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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 30 (air tube; see Specification page 14, line 15). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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 “the first end of the bottle stopper” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim recites “a second gripping wing located an exterior surface” on lines 22-23. This appears to be a grammatical or typographical error.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “behind the first gripping wing” in lines 3-4. It is unclear what “behind” means in this context, since no front or back has been defined in the claim. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to require the screened orifice to be aligned with the first gripping wing such that the screened orifice would be shown towards the interior of the spout cap relative to the first gripping wing in a top view of the device.
Regarding claim 10:
The claim recites “the first end of the bottle stopper” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim recites “the orifice of the hollow spout” in line 18. It is unclear whether Applicant intends to refer to the pour orifice recited in line 14.
The claim recites “a second gripping wing located an exterior surface” in lines 21-22. This appears to be a grammatical or typographical error.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear whether/how Applicant intends to further limit the structure of claim 15 by requiring a particular word to be displayed.
Regarding claim 17:
The claim recites “the first end of the bottle stopper” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim recites “a tamper monitoring tether cable receiving hole extending the first gripping wing” in lines 24-25. It is unclear how a hole would extend the first gripping wing. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to require the hole to extend through the first gripping wing.
The claim recites “a second gripping wing located an exterior surface” in line 25. This appears to be a grammatical or typographical error.
The claim recites “behind the first gripping wing” in line 28. See above regarding claim 9.
The claim recites “the orifice of the hollow spout” in lines 29-30. It is unclear whether Applicant intends to refer to the pour orifice recited in line 13. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to refer to the air vent, according to Examiner’s best understanding.
The claim recites “the pour orifice in alignment with the pour orifice” in line 36. This appears to be a typographical error. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to refer to the pour orifice being in alignment with the cap orifice, according to Examiner’s best understanding.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Agassi et al. (US 8,944,297).
Regarding claim 1, Agassi et al. disclose a bottle pour spout with shut-off mechanism (see especially embodiment 700; Figs. 7-27) comprising:
a hollow elongated main body (110) having a first end, a second end, and a fluid passage extending from the first end to the second end of the elongated main body allowing for the flow of liquids therethrough (Fig. 17);
at least one liquid bottle neck engaging member (170) extending from an exterior surface of the elongated main body, the bottleneck engaging member securing the elongated main body to an interior surface proximal to an open end of a liquid bottle in a fluid-tight manner (Col. 3, lines 38-40);
a bottle stopper (160) located proximal to the first end of the elongated main body, the bottle stopper having a first side and a second side sealing the open end of a liquid bottle (Col. 3, lines 40-46);
a reinforced stop (720) located on the first end of the bottle stopper (Fig. 7);
a hollow spout (140) extending from the first end of the elongated main body, the hollow spout tapering towards a free end, the hollow spout including a pour orifice (opening in the nozzle associated with 110; Col. 3, lines 47-50) located proximal to the free end and allowing the pouring of liquids from inside the bottle therethrough (Figs. 15 and 17);
an air vent (opening in the nozzle associated with 150, labeled 190 in Figs. 13 and 16-19; Col. 3, lines 59-60) located on the hollow spout (Fig. 13);
an air tube (150) located within the liquid bottle and connected to the air vent to allow for air to flow into the bottle when liquid is poured through the pour orifice of the hollow spout (Col. 3, lines 51-54);
a spout cap (120) having an interior surface matingly engaging an exterior surface of the hollow spout (Col. 3, lines 55-56), the spout cap including a cap orifice (130) alignable with the pour orifice of the hollow spout to allow for the flow of liquids therethrough (Col. 3, lines 56-57), a first gripping wing and a second gripping wing (710 and 705) located on an exterior surface of the spout cap in a spaced condition from each other with the gripping wings facilitating the axial rotation of the spout cap with respect to the hollow spout (Col. 4, lines 46-51), a screened orifice (190) located on the spout cap (Figs. 21 and 23), the screened orifice having a different overall shape than the shape of the air vent (see Figs. 13 and 21), the screened orifice alignable with the air vent of the hollow spout to allow for air to flow into the bottle when liquid is poured through the pour orifice of the hollow spout (Col. 4, lines 15-19); and
a stop cover connecting the first gripping wing to the second gripping wing (lower portion of 120 connects 710 and 705) while engaging a portion of the first side of the bottle stopper (bottom edge of 120 engages bottle stopper; Figs. 7-8), the spout cap having a first closed position (Figs. 1-2, and 4) identified by the pour orifice not in alignment with the cap orifice and a portion of the spout cap completely blocking the air vent (Col. 3, lines 51-61) and a second open position (Figs. 3, 5, and 11-12) identified by the cap orifice in alignment with the pour orifice and the air vent being at least partially aligned with the screened orifice to allow the pouring of liquids out of the bottle (Col. 3, lines 62-66).
Regarding claim 2, Agassi et al. further disclose that the first gripping wing and the second gripping wing are located on the exterior surface of the spout cap (Figs. 20-27) at an angle of less than 180 degrees from each other (although Figs. 7-27 illustrate the wings at approximately 180 degrees from each other, Agassi et al. disclose that the device may be configured to operate over a smaller angle, in which case the wings would be less than 180 degrees apart; Col. 3, line 61 - Col. 4, line 2).
Regarding claim 3, Agassi et al. further disclose that the first gripping wing includes a finger resting surface (curved upper surface of wing 710) to facilitate the pouring of liquids out of the bottle.
Regarding claim 5, Agassi et al. further disclose that the reinforced stop engages the first gripping wing in the first closed position of the spout cap and the reinforced stop engages the second gripping wing in the second open position of the spout cap (720 is engaged by 705 in an open position and it is apparent from Figs. 7-8 that 720 would be engaged by 710 in a closed position; Col. 4, lines 51-52).
Regarding claim 7, Agassi et al. further disclose that the screened orifice is located on the spout cap proximal to the first gripping wing (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 8, Agassi et al. further disclose that the air vent located on the hollow spout comprises a circular-shaped vent (Figs. 17-19).
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 4, 9, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agassi et al. in view of Mazurkiewicz et al. (US 2016/0272380).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Agassi et al. disclose the bottle pour spout with shut-off mechanism of claims 1 and 8, as described above. Agassi et al. further discloses that the screened orifice is located on the spout cap behind the first gripping wing (see Figs. 10 and 23-24; also see interpretation described in the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Examiner further notes that the screened orifice of Agassi et al. is not limited to a particular location and could be incorporated with minimal structural modifications by one having ordinary skill in the art into another location aligned with the first gripping wing based on design considerations, e.g., to prevent blockage by a user’s finger), but lacks a first gripping wing that includes a tamper monitoring tether cable receiving hole extending therethrough.
Mazurkiewicz et al. teach a bottle pour spout (30; Fig. 9; Paragraphs 0005 and 0058) having a cap (28) with gripping wings (62) including a hole (64). Mazurkiewicz et al. teach that this hole minimizes the amount of material required to form the wings and improves grip (Paragraph 0081).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the first gripping wing of Agassi et al. with a hole, as taught by Mazurkiewicz et al., in order to reduce the amount of material required to form the wing and to improve grip. The modified invention would thus be capable of performing the claimed intended use of receiving a tamper monitoring tether cable.
Regarding claim 17, Agassi et al. disclose a bottle pour spout with shut-off mechanism (see especially embodiment 700; Figs. 7-27) comprising:
a hollow elongated main body (110) having a first end, a second end, and a fluid passage extending from the first end to the second end of the elongated main body allowing for the flow of liquids therethrough (Fig. 17);
at least one liquid bottle neck engaging member (170) extending from an exterior surface of the elongated main body, the bottleneck engaging member securing the elongated main body to an interior surface proximal to an open end of a liquid bottle in a fluid-tight condition (Col. 3, lines 38-40);
a bottle stopper (160) located proximal to the first end of the elongated main body, the bottle stopper having a first side and a second side sealing the open end of a liquid bottle (Col. 3, lines 40-46);
a reinforced stop (720) located on the first end of the bottle stopper (Fig. 7);
a hollow spout (140) extending from the first end of the elongated main body, the hollow spout tapering towards a free end, the hollow spout including a pour orifice (opening in the nozzle associated with 110; Col. 3, lines 47-50) located proximal to the free end and allowing the pouring of liquids from inside the bottle therethrough (Figs. 15 and 17);
a circular-shaped air vent (opening in the nozzle associated with 150, labeled 190 in Figs. 13 and 16-19; Col. 3, lines 59-60) located on the hollow spout (Fig. 13);
an air tube (150) located within the liquid bottle and connected to the air vent to allow for air to flow into the bottle when liquid is poured through the pour orifice of the hollow spout (Col. 3, lines 51-54);
a spout cap (120) having an interior surface matingly engaging an exterior surface of the hollow spout (Col. 3, lines 55-56), the spout cap including a cap orifice (130) alignable with the pour orifice of the hollow spout to allow for the flow of liquids therethrough (Col. 3, lines 56-57), a first gripping wing having a finger resting surface (curved upper surface of wing 710) to facilitate the pouring of liquids out of the bottle and a second gripping wing (705) located on an exterior surface of the spout cap in a spaced condition from each other with the gripping wings facilitating the axial rotation of the spout cap with respect to the hollow spout (Col. 4, lines 46-51), a screened orifice (190) located on the spout cap behind the first gripping wing (Figs. 21 and 23-24), the screened orifice having a different overall shape than the shape of the air vent (see Figs. 13 and 21), the screened orifice alignable with the air vent of the hollow spout to allow for air to flow into the bottle when liquid is poured through the pour orifice of the hollow spout (Col. 4, lines 15-19); and
a stop cover connecting the first gripping wing to the second gripping wing (lower portion of 120 connects 710 and 705) while engaging a portion of the first side of the bottle stopper (bottom edge of 120 engages bottle stopper; Figs. 7-8), the spout cap having a first closed position (Figs. 1-2, and 4) identified by the pour orifice not in alignment with the cap orifice and a portion of the spout cap completely blocking the air vent (Col. 3, lines 51-61) and a second open position (Figs. 3, 5, and 11-12) identified by the cap orifice in alignment with the pour orifice and the air vent being at least partially aligned with the screened orifice to allow the pouring of liquids out of the bottle (Col. 3, lines 62-66).
Agassi et al. lack a tamper monitoring tether cable receiving hole extending the first gripping wing. Mazurkiewicz et al. teach a bottle pour spout (30; Fig. 9; Paragraphs 0005 and 0058) having a cap (28) with gripping wings (62) including a hole (64). Mazurkiewicz et al. teach that this hole minimizes the amount of material required to form the wings and improves grip (Paragraph 0081).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the first gripping wing of Agassi et al. with a hole, as taught by Mazurkiewicz et al., in order to reduce the amount of material required to form the wing and to improve grip. The modified invention would thus be capable of performing the claimed intended use of receiving a tamper monitoring tether cable.
Regarding claim 18, Agassi et al. disclose the bottle pour spout with shut-off mechanism of claim 17, as described above, and further disclose that the first gripping wing and the second gripping wing are located on the exterior surface of the spout cap (Figs. 20-27) at an angle of less than 180 degrees from each other (although Figs. 7-27 illustrate the wings at approximately 180 degrees from each other, Agassi et al. disclose that the device may be configured to operate over a smaller angle, in which case the wings would be less than 180 degrees apart; Col. 3, line 61 - Col. 4, line 2).
Regarding claim 19, Agassi et al. disclose the bottle pour spout with shut-off mechanism of claim 18, as described above, and further disclose that the reinforced stop engages the first gripping wing in the first closed position of the spout cap and the reinforced stop engages the second gripping wing in the second open position of the spout cap (720 is engaged by 705 in an open position and it is apparent from Figs. 7-8 that 720 would be engaged by 710 in a closed position; Col. 4, lines 51-52).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agassi et al. in view of Peckels (US 5,044,521).
Agassi et al. disclose the bottle pour spout with shut-off mechanism of claim 1, as described above. Agassi et al. does not disclose that the stop cover exposes a portion of the first side of the bottle stopper to provide a visual indicator to a user of the spout cap in either the open position or the closed position.
Peckels teaches a bottle pour spout (Figs. 1-2) having a cap (26) that, when rotated, exposes a visual indicator of the dispensing state of the spout (registration indicies corresponding to a dispensed volume; Col. 3, lines 64-68) through a window (18) in a flange (20) that covers a stopper (6) containing a plurality of visual indicators. Peckels teaches that this feature assures a user of the appropriate alignment of internal apertures for an intended dispensing action (Col. 4, lines 28-33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the stop cover of Agassi et al. to have a flange with a window to expose a visual indicator on the first side of the bottle stopper underneath the flange, as taught by Peckels, in order to provide assurance to a user of the appropriate alignment of apertures for dispensing. Though the structure of Peckels differs from Agassi et al., the technique taught by Peckels would be applicable to the device of Agassi et al., and one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying this technique would predictably result in an improved device that is easier to use.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agassi et al. in view of Howe (US 5,433,346).
Regarding claim 10, Agassi et al. disclose a bottle pour spout with shut-off mechanism (see especially embodiment 700; Figs. 7-27) comprising:
a hollow elongated main body (110) having a first end, a second end, and a fluid passage extending from the first end to the second end of the elongated main body allowing for the flow of liquids therethrough (Fig. 17);
at least one liquid bottle neck engaging member (170) extending from an exterior surface of the elongated main body, the bottleneck engaging member securing the elongated main body to an interior surface proximal to an open end of a liquid bottle in a fluid-tight manner (Col. 3, lines 38-40);
a bottle stopper (160) located proximal to the first end of the elongated main body, the bottle stopper having a first side and a second side sealing the open end of a liquid bottle (Col. 3, lines 40-46), and an air vent extending through a portion of the bottle stopper (opening in the nozzle, labeled 190 in Figs. 13 and 16-19, extends down through bottle stopper to meet 150; Col. 3, lines 59-60);
a reinforced stop (720) located on the first end of the bottle stopper (Fig. 7);
a hollow spout (140) extending from the first end of the elongated main body, the hollow spout tapering towards a free end, the hollow spout including a pour orifice (opening in the nozzle associated with 110; Col. 3, lines 47-50) located proximal to the free end and allowing the pouring of liquids from inside the bottle therethrough (Figs. 15 and 17);
an air tube (150) located within the liquid bottle and connected to the air vent to allow for air to flow into the bottle when liquid is poured through the pour orifice of the hollow spout (Col. 3, lines 51-54);
a spout cap (120) having an interior surface matingly engaging an exterior surface of the hollow spout (Col. 3, lines 55-56), the spout cap including a cap orifice (130) alignable with the pour orifice of the hollow spout to allow for the flow of liquids therethrough (Col. 3, lines 56-57), a first gripping wing and a second gripping wing (710 and 705) located on an exterior surface of the spout cap in a spaced condition from each other with the gripping wings facilitating the axial rotation of the spout cap with respect to the hollow spout (Col. 4, lines 46-51); and
a stop cover connecting the first gripping wing to the second gripping wing (lower portion of 120 connects 710 and 705) while engaging a portion of the first side of the bottle stopper (bottom edge of 120 engages bottle stopper; Figs. 7-8), the spout cap having a first closed position (Figs. 1-2, and 4) identified by the pour orifice of the hollow spout not in alignment with the cap orifice (Col. 3, lines 51-61) and a second open position (Figs. 3, 5, and 11-12) identified by the pour orifice in alignment with the cap orifice and the air vent being unobstructed to allow the pouring of liquids out of the bottle (Col. 3, lines 62-66).
Agassi et al. describe an embodiment in which the spout cap blocks the air vent to prevent contamination when not in use (see Col. 1, lines 23-52), but do not disclose a portion of the stop cover blocking the air vent. Howe discloses a bottle pour spout with shut-off mechanism (Figs. 1-4) that includes a gripping wing (40) connected to a stop cover/flange (54) that extends orthogonally from a bottom edge of the gripping wing to block an air vent (68) in the stopper. Howe teaches this configuration as a means of operating the device that directs air into the bottle during dispensing (Col. 2, lines 36-42) while otherwise preventing the contents of the bottle being exposed to air (Col. 5, lines 3-8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the device of Agassi et al. so that the air vent is located on the first side of the bottle stopper (rather than the spout) and the stop cover is extended orthogonally by a flange that blocks the air vent when the gripping wing is rotated to a closed position, as taught by Howe, as an alternative means for preventing contamination, as well as preventing air exposure, during periods of non-use. Though the spout structure of Howe differs from Agassi et al., the air vent and stop cover configuration taught by Howe would be applicable to the device of Agassi et al., and one having ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of making the described modification with predictable results. One having ordinary skill in the art would be further motivated to make such a modification in order to simplify the structure of the spout and spout cap (by eliminating the vent structures) for ease of manufacturing.
Regarding claim 11 Agassi et al. further disclose that the first gripping wing and the second gripping wing are located on the exterior surface of the spout cap (Figs. 20-27) at an angle of less than 180 degrees from each other (although Figs. 7-27 illustrate the wings at approximately 180 degrees from each other, Agassi et al. disclose that the device may be configured to operate over a smaller angle, in which case the wings would be less than 180 degrees apart; Col. 3, line 61 - Col. 4, line 2).
Regarding claim 12, Agassi et al. further disclose that the first gripping wing includes a finger resting surface (curved upper surface of wing 710) to facilitate the pouring of liquids out of the bottle.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agassi et al. in view of Howe, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Mazurkiewicz et al.
Regarding claim 13, Agassi et al.-Howe in combination disclose all the features of the claimed invention except a first gripping wing that includes a tamper monitoring tether cable receiving hole extending therethrough.
Mazurkiewicz et al. teach a bottle pour spout (30; Fig. 9; Paragraphs 0005 and 0058) having a cap (28) with gripping wings (62) including a hole (64). Mazurkiewicz et al. teach that this hole minimizes the amount of material required to form the wings and improves grip (Paragraph 0081).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the first gripping wing of the combined invention of Agassi et al.-Howe with a hole, as taught by Mazurkiewicz et al., in order to reduce the amount of material required to form the wing and to improve grip. The modified invention would thus be capable of performing the claimed intended use of receiving a tamper monitoring tether cable.
Regarding claim 14, Agassi et al. further disclose that the reinforced stop engages the first gripping wing in the first closed position of the spout cap and the reinforced stop engages the second gripping wing in the second open position of the spout cap (720 is engaged by 705 in an open position and it is apparent from Figs. 7-8 that 720 would be engaged by 710 in a closed position; Col. 4, lines 51-52).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agassi et al. in view of Howe and Mazurkiewicz et al., as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Peckels.
Agassi et al.-Howe-Mazurkiewicz et al. in combination disclose all the features of the bottle pour spout with shut-off mechanism of claim 14, as described above. None of Agassi et al., Howe, or Mazurkiewicz et al. explicitly disclose that the stop cover exposes a portion of the first side of the bottle stopper to provide a visual indicator to a user of the spout cap in either the open position or the closed position.
Peckels teaches a bottle pour spout (Figs. 1-2) having a cap (26) that, when rotated, exposes a visual indicator of the dispensing state of the spout (registration indicies corresponding to a dispensed volume; Col. 3, lines 64-68) through a window (18) in a flange (20) that covers a stopper (6) containing a plurality of visual indicators. Peckels teaches that this feature assures a user of the appropriate alignment of internal apertures for an intended dispensing action (Col. 4, lines 28-33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the stop cover of the combined invention to have a window to expose a visual indicator on the first side of the bottle stopper underneath the stop cover, as taught by Peckels, in order to provide assurance to a user of the appropriate alignment of apertures for dispensing. Though the structure of Peckels differs from Agassi et al., the technique taught by Peckels would be applicable to the device of Agassi et al., and one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying this technique would predictably result in an improved device that is easier to use.
Furthermore, since the spout of Agassi et al. is configured to merely alternate between open and closed states (rather than dispense different volumes, as in Peckels), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to cause the stop cover to display the word “closed” when the spout cap is in the first closed position and the word “open” when the spout cap is in the second open position. Examiner notes that the particular text, symbol, etc. to be displayed would be a user-defined variable having no impact on the patentable structure of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agassi et al. in view of Mazurkiewicz et al., as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Peckels.
Agassi et al.-Mazurkiewicz et al. in combination disclose all the features of the bottle pour spout with shut-off mechanism of claim 19, as described above. Neither Agassi et al. nor Mazurkiewicz et al. explicitly disclose that the stop cover exposes a portion of the first side of the bottle stopper to provide a visual indicator to a user of the spout cap in either the open position or the closed position.
Peckels teaches a bottle pour spout (Figs. 1-2) having a cap (26) that, when rotated, exposes a visual indicator of the dispensing state of the spout (registration indicies corresponding to a dispensed volume; Col. 3, lines 64-68) through a window (18) in a flange (20) that covers a stopper (6) containing a plurality of visual indicators. Peckels teaches that this feature assures a user of the appropriate alignment of internal apertures for an intended dispensing action (Col. 4, lines 28-33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the stop cover of Agassi et al. to have a flange with a window to expose a visual indicator on the first side of the bottle stopper underneath the flange, as taught by Peckels, in order to provide assurance to a user of the appropriate alignment of apertures for dispensing. Though the structure of Peckels differs from Agassi et al., the technique taught by Peckels would be applicable to the device of Agassi et al., and one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying this technique would predictably result in an improved device that is easier to use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 November 13, 2025