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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1, 6, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ichikawa et al. (US Patent No. 9,714,125).
Re: Claim 1, Ichikawa discloses the claimed invention including an assembly of a spout and a plug element,
the spout comprising:
a sealboat (42) for sealing a pouch thereto (Fig. 4), and
an outlet tube (12) extending with respect to the sealboat, the outlet tube having an outlet end (25) through which in use a liquid or other substance exits the outlet tube as well as an inlet end opposite the outlet end (Fig. 3);
the sealboat and the outlet tube integral with each other, so that the outlet tube extends through the sealboat (Fig. 3),
the plug element comprising:
a valve (21) for closing the inlet of the outlet tube in a neutral coupled position of the plug element;
a pair of resilient arms (32); and
a plunger rod (23b) for connecting the resilient arms to the valve (Fig. 3),
wherein the resilient arms of the plug element are formed to be unreleasably coupled to the sealboat of the spout (Depicted in Fig. 2, unrealeasably attached),
wherein in the neutral coupled position the plug element extends in a direction away from the outlet tube and the resilient arms are pre-tensioned to exert a force on the valve, to close the inlet of the outlet tube with said valve (Col. 1, Col. 8, lines 28-31, pretensioned); and
wherein the resilient arms are formed to move the valve away from the inlet upon compression of the resilient arms, to release the inlet (Depicted in Fig. 3).
Re: Claim 6, Ichikawa discloses the claimed invention including the plunger rod has a non-uniform diameter, and wherein a thickest part of the plunger rod acts as a stop to limit compression of the resilient arms.
Re: Claim 11, Ichikawa discloses the claimed invention including the plunger rod has a non-uniform diameter, and wherein a thickest part of the plunger rod acts as a stop to limit compression of the resilient arms (Depicted in Fig. 3).
Re: Claim 12, Ichikawa discloses the claimed invention including the plunger rod has a non-uniform diameter, and wherein a thickest part of the plunger rod acts as a stop to limit compression of the resilient arms.
Re: Claim 13, Ichikawa discloses the claimed invention including a flow channel of the outlet tube has a substantially constant diameter over an entire length from the inlet to outlet (Depicted in Fig. 3).
Re: Claim 14, Ichikawa discloses the claimed invention including a pouch (41) comprising a flexible sheet defining an inner volume (Col. 9, lines 25-35, sheets), the flexible sheet sealed to the sealboat of an assembly according to claim 1, the plug element extending in the inner volume defined by the flexible sheet (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) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (US Patent No. 9,714,125) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stevens et al. (US Patent No. 4,457,453).
Re: Claim 2, Ichikawa discloses the claimed invention except for the sealboat comprises a pair of recesses for clickfingers. However, Stevens teaches the sealboat (17) comprises a pair of recesses (14, 16, 54) adapted to receive the resilient arms (34) of the plug element (42), and wherein the resilient arms of the plug element each comprise a clickfinger (46, 52) configured to unreleasably fit into the recesses of the sealboat (Fig. 4, Col. 3, lines 12-15, 31-36, clickfingers received into recess).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include recess and clicking attachments as taught by Stevens, since Stevens states in col. 3, lines 12-15 that such a modification ensures proper alignment and restricts axial movement such that all movement is transferred to the plug for actuation.
Re: Claim 4, Ichikawa as modified by Stevens in the rejection claim 2 above discloses the claimed invention including in an axial direction of the outlet tube, the recesses in the sealboat are bordered by a transverse rib (29) at the outer surface thereof (Stevens: Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (US Patent No. 9,714,125) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kazuhiro et al. (US 2016/0214780).
Re: Claim 5, Ichikawa discloses the claimed invention including the resilient arms are adapted to be connected to the sealboat (Fig. 3) except for stating by ultrasonic welding. However, Kazuhiro discloses using ultrasonic welding for connected valve parts to a seal boat (Para. 124, ultrasonic welding).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include ultrasonic welding as taught by Kazuhiro, since Kazuhiro states in para. 124 that such a modification is a known bonding method in art, and said welding is known in the art to provide a strong joint, rapidly produced, and visually clean.
Claim(s) 6-10 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (US Patent No. 9,714,125).
Re: Clam 6 the valve, at the side that in the neutral coupled position closes the tube inlet, has a slanted end face, a slanting angle of the slanted end face (Fig. 3) except for being in between ±30° and ±60° with respect to the axial direction of the outlet tube. However, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ichikawa by causing the angle of the valve face to be between ±30° and ±60° with respect to the axial direction. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular angle (see Specification wherein it is required simply that the angle be “preferably” the above range) and it appears that the device of Ichikawa would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of angle.
Re: Claims 7, 15, and 16 when projected on a plane perpendicular to the axial direction of the outlet tube, the widest point of the resilient arms extends with respect to the sealboat in the neutral coupled position . (Fig. 1 depicts the resilient arms capable of extending in a myriad of direction including at most 25 percent compared to a width of the sealboat) except for the extension is in between 12% and 18% compared to the width of the sealboat in the same direction. However, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ichikawa by causing the extension is in between 12% and 18% compared to the width of the sealboat in the same direction. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular percentages (see Specification wherein it is required simply that the extension “may be” the relative percentages) and it appears that the device of Ichikawa would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of percentages.
Re: Claims 8, 17, and 18, Ichikawa discloses the claimed invention including the force exerted on the inlet of the outlet tube by the valve is what is desired by the user Col. 2, lines 45-46) except for expressly stating between 8 and 10 N in the neutral coupled position. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ichikawa by causing the force to be between 8 and 10 N in the neutral couple position. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular force (see Specification wherein it is required simply that the force be enough to close the valve) and it appears that the device of Ichikawa would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of forces.
Re: Claims 9, 19, and 20, Ichikawa discloses the claimed invention including a total stroke of the plunger rod, in between a non-assembled position and a maximally extended position (Fig. 3, depicts a small percentage) except for expressly stating is in between 8.0 and 9.0% of the total plunger rod length. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ichikawa by causing the force to be between 8.0 and 9.0% of the total plunger rod length. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular percentage (see Specification wherein it is required simply that the extension “may be” the relative percentages) and it appears that the device of Ichikawa would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of percentages.
Re: Claims 10, Ichikawa discloses the claimed invention including a stroke of the plunger rod, in the neutral coupled position with respect to a non-assembled position (Fig. 1, depicts a small percentage) except for expressly stating is in between 1.5 and 6.0% of a total plunger rod length. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ichikawa by causing the force to be between 8.0 and 9.0% of the total plunger rod length. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular percentage (see Specification wherein it is required simply that the extension “may be” the relative percentages) and it appears that the device of Ichikawa would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of percentages.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References cited on the PTO-892 show additional examples of resilient arm actuated valves within containers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 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.
/CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754