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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because lines 9-10 appears to erroneously include a period and misplacement of a semi-colon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because it appears to have a misspelling at “fo”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the upper portion parallel to the mounting portion of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the runoff including a substantially planar downward sloping piece of claims 9 and 27 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 1 recites “an upper portion parallel to the mounting portion,” which is not clearly described in the original disclosure. Fig. 5 shows the upper portion 111 having a diagonal slope while the mounting portion 112 extends vertically. The two structures are not parallel.
Claims 9 and 27 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 9 and 27 recite the runoff including a substantially planar downward sloping piece, which is not clearly described in the original disclosure. Fig. 1 shows the runoff 102 having a frustoconical shape such that the runoff surface is arcuate circumferentially. The arcuate surface is different from a planar surface.
Claims 12 and 19 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 12 and 19 recite the supplemental cover does not move with respect to the vented cap when attached, which is not clearly described in the original disclosure. Paragraph [0018] describes a press fit connection to fasten the two elements together, but does not clearly describe that they cannot move relative to each other.
Claim 22 is 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 22 recites the upper portion comprising a sealing lip, which is not clearly described in the original disclosure. The original disclosure stated “the mounting portion has a sealing lip.” Claims 5-6 and 23-24 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph because of their dependency to claim 22.
Claims 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 17-24, 26, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims that are also rejected under 35 USC 112, but not listed below with a precise reasoning, because they depend from the 35 USC 112 rejected claim and include the limitations of that claim by their dependence.
Claim 10 recites “a vent”, it is unclear if this is a new vent or the same vent already recited in claim 14.
Claim 10 recites “of the vented cap. the supplemental cover”, it is unclear how the supplemental cover is being modified.
Claim 12 recites “to the vented”, it is unclear what structure is being claimed.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the vent" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the vent cap" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the supplemental cap". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wahner et al. (US Pat 6,745,565). Wahner discloses a supplemental cover (11) for a vented cap (22), the supplemental cover comprising:
Re claim 17, a body (body of 11) having an upper portion (15 and 16) including a top plate (plate defined by 15) that includes a first planar major surface (top surface at 15); and a bottom face (bottom surface below 15) including a second planar surface portion (bottom surface below 15) parallel to the first planar major surface and having a recess (recess defined by 15 and 18 for receiving 28) therein for receiving the vent and the vent cap (fig. 4 shows the portion 28 of the vented cap and the vent 27 being received in the recess), the supplemental cover supporting itself on the vent and the vented cap (fig. 4).; and the upper portion configured to cover the vent and the vented cap when releasably attached to the vented cap (fig. 4), said supplemental cover seals the vent and prevents fluid from penetrating the vented cap (the position shown in fig. 4 shows that the cover forms a barrier to prevent fluid from penetrating the cap).
Re claim 18, wherein the bottom face of the supplemental cover conforms to a major portion fo the vent cap (the bottom face is shown to substantially conforming to 28).
Re claim 19, wherein the supplemental cover does not move with respect to the vented cap (when attached and no outside force is applied, the supplement cover would not move with respect to the vented cap) when attached to the vented cap.
Re claim 20, wherein the supplemental cover is manufacturable by additive manufacturing, the first planar major surface of the top plate forming a base of an additively manufacturing three-dimensional print, the supplemental cover formable without support material (This is treated as a product-by-process claim, see MPEP 2113. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. The cover has the structural characteristics of being manufacturable by additive three-dimensional print manufacturing.).
Re claim 21, wherein the recess in the second major surface surrounds a major portion of the vent (fig. 4 shows the recess surrounding the vent 27).
Re claim 27, further comprising a runoff (16) that extends circumferentially around the top plate as the runoff extends outwardly toward the outer perimeter of the supplemental cover, the runoff being substantially planar (fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 14, 10, 12, 13, 16, 23, 24, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahner et al. (US Pat 6,745,565) in view of Neumann et al. (US Pub 2009/0291628 A1). Wahner discloses a venting system (fig. 4) comprising:
Re claim 1, a vented cap (22); and a supplemental cover (11) comprising: a body (body of 11) having a planar mounting portion (fig. 4: bottom surface of mounting portion 18 is planar); and an upper portion (15,16) parallel to the mounting portion (top surface of 15 is parallel to the bottom surface of 18); the mounting portion further comprising: a sealing lip (radially inner protrusion of 18) still further including an interior facing bevel (figs. 4, 6A,6B show the beveled protrusion extending radially inward; Neumann below teaches the plurality of bevels) for gripping the vented cap and configured to releasably attach to the vented cap by operatively mounting the supplemental cover on said vented cap (fig. 4), the upper portion being configured to cover a majority of the vented cap when the mounting portion releasably attaches the supplemental cover on said vented cap (fig. 4), the supplemental cover preventing fluid flow through the vented cap when attached to the vented cap (the position shown in fig. 4 shows that the cover forms a barrier to prevent fluid from penetrating the cap).
Re claim 9, wherein the upper portion comprises: a center axis (axis at the center of 15); a top plate (15); and a runoff (16), wherein the top plate is flat (fig. 4 shows 15 is flat) and centered around the center axis, the runoff including a substantially planar downward sloping piece (outer surface) outboard of the top plate for directing fluid off the supplemental cover (fig. 4).
Re claim 14, wherein the upper portion further comprises a recess (fig. 4: recess is above and between 18 where 23 is received), the recess on an underside of the top plate for receiving a vent (27) of the vented cap (fig. 4).
Re claim 10, wherein the underside of the top plate for receiving a vent (27) of the vented cap conforms to a major portion of the surface of the vented cap (fig. 4 shows the recess conforms to 28). the supplemental cover.
Re claim 12, wherein the supplemental cover does not move with respect to the vented cap (when attached and no outside force is applied, the supplement cover would not move with respect to the vented cap) when attached to the vented.
Re claim 13, wherein the supplemental cover is manufacturable by additive manufacturing, the upper portion of the supplemental cover forming a base of an additively manufacturing three-dimensional print, the supplemental cover formable without support material (This is treated as a product-by-process claim, see MPEP 2113. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. The cover has the structural characteristics of being manufacturable by additive three-dimensional print manufacturing.).
Re claim 16, wherein the recess is configured to stabilize the supplemental cover on the vented cap (fig. 4 shows a mounted stabilized position).
Re claim 25, in which the supplemental cover press fits to the vented cap to connect the supplemental cover to the vented cap (fig. 4 shows 11 may be press fits onto 22).
Re claim 26, wherein the plurality of interior facing bevels of the supplemental cap engage the vented cap in press fitting the supplemental cap to the vented cap (fig. 4 shows 11 may be press fits onto 22 via the bevel interface).
Wahner does not disclose:
Re claim 1, the sealing lip still further including a plurality of interior facing bevels.
Re claim 23, wherein the sealing lip further comprises a plurality of tabs, which extend from the sealing lip, the plurality of tabs mounting the supplemental cover on the vented cap.
Re claim 24, wherein the plurality of tabs comprises a pair of triangular-prism shaped bevels that lie diametrically opposed on center-facing sides of the tabs, the pair of bevels gripping the vented cap to inhibit the supplemental cover from moving relative to the vented cap.
However, Neumann teaches a cover (4) wherein:
Re claim 1, the sealing lip still further including a plurality of interior facing bevels for gripping the vented cap (Neumann teaches a plurality of bevels 12 in fig. 5 for engaging with vented cap 30).
Re claim 23, wherein the sealing lip further comprises a plurality of tabs (Wahner discloses the tab at 18 whereas Neumann teaches a plurality of tabs 12 in fig. 5), which extend from the sealing lip, the plurality of tabs mounting the supplemental cover on the vented cap (Wahner fig. 4 and Neumann fig. 5).
Re claim 24, wherein the plurality of tabs comprises a pair of triangular-prism shaped bevels (fig. 5 shows the bevels 12 to significantly have a shape of triangular-prism such that two surfaces converge at an apex) that lie diametrically opposed on center-facing sides of the tabs (the triangular-prism shape is taught to Wahner bevels 25, which are center-facing), the pair of bevels gripping the vented cap to inhibit the supplemental cover from moving relative to the vented cap (Wahner fig. 4 shows the bevels gripping onto 28).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a split Wahner’s bevel into a plurality of bevels with corresponding tabs, as taught by Neumann, so that the bevels could better flex radially outward during the press fitting onto the cap.
While it is believed that Neumann teaches the claimed bevel shape, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). A mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahner et al. (US Pat 6,745,565) in view of Neumann et al. (US Pub 2009/0291628 A1) and Pittarelli et al. (US Pat 5,577,647). Wahner as modified discloses the supplemental cover (as cited above). Wahner as modified does not disclose:
Re claim 11, wherein the upper portion further comprises a pair of handles having a connecting portion and an end portion, wherein the handles are diametrically opposed on the supplemental cover, wherein each handle has a top coplanar with the top plate the connecting portion spans the runoff.
However, Pittarelli teaches a cover (fig. 1):
Re claim 11, wherein the upper portion further comprises a pair of handles (46) having a connecting portion (portion of 46 engaging with 30) and an end portion (vertical portion of 46 away from 30), wherein the handles are diametrically opposed on the supplemental cover (fig. 2), wherein each handle has a top coplanar with the top plate (fig. 2) the connecting portion spans the runoff (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the claimed handles, as taught by Pittarelli, to provide a surface to assist in attaching or removing of the cover.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In paragraph B on pages 1-2 of the Remarks, Applicant requests Examiner point out the specific for the 35 USC 112 Rejection. Examiner have stated clear reason(s) why some of the claims were rejected under 35 USC 112. Other claims were also rejected under 35 USC 112, but without a precise reasoning, because they depend from the 35 USC 112 rejected claim and include the limitations of that claim by their dependence.
Applicant’s arguments are based on the amendments to the claims. Please see the new rejection above for details as to how the amended claims are now rejected.
In section B on pages 5-6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues Wahner teaches away from such a modification. Wahner teaches away from producing any kind of sealed system. One would not teach the sealed system of Neumann to a vented system of Wahner.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not preclude Wahner element 11 as the supplement cover and element 22 as the vented cap. Element 22 is placed at the top of tube 24 therefore is construed as a vented cap. Element 11 is used to cover element 22 therefore is construed as a supplemental cover. The position shown in Wahner fig. 4 shows that the cover forming a barrier to prevent fluid from penetrating the cap housed therein. Additionally, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the rejection in the Office action. Neumann was not used to teach the entire sealed system, rather Neumann teaches the plurality of beveled tabs having triangular-prism lips 12 to interface with a corresponding structure. The lips of Neumann would be taught to Wahner to interface with the vent cap 22. Wahner already discloses the supplemental cover and vented cap in a vented system while Neumann teaches the feature of the lips.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH D TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3014. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/Minh Truong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654