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 .
The amendment filed on 2/13/2026 have been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7 and 11 of this instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5, 9 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,472 in view of Brown (US 5,839,614).
Regarding claim 1, the patent discloses all the features of the invention but is silent in disclosing the circular peripheral retaining flange has an outer diameter D0 larger than 10.3 mm. However, Brown teaches the commonality of having the circular peripheral retaining flange with an outer diameter D0 larger than 10.3 mm (col 9, ll.14-20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the diameter of the circular peripheral retaining flange to larger than 10.3 as taught by Brown, in order to provide a proper and sturdy closure in dispensing fluid.
Claim 2 of this instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the patent.
Claim 3 of this instant application corresponds to claim 2 of the patent.
Claim 4 of this instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the patent.
Claim 5 of this instant application corresponds to claim 4 of the patent.
Claim 6 of this instant application corresponds to claim 5 of the patent.
Claim 7 of this instant application corresponds to claim 9 of the patent.
Claim 11 of this instant application corresponds to claim 16 of the patent.
It is clear that all the elements of claims 1-7 and 11 of this instant application are to be found in claims 1-2, 4-5, 9 and 16 of the patent. The difference between claims of the application and the patent lies in the fact that the patent claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of claims of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of claims of the application. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since claims of the application is anticipated by claims of the patent as cited in the above, the claims of the application are not patentably distinct from claims of the patent.
Following the rationale of in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown (US 5,839,614).
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses a self-closing dispensing valve (3c, see fig.25) made of an elastic material (col 9, ll.32-35), said valve comprising a valve head (see marked areas 38c, 40c, 6c, 41c, 56c) with a dispensing orifice (6c) and a circular peripheral retaining flange (4c) integrally connected with the valve head (see fig.25), wherein: the circular peripheral retaining flange has an outer diameter D0 larger than 10.3 mm (col 9, ll.14-20), the elastic material is a food-approved plastomer (col 9, ll.32-35; “silicone rubber” from “SILASTIC LSR” are plastomer and can be used in food industries), the valve head has a dome shape with a concave exterior side and a convex interior side (see fig.25), the valve head has a uniform wall thickness (see fig.25 and col 18, ll.46-50), and the valve head is connected directly to the retaining flange by a hinge portion that is U-shaped in cross section (marked hinged area 49c connecting the valve head to 4c via a U-shaped hinge).
Regarding claim 2, Brown discloses the retaining flange is substantially form stable (see fig.25).
Regarding claim 3, Brown discloses the wall thickness of the hinge portion is smaller than the wall thickness of the valve head (see fig.25).
Regarding claim 4, Brown discloses the hinge has a uniform wall thickness (see fig.25)
Regarding claim 5, Brown discloses the wall thickness of the hinge portion is 0.2 mm (col 9, ll.15-32).
Regarding claim 7, Brown discloses the wall thickness of the valve head is about 0.25 mm (col 9, ll.15-32).
Regarding claim 10, Brown discloses the dispensing orifice is defined by two through slits in a T-configuration (see fig.28).
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.
Claims 6 and 8-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 5,839,614).
Regarding claim 6, Brown is silent in disclosing the U-shaped hinge portion has a convex side which has a radius of curvature of about 0.43mm. Instead, Brown shows a convex U-shaped radius of curvature shown in the area of 49c in fig.25 that is similar to the radius of curvature of the Applicant device. At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to a radius of curvature of about 0.43mm, since Applicant has neither placed criticality on the radius of curvature of about 0.43mm nor has disclosed that such a radius of curvature provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than being able to flex the orifice to an open or closed position in which the hinge radius of curvature of Brown provides the same end result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the hinge of Brown to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6 because such a modification would have been considered an obvious and clear alteration to the prior art of Brown.
Regarding claim 8, Brown is silent in disclosing the valve head has a diameter Dvh, and wherein the concave exterior side of the valve head has a radius of curvature R1, wherein 1.2 ≤ Dvh/R1 ≤ 1.6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the valve head with a diameter Dvh, and the concave exterior side of the valve head with a radius of curvature R1, wherein 1.2 ≤ Dvh/R1 ≤ 1.6, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, Brown discloses the valve head has a diameter Dvh, and the concave exterior side of the valve head has a radius of curvature R1, which achieves the recognized result of being able to fit the valve head onto a closure of a container (see fig.1-32), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Brown is silent in disclosing the valve head has a diameter Dvh, and wherein the concave exterior side of the valve head has a radius of curvature R1, wherein Dvh/R1 is 1.5. Instead, Brown teaches the valve head has a diameter Dvh=.4391 inches (col 9, ll.15-20) and wherein the concave exterior side of the valve head has a radius of curvature R1 (see curvature of 5 in fig.25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the invention of Brown as such Dvh/R1=1.5 because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 11 and 14-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 5,839,614) in view of Hatton (US 2015/0014369).
Regarding claim 11, Brown discloses a self-closing dispensing valve made of an elastic material (3c, see fig.25 and col 9, ll.32-35), said valve comprising a valve head (see marked areas 38c, 40c, 6c, 41c, 56c) with a dispensing orifice (6c) and a circular peripheral retaining flange (4c) integrally connected with the valve head (see fig.25), wherein: the valve head has a dome shape with a concave exterior side and a convex interior side (see fig.25), and the valve head is connected directly to the retaining flange by a hinge portion that is U-shaped in cross section (marked hinged area 49c connecting the valve head to 4c via a U-shaped hinge).
Brown is silent in disclosing the elastic material of the valve is a thermoplastic elastomer. However, Hatton teaches the commonality of making the valve head from an elastic material such as thermoplastic elastomer ([0063]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the material of the valve head of Brown to a thermoplastic elastomer as taught by Hatton, in order to allow for a reliable performance in a wide range of applications where a good seal is required, while also being lightweight and often more cost-effective than traditional metal valves.
Regarding claim 14, Brown discloses the dispensing orifice is defined by two through slits in a T-configuration (see fig.28).
Regarding claim 15, Brown discloses a dispensing closure (see fig.1-32) including: a closure body (see fig.11-12) comprising: a deck (marked area 23, 25) in which a dispensing passage (passage through 23) is formed, a skirt (see skirt of 23, 25) depending from the deck and defining an interior space of the closure, a valve seating portion formed in the interior space in line with the dispensing passage (see area 30 in fig.11-12); and a self-closing dispensing valve (3 in fig.11-12 or 3c in fig.25), said self-closing dispensing valve made of an elastic material (col 9, ll.32-35) and comprising a valve head (see fig.25) with a dispensing orifice (6c) and a circular peripheral retaining flange (4c) integrally connected with the valve head (see fig.25), wherein: the valve head has a dome shape with a concave exterior side and a convex interior side (see fig.25), the valve head is connected directly to the retaining flange by a hinge portion that is U-shaped in cross section (marked hinged area 49c connecting the valve head to 4c via a U-shaped hinge); and wherein the self-closing valve is arranged and secured in the valve seating portion of the closure body, wherein the valve is exclusively engaged by the closure body at the retaining flange of the valve (see the fig.12 with regard to the closure body).
Brown is silent in disclosing the elastic material of the valve is a thermoplastic elastomer. However, Hatton teaches the commonality of making the valve head from anelastic material is a thermoplastic elastomer ([0063]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the material of the valve head of Brown to a thermoplastic elastomer as taught by Hatton, in order to allow for a reliable performance in a wide range of applications where a good seal is required, while also being lightweight and often more cost-effective than traditional metal valves.
Regarding claim 16, Brown discloses the U-shaped hinge portion has a convex exterior side and wherein the convex exterior side of the U-shaped hinge portion of the valve is spaced apart from the deck of the closure body (see fig.12).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 5,839,614) in view of Stull (US 2006/0006203).
Brown is silent in disclosing the dispensing closure is made of a thermoplastic material. However, Stull teaches the commonality of making the dispensing closure from a thermoplastic material ([0026]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the material of the closure of Brown to a thermoplastic material as taught by Stull, in order to allow for a reliable performance in a wide range of applications where a good seal is required, while also being lightweight and often more cost-effective than traditional metal cap.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 5,839,614) in view of Gelov (US 2014/0263436).
Brown is silent in disclosing the dispensing closure is made of a PE and or PP. However, Gelov teaches the commonality of having a dispensing closure made of a PE and or PP ([0039]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the material of the closure of Brown to a PP or PE as taught by Gelov, in order to make a use of Polypropylene (PP) for applications requiring high heat resistance and rigidity, and polyethylene (PE) for flexibility and cold resistance and both are strong, durable, and widely recyclable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 2/13/2026 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the double patenting argument, the content of claim 1 of this instant application is a broad version of claim 1 of the US patent 11,912,472. The mere citation of “a connector sleeve” in the patent does not deviate from the shape of the valve as shown in fig.14 of this application. As shown below, the smaller dimension of the U-shaped hinge in this application can also include “a connector sleeve”.
PNG
media_image1.png
797
1053
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
858
1187
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, Applicant also argues that prior art to Brown (US 5,839,614) as cited in the Non-Final office action dated 11/19/2025, does not disclose a valve without a connector sleeve. And refers to 7c (47c in fig.25) as a connector sleeve. Examiner respectfully disagrees and refers to 47c as part of the U-shaped hinge (see below). Therefore, as shown below, the valve head connection to the flange takes place via a long U-shaped hinge
PNG
media_image3.png
610
1218
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Note
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 15, Applicant is advised to review the following prior arts that raise concern about the novelty of the claimed invention. The prior arts to Goncalves (US 2008/0110933), Drobish (GB 2158049 A) and Hatton (US 9,580,214) as cited in PTO-892 are also citing significant pertinent structures or features to the applicant’s claimed invention with regard to an elastic self-closing dispensing valve having a valve head with a dispensing orifice and a circular peripheral retaining flange integrally connected with the valve head, the circular peripheral retaining flange with an outer diameter, the valve head has a dome shape with a concave exterior side and a convex interior side and a uniform wall thickness being connected directly to the retaining flange by a hinge portion that is U-shaped in cross section. For further clarification, Applicant is welcomed to call and discuss the state of the office action.
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 Bob Zadeh whose telephone number is (571)270-5201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm E.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/BOB ZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754