beginners and the Basics of Sanitary Design” (hereafter “3-A”) is a presentation which provides an overview of the principles of sanitary design and, by way of illustrative examples, a brief introduction to 3-A Sanitary Standards.
On page 70 (“D8 Gaskets”), 3-A teaches (D8.4) that gaskets “shall be self-positioning and form a substantially flush interior joint”.
On page 72, 3-A provides a comparison between a “hard to clean recessed seal location” which would not be acceptable for CIP cleaning and require disassembly to clean, and an “easy to clean by CIP” location, wherein the seal is located and compressed to fit flush or with a slight bulge into the flow path. For convenience, the figure is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
406
777
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Returning to the original configuration in FIG. 5 of Love, it can be seen that the inner diameter of the cylindrical portion of the cavity of the cap is substantially the same diameter as the inner diameter of the fitting, but they are separated by the gasket recess.
Elbich teaches (figs 1-4) a hygienic cap (16) configured to seal a fitting (10 / 12), comprising a rim portion defining a mating portion configured to receive a compliant gasket (14) along the mating surface. As can be seen from at least figure 4, the gasket is configured to have an outer diameter substantially equal to the outer diameter of the rim portion of the cap (and the corresponding rim portion of the fitting), and an inner diameter substantially equal to the inner diameter of the fitting, whereby the inner diameter of the gasket is substantially flush with the inner diameter of the fitting, and whereby the gasket seals along the entire width of the annular interface between the cap and that of the fitting, without any free recesses.
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 cap of Love to utilize a gasket which extends from an inner diameter substantially flush with the inner diameters of the cavity and fitting, to an outer diameter substantially equal to the outer diameters of the cap rim and fitting rim, thereby extending along the entire width of the annular interface between the cap and the fitting, in view of the teachings of 3-A and Elbich, in order to provide a flush-fit gasket arrangement which is compatible with cleaning-in-place systems and which otherwise further promotes sanitary design practices by avoiding the formation of any open recesses at the interface between the cap and the fitting which might otherwise accumulate debris or be inaccessible for cleaning without disassembly.
The resulting hygienic cap reads on or otherwise renders obvious the remaining limitation of claim 9, wherein the cavity further defines a threshold length (i.e., the length of the cylindrical entry portion plus the axial length of the chamfer surface, corresponding the original threshold radius) configured to enable the cleaning fluid to flow across the compliant gasket (as during a cleaning-in-place operation) while minimizing head loss in the cleaning fluid (i.e., as the gasket inner diameter is flush with the inner diameters of the cavity and fitting, head loss would be minimal for flow across the inner face of the gasket).
Regarding claim 10, the cap of Love, as modified above to utilize a gasket extending from an inner diameter flush with the inner diameters of the cavity and fitting, to an outer diameter substantially equal to the outer diameters of the cap rim and fitting rim, thereby extending along the entire width of the annular interface between the cap and the fitting, further reads on the additional limitation wherein the cavity further defines a cap diameter that corresponds to a gasket diameter (i.e., the cap outer diameter at the rim corresponding to the gasket outer diameter; the inner diameter of the cap cavity corresponding to the gasket inner diameter).
Regarding claims 14 & 15, the cap of Love, as modified above, reads on the additional limitations wherein the threshold length is greater than about at least one-sixteenth inches (1/16 or 0.0625 inches) (as in claim 14) and wherein the threshold length is greater than about at least one-thirty seconds of an inches (1/32 or 0.03 inches)(as in claim 15).
As previously explained in the grounds of rejection for claim 9 above, in the original configuration in FIG. 5 of Love, the threshold length comprises a first portion corresponding to a cylindrical entry region of the cavity, and a second portion corresponding to an axial length of the threshold radius. As the threshold radius is providing a transition between a cylindrical sidewall and a flat end wall substantially perpendicular to the side walls (i.e., a 90° transition), the axial length of the threshold radius would be equal to the radius.
As set forth in Schmidt, when applying sanitary design principles such as 3-A, such a threshold radius must be at least equal to the minimum required radius, e.g., 1/4" in the 3-A standards cited by Schmidt. Thus, if such principles were applied to the original configuration of Love, the threshold length would be 1/4” plus the axial length of the cylindrical entry region.
As also explained in the grounds of rejection for claim 9, when modifying the cap of Love to include a chamfered transition rather than a rounded transition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain substantially the same threshold length as the original configuration, e.g., to maintain the same overall dimensions as the original (to ensure compatibility with systems having the original design) and/or to avoid inadvertently creating a sharp corner / dead space / stagnation region which the chamfering or rounding was originally intended to eliminate.
Furthermore, as would be understood, moving the two obtuse angles closer together by reducing the length of the intermediate sloping surface would create a tighter corner, eventually resulting in the chamfer merely approximating the same 90° angle which the chamfer seeks to avoid; in the absence of more explicit requirements, one skilled in the art would understand that the minimum radius set by the standard provides useful guidance for appropriate spacing even on chamfered edges and would be obvious to use, with a reasonable expectation of success.
When the cap of Love is modified such that the portion of the threshold length corresponding to the sloped portion has an axial length of at least 1/4” (i.e., equivalent to the minimum radius), the resulting threshold length, comprising that portion plus the length of the cylindrical region of the cavity, would also be at least at least 1/4", and thus would be greater than about at least 1/16” (as in claim 14) and greater than about at least 1/32” (as in claim 15).
Examiner’s Comment on Claims 12 & 13
Claims 12 & 13 are not currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 above as it is unclear how such limitations would reasonably be interpreted in combination with the limitations of claim 11 upon which they depend, i.e., in view of the various issues set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & (b) in this action. However, to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that several of the references already cited, including Obara and Brigham, and further references cited in the PTO-892 included with this action (e.g., US 1,958,923 to Mohler), reasonably disclose a cap having a cavity with a first obtuse angle along an internal surface of the cavity, a second obtuse angle adjacent the first obtuse angle, the second obtuse angle formed by and between a first sloping surface along the underside of the central cover portion and a mating plane of the rim portion of the cap (i.e., as in the embodiment of FIG. 5; rather than the arrangement of FIG. 6 / claim 11), wherein the second obtuse angle (i.e., at least between 180° - 270°) is greater than the first obtuse angle (i.e., at least between 90° - 180°), which may be seen to suggest a first obtuse angle of about 135° degrees and a second obtuse angle of about 225°.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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