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 § 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) 12 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karussi et al. (US-20180014671-A1) in view of Gillespie et al. (US-20230159235-A1).
Karussi discloses a lid assembly (24) with a slider (Fig. 2), comprising: a lid (28), the lid is configured to connect or engage to a beverage container (22); the lid having a central wall (32), the central wall having a first opening (36)for fluid passage; a slider (30), the slider is configured to engage with the lid, and the slider configured to move relative to the lid to cover and uncover the first opening (Par. 0035); the slider comprising a connection member (44), wherein the connection member is configured to pass through a second opening (at 46) in the central wall; and wherein the connection member is configured to slide against a lower surface of the central wall (par. 0037) an upper housing (30) and a connection member (44).
Karussi fails to teach a gasket wherein the upper housing fits over the gasket, wherein the gasket fits over the connection member, and a distal portion of a sidewall of the gasket is configured to seal against the central wall, wherein an inner surface of the sidewall of the upper housing includes catches or frictional gripping surfaces that engage with complementary catch surfaces in the sidewall of the gasket.
Gillespie teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a slider with a gasket (44) wherein an upper housing fits over the gasket, wherein the gasket fits over a connection member, and a distal portion of a sidewall of the gasket is configured to seal against a central wall (par. 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the slider with gasket, in order to improve the seal of the slider on the lid. The inner surface of the sidewalls of the upper housing and the gasket of the modified structure would contact and therefore would read on the limitation of frictional gripping surfaces and catch surfaces as currently claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 13-18 and 20-21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the claimed lid assembly with a slider, wherein the slider has a connection member that passes through an opening in the central wall and a gasket configured to seal against the central wall wherein the connection member nests into or against the lower side of the gasket .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10, 13-18 and 20-21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 12 and 22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s that the components of the modified structure are no over each other, the claimed are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. “Over” does not necessarily mean that something is on top of something else. If a feature is covered it can be interpreted to be over another feature. 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).
Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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