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 § 112
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.
Claims 1-11 are 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.
Regarding claim 1: the claim recites, “driving the plugging head (31) to be away from the first liquid outlet (11) when the misaligned gap (21) is at least partially connected to the first liquid outlet (11).”
Describing the gap (21) as being at least “partially connected” to the first outlet when the plugging head moved away (i.e., when first outlet is open) is not an accurate way of describing the relationship and is likely a translation error. Instead of at least “partially connected”, the examiner assumes the applicant means something along the lines of, at least “partially aligned.” This is how the examiner shall interpret the claim when applying prior art.
The applicant is required to provide correction and/or clarification.
Regarding claim 11: similar to the above discussion, the phrase, “when the misaligned gap (21) is connected to the first liquid outlet (11)” shall be interpreted, ““when the misaligned gap (21) is aligned with the first liquid outlet (11).”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wong (US 2021/0354888).
Regarding claim 1: see the above §112 discussion. Wong discloses a lid structure, comprising: a lid body (at 112, fig 2a) in which a first liquid outlet (11) and a second liquid outlet (12) are constructed, the second liquid outlet (123, fig 2a) being provided with a suction nozzle (114, fig 9D); a rotating cover (131) rotatably disposed on a side, facing the suction nozzle, of the lid body so as to be capable of bending the suction nozzle (¶0074) during rotation; the rotating cover being provided with a misaligned gap (141, fig 2a) so that the suction nozzle rebounds at the misaligned gap (¶0077, figs 9b-9c) to reset; a plugging assembly (150, fig 2a) detachably disposed on a side, away from the rotating cover, of the lid body, the plugging assembly being provided with a plugging head (152, fig 6) capable of plugging the first liquid outlet (¶0074); and a driving assembly (134/135, figs 5a and 6) capable of synchronously rotating with the rotating cover and driving the plugging head to be away from the first liquid outlet when the misaligned gap is at least partially aligned to the first liquid outlet (¶¶0074-0076, figs 8a-8c).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-3 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 2021/0354888), as applied above to claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
308
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2: Wong, as applied above, discloses wherein the lid body is provided with a shaft hole (121, figs 3a-3b), a pin shaft (i.e., shaft that extends from bottom of 131, called out in above annotated figure) penetrating into the shaft hole (fig 4) is constructed on the rotating cover (fig 2b), a rectangular end (called out in above annotated figure) is constructed on an end of the pin shaft extending to the lid body away from the rotating cover (fig 4), the driving assembly comprises a chuck (134, figs 5a-6), and the chuck is provided with a rectangular hole (i.e., the bottom opening in 134 that receives legs 133 is shown to be rectangular, see fig 5b) cooperating with the square end (221).
Wong, as applied above, discloses all of the limitations except for the explicit disclosure that the pin shaft has a square end and the chuck hole is square. As discussed above, both elements are depicted as being rectangular but it is not clear if they are square. Before the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the pin shaft to have a square end and the chuck to have a square hole, as claimed, because it would be a simple change in shape that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the particular shape was significant, served a particular purpose or was otherwise critical (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Further the device of Wong would function in the exact same way if said elements in question were made square.
Regarding claim 3: Wong, as applied above, discloses wherein the square end (see above discussion of claim 2) is provided with an internal shrinkage groove (i.e., the space between legs 133 function as a shrinking groove because legs 133 are compressed inward when press fitted into 134; ¶0067) passing through the radial direction of the pin shaft, a clamping bulge (1331, fig 5b, ¶0067) is disposed on an outer wall, facing away from the internal shrinkage groove, of the square end, and the clamping bulge is located on a side, away from the lid body (fig 5b), of the chuck.
Regarding claim 10: Wong, as applied to claim 1 above, discloses wherein a sealing ring (140, fig 2b, ¶0067) is disposed between an outer wall of the pin shaft and an inner wall of the shaft hole (¶0067).
The examiner noting that the additional clauses of the claim are proceeded by “and/or” indicating that they are not required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding clam 4: Wong fails to disclose a toggling bulge structure (412) is constructed on a side, away from the lid body (1), of the chuck (41), and the toggling bulge structure (412) is provided with a driving slope (413) gradually away from the lid body (1) so as to drive the plugging head (31) to be away from the first liquid outlet (11) during rotation.
The plugging head of Wong is moved away from the first liquid outlet by a different mechanism. The bottom of the lid has a sloped surface (116, fig 8c) and a projection (118, fig 8c) that cooperate to hold the plug in place. Rotating the cover causes the plugging head to move off of sloped surface (116) and to lower.
Wong discloses a second embodiment (figs 11-25) with a chuck (234, figs 15B-16B) that has a surface (2352) that narrows along its path to engage guide pin (261 fig 15D) to move plugging head (252, fig 15D) away from a first liquid outlet. However, the claim requires “a driving slope gradually away from the lid body” which the examiner understands to mean the slope needs to be in the up-down direction when the lid is installed. The surface (2352) narrows in the horizontal direction when installed, and it would not be reasonable to say that it teaches, “a driving slope gradually away from the lid body.” To paraphrase, the camming surface of Wong is oriented in a different direction than the claimed camming surface.
Further, there is no reference of record that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wong to include said limitations.
Regarding claim 11: Wong does not disclose wherein the rotating cover (2) is provided with a first blocking part (23), a toggling point groove (24) and a second blocking part (25) sequentially disposed in a circumferential direction; the lid body (1) is provided with a toggling point (18); when the suction nozzle (13) rebounds at the misaligned gap (21) to reset, the toggling point (18) abuts against a side, facing the toggling point groove (24), of the first blocking part (23); when the misaligned gap (21) is connected to the first liquid outlet (11), the toggling point (18) abuts against a side, facing the toggling point groove (24), of the second blocking part (25); and the toggling point groove (24) is located between the first blocking part (23) and the second blocking part (25).
Wong discloses that the bottom of the lid has first and second stopper (115A, 115B, fig 3b) that interact with the rotating cover. But Wong does not disclose all of said limitations and there is no reference of record that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wong to include said limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON M ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4923. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, 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.
/DON M ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733