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 § 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, 2, 8, 9, 12, 14 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alter (US-5954215-A).
Alter discloses:
1. A flexible lid (15, col. 3, lines 10-27), comprising: a top wall (25); a flange (27) forming a sidewall extending from the top wall, the flange forming a valve closure portion configured to form a seal with a container (Fig. 1); a plug (31) extending from an underside of the top wall within the valve closure portion; wherein a channel (33) is formed between the plug and the flange, the channel is configured to receive a neck of the container (Fig. 1); wherein the plug is sized to be received within an interior of the neck of the container and to establish concentric alignment between the lid and the neck when the neck is positioned within the channel (col. 5, lines 15-19); wherein an inner surface of the sidewall comprises a recessed helical female thread (29) configured to cooperate with a corresponding helical thread (21) on the neck of the container; wherein insertion of the plug into the neck of the container, the neck being received within the channel, forms a first step of a two-step closure, the first step being wherein the recessed helical female thread is positioned in close proximity to the corresponding helical thread on the neck of the container without threaded engagement therebetween; and wherein rotation of the lid relative to the container forms a second step of the two-step closure, the second step being wherein the recessed helical female thread engages the corresponding helical thread on the neck of the container to form a threaded connection that secures the lid to the container (Fig. 1, col. , lines 10-27).
2. The flexible lid of claim 1, wherein the flexible lid is monolithic (Fig. 2).
8. The flexible lid of claim 1, wherein the channel is annular (Fig. 3).
9. The flexible lid of claim 8, wherein the flange comprises an annular shape (Fig. 3).
12. The flexible lid of claim 1, wherein the sidewall extends continuously from the top wall (Fig. 12).
14. The flexible lid of claim 1, wherein the plug is configured to be larger (at 41) than an interior of a neck opening.
22. The flexible lid of claim 1, wherein the recessed helical female thread is entirely recessed within the sidewall such that non-threaded portions define a planar inner surface (Fig. 2).
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alter (US-5954215-A) in view of Robbins et al. (US-20240251825-A1).
Regarding claims 3-5:
Alter discloses all the claimed limitations as shown above but fails to teach wherein the components are manufactured out of silicone.
Robbins teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a lid out of silicone (par. 0129).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the lid out of silicone, in order to adjust costs and since 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.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alter (US-5954215-A) in view of Garcia (US-8763831-B2).
Regarding claims 10 and 11:
Alter discloses all the claimed limitations as show above but fails to teach wherein the plug is tapered from the underside of the top wall to a distal end thereof, and a sealing ring extending around the plug and positioned within the channel.
Garcia teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a plug with a tapered shape (col. 5, lines 9-9), wherein the plug has a sealing ring (216).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the plug of Alter with a taper and sealing ring, as taught by Garcia, in order to adjust to different containers and in order to better seal the containers.
Claim(s) 13 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alter (US-5954215-A) in view of Aichinger et al. (US-4412409-A).
Regarding claims 13 and 21:
Alter discloses all the claimed limitations as show above wherein the plug is sized to fit within the neck of the container (Fig. 1), but fails to teach wherein the plug does not extend past a lowermost end of the sidewall, and a distal end of the plug is positioned axially above a lowermost extent of the recessed helical female thread .
Aichinger teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a lid with a plug (3) wherein the plug does not extend past a lowermost end of a sidewall (Fig. 1), and a distal end of the plug is positioned axially above a lowermost extent of a helical female thread (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the plug of Alter with the plug height, as taught by Aichinger, in order to adjust to different containers and since such a modification would have been a change in size of an existing component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alter (US-5954215-A) in view of Call (US-8887968-B1).
Regarding claims 15 and 16:
Alter discloses all the claimed limitations as show above but fails to teach wherein the top wall comprises an aperture, and a nipple insertable through the aperture and securable within the flange.
Call teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a lid with an aperture (56) in a top wall , and with a nipple (20) that can be inserted through an aperture in the top wall (col. 3, lines 11-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the lid of Alter with a nipple and aperture, as taught by Call, in order to make a container easier to drink from.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights