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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the valve of Ichikawa does not close the inlet of the outlet tube at the sealboat. However, the claim phrase “at the sealboat” does not import any additional structure or location of the valve, as long as at some point along the sealboat the valve exists and is capable of closing then it meets the claim. Here, Ichikawa clearly depicts in fig. 3, the seal boat (13a) as a unitary structure with the rest of the outlet tube and thus if the valve closes the inlet along the outlet tube, then it inherently also closes it at the sealboat. Additionally, the sealboat includes the features of 13a and 13b, and fig. 3 clearly depicts valve (21) closing at the sealboat upper edge at the inlet of the outlet tube. Further delineation is needed to adequately define the location of the valve over the prior art of record.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
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 (13a, 13b, 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 at the sealboat 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, 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) 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 4, Ichikawa disclose the claimed invention except for further particulars of the seal boat. However, Stevens 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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include recesses 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.
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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights