DETAILED ACTION
This communication is being mailed out in response to the most recent claims field on 02/02/2026. Applicant has cancelled claim 1 and added new claims 2-8. Applicant has also submitted an amended specification and drawings sheets. Currently, claims 2-8 are pending and examined on the merits. This is a final office 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
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is full of grammatical errors and fails to provide a concise statement of the relevance of the invention. Rather, it purports to merits of its supposed superiority when compared to prior art. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: even though the applicant has submitted a more detailed and refined specification it still contains a plethora of grammatical errors and often lacks sentences that convey a proper meaning. The language of the specification also lacks clear explanation of the invention leading to indefiniteness. It is also noted that the applicant has attempted to add new matter to the specification which was not present in previously filed original specification. While not an exhaustive list, some examples of new matter are the addition of material TPU in paragraphs [0011-0013], [0018], the length of top piece being 8 mm, the sleeve being 11 mm long, etc. Applicant is advised to amend the specification to remove new matter being added.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because every sentence of the claim begins with a capital letter which does not follow a sentence structure that is required for a patent claim and contains a number of punctuation errors.
Claims 3-8 are objected to because they all begin with a lower-case letter instead of a capital letter as required for a patent claim to follow a single sentence structure.
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 2-8 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 2 recites “a flexible sleeve formed or soft, food-safe, dishwasher safe rubber material” in line 6. Here, the claim added that the material is “dishwasher safe”. This recitation is not supported by the original disclosure as it was not present in any of the previous specifications or drawings. Here, the applicant is attempting to claim new subject matter which is improper. Applicant must remove this subject matter to overcome the rejection. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “a flexible sleeve formed of a soft and food-safe rubber material…”
Claim 3 recites that “the sleeve and the topper are formed of TPU silicone”. This This recitation is not supported by the original disclosure as it was not present in any of the previous specifications or drawings. It is also noted that TPU and silicone are different materials and therefore, they cannot be claimed as a single material even if the applicant had any disclosure of using such materials for the sleeve and the topper. Regardless, the applicant is attempting to claim new subject matter which is improper. Applicant must remove this subject matter to overcome the rejection. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the sleeve and the topper are made of a soft and food-safe rubber material…”
Claim 5 recites that “the sleeve includes a textured outer surface to improve grip during installation and removal”. This recitation is not supported by the original disclosure as it was not present in any of the previous specifications or drawings. Here, the applicant is attempting to claim new subject matter which is improper. Applicant must remove this subject matter to overcome the rejection. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the sleeve includes an outer surface…”
Claim 6 recites that “the topper provides a smooth upper surface”. This recitation is not supported by the original disclosure as it was not present in any of the previous specifications or drawings. Here, the applicant is attempting to claim new subject matter which is improper. Applicant must remove this subject matter to overcome the rejection. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the topper includes an upper surface…”
Claim 7 recites that “the interior ridge is continuous and Circumferential around the interior wall of the sleeve”. This recitation is not supported by the original disclosure as it was not present in any of the previous specifications or drawings. Here, the applicant is attempting to claim new subject matter which is improper. Applicant must remove this subject matter to overcome the rejection. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the interior ridge is continuous and inside an interior wall of the sleeve…”
Dependent claims 4 and 8 are also rejected under the same grounds for being dependent on claim 2 which introduces new matter.
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 2 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The recitation “an interior ridge positioned inside the sleeve near the upper opening” in claim 1 is not clear because the drawings and specification make it clear that the ridge 124 extends through the entire length on an inner surface of the cylindrical sleeve. Thus, it is not clear how the interior ridge is positioned only near an upper opening of the sleeve. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 2 also recites the limitations "soft, food-safe, dishwasher safe rubber material" in line 1, “The sleeve” in line 2, “the upper opening” in line 6, “a topper” in line 7, “the topper” in line 10. The claim contains multiple issues with using proper antecedent basis for limitations once they are introduced and leads to ambiguity. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “topper” in line 1. Claim 4 depends from claim 2 which recites “a topper” and thus claim 4 should refer back to the limitation via “the topper”. For this reason, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 7, the recitation “the interior ridge is continuous and Circumferential around the interior wall of the sleeve” is also indefinite because the ridge 124 extends in a longitudinal direction and cannot be circumferential around the interior wall of the sleeve. Once again, the specification lacks support for the new claimed limitation to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 7 also recites “the interior wall of the sleeve” in line 2. Claim 7 depends from claim 2 which does not recite “an interior wall of the sleeve”. For this reason, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims 3, 5, 6, and 8 are also rejected under the same grounds for being dependent on claim 2.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
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 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US PN 22,370) in view of Haley (US PG PUB 2005/0184026).
Regarding claims 2-4, and 8, Lewis teaches a protective assembly (figure 1) for a metal alcohol pour spout (the stopper can be used with a bottle spout), comprising:
(a) a cylindrical sleeve (item A, figure 3) comprising (i) an open lower end (figure 3) configured to receive and cover at least an upper portion of the metal alcohol pour spout (the tube of stopper A can fit over an pouring spout of a bottle); (ii) a reduced-diameter upper opening (conical chamber d, figure 3 has a reduced diameter); (b) an interior ridge (ribs f and screw threads on the top surface, figure 3) positioned inside the sleeve near the upper opening, the ridge configured to retain a topper; (c) a topper (item C, figure 3), the topper sized to fit into the reduced-diameter upper opening of the sleeve and to snap past and be retained by the interior ridge (cap C is screwed on the upper portion of stopper A via threads), (d) wherein the sleeve and topper together cover exposed metal edges of the pour spout to prevent finger injuries during installation or removal (the stopper A and cap C assembly are capable of fitting over a pouring spout of a bottle or a container). Lewis is silent to the material of the stopper being a soft and flexible food-grade rubber and color coding applied to the components.
Haley teaches a pouring spout and stopper assembly (item 10, figure 1) comprising a cylindrical sleeve (item 12, figure 1) and a topper (item 36, figure 1) sized to fit inside an upper opening (item 16, figure 1) of the cylindrical sleeve wherein all or some components of the assembly are of a rubber like soft and food-grade material (paragraphs [0014], [0028], [0043]) and color coding may also be used to identify and differentiate different components of the assembly or to differentiate the assembly from other parts of a beverage container (paragraphs [0011], [0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed all or some components of the protective assembly of Lewis out of natural or synthetic soft rubber and food-grade material as taught Haley because such materials are easier to source and design and also industry-proven for food and beverage use. Also, it would be obvious to use color coding to identify and differentiate components of the same invention from each other but also the entire protective assembly from other parts of the beverage container or bottle.
Furthermore, it would be obvious to form the protective assembly and its component out of TPU or similar synthetic rubber materials because such materials provide flexibility and resilience to the beverage dispensing components for an easier and enjoyable beverage pouring experience. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. (See MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 5, Lewis teaches that the sleeve includes an outer surface (figure 3)
Regarding claim 6, Lewis teaches that the topper provides an upper surface fully covering the metal pour spout opening (figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, Lewis teaches that the interior ridge is continuous and on an interior wall of the sleeve (ribs f extend in longitudinal direction and are continuous and screw threads are circumferential and continuous throughout the circumference of the sleeve, figures 1-4).
Response to Arguments
It is noted that the applicant has not provided any arguments regarding rejection of previously canceled claim 1 in under Scribner and has also not clarified how he prior art(s) would be differentiated from newly added claims 2-8. Nevertheless, because applicant canceled claim 1 and filed new claims 2-8, prior arts Lewis and Haley are relied upon which teach each and every limitations of the claims as being obvious. Therefore, claims 2-8 are rejected as discussed in detail above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL J PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-9324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9 am - 7 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, 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.
/Vishal Pancholi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754