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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "toward open end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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) 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cornelius et al. (US-20200148430-A1).
Cornelius discloses an arrangement comprising a sport bottle lid (10), a flip cap (28, 26), and a pivot loop (18) including a hinge pin arm (23, 33) that hingedly secures a hinge end (35) of the flip cap to a hinge arrangement (15) on the sport bottle lid, wherein the flip cap is pivotable in the hinge arrangement on the sport bottle lid without requiring the pivot loop (pars. 0023 and 0024), the pivot loop comprises the hinge pin arm (23) and a bail (at 20) extending from the hinge pin arm in form of a loop and is insertable into the hinge arrangement by the hinge pin arm via a hinge post (15) located in a hinge base which is formed on the sport bottle lid (Fig. 2), the flip cap and the pivot loop can be swivelled independently of each other (pars. 0023 and 0024), wherein the bail has one open end (between 22 and 23) opposite the connection to the hinge pin arm, wherein the open end of the bail comprises a fastening member (22), wherein the hinge pin arm comprises a first latching element (23) and / or a second latching element (22) for engaging with the hinge posts, wherein the hinge pin arm is a two-part element with opposing half shells (23 and 22).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelius in view of Lake (US-20190152655-A1).
Cornelius teaches all the claimed limitations as show above but fails to teach wherein the bail comprises a rubber or softer elastic plastic component within its loop form or on top thereof.
Lake teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a handle with a rubber member (par. 0091).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufacture the pivot loop with rubber, in order to make it easier to grip.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelius in view of Murphy (US-20060208515-A1).
Cornelius teaches all the claimed limitations as show above but fails to teach wherein the hinge pin arm is a hollow element having a longitudinal slot.
Murphy teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture handle components as a hollow element having a longitudinal slot (Figs. 2, 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufacture the arrangement with hollow components, as taught by Murphy, in order to reduce the amount of material used.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelius in view of Charles (US-D742230-S).
Cornelius teaches all the claimed limitations as show above but fails to teach wherein the bail comprises towards its open end a swivel arm connected to a joint.
Charles teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a handle swivel arm connected to a joint (Figs. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufacture the pivot loop with the structure taught by Charles, in order to make it easier to secure items with the pivot arm.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelius and Charles in view of Petzl et al. (US-20090056088-A1).
The modified arrangement of Cornelius teaches all the claimed limitations as show above but fails to teach wherein the bail comprises towards its open end a thread/sliding guide with a union sleeve/connecting sleeve.
Petzl teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a handle with a thread/sliding guide (26) with a union sleeve/connecting sleeve (25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufacture the pivot loop with the closing structure taught by Petzl, in order to ensure that the pivot arm is secured in a closed configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the independent mounting of the components or the outward location of the components relative to one another) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571)270-5055. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733