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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/27/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-14 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 02/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden to examine the two distinct inventions. This is not found persuasive because each group of claims identified in the Restriction Requirement of 01/16/2026 has a distinct and divergent classification; and further, Examiner notes that each group of claims, if filed separately, would not incur a Double Patenting rejection on the other.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1-5, 7-14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Viel (WO 2016/079441 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 11, and 16, Viel discloses a pouring spout device comprising a frame (2) intended to be fastened to the packaging, the frame being provided with a pouring opening (22), a cover (3) connected to the frame by two flanges (4; see Figures 5-6) and a hinge (5); the hinge delimiting a lower side of the cover; the cover being configured to pivot between a closed position in which the cover shuts off the pouring opening (see Fig. 4) and an open position in which the cover releases the pouring opening (see Fig. 5); a sealing part (Examiner considers the sealing “part” to be lateral side extensions 46) made of plastic material overmolded on the cover and disposed on at least part of an external face of the cover extending along the an edge of the cover, the sealing part comprising two lateral sealing portions which protrude respectively from the-two lateral sides of the cover and a connecting sealing portion ( portion adjacent 36 that has teeth 37) connecting the two lateral sealing portions and protruding from an upper side of the cover (see Figures 5-6), the two lateral sealing portions and the connecting sealing portion being configured to bear against an external surface (21) of the frame in the closed position of the cover (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 2-3, 5, 8, 10, and 18, Viel discloses a pouring spout device comprising two sealing elements made of a film of plastic material overmolded on the frame, each of the two sealing elements being disposed on at least part of the external surface of the frame extending at least along part of a lateral edge laterally delimiting the pouring opening, so that the two sealing elements are in contact with the sealing part in the closed position of the cover (Page 7 lines 5-13). Examiner notes that Viel discloses a plastic film coated over the entirety of the pouring spout device in order to form a sealed barrier and prevent oxidation of product contained within.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Viel discloses a pouring spout wherein the two flanges each have at least three fold lines (41/43) configured so that, in the closed position of the cover, the two flanges are each folded down under the surface of the cover, above the pouring opening of the frame (see Figures 4-6).
Regarding claim 7 and 12-14, Viel discloses a pouring spout wherein the frame and/or the cover comprises a series of through holes (27) configured to receive the overmolded-plastic material, or closing lip, (37) overmolded on the cover, so as to reinforce the a hold of the plastic material overmolded on the cover on the material constituting the frame and/or the cover.
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) 6 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viel in view of Burgos Agudo (US 9604754 B1).
Regarding claims 6 and 19-20, Viel discloses the claimed invention except for the cover, hinge, and frame being formed of cardboard. Burgos Agudo teaches a hermetically-sealing dispensing lid wherein a cover, hinge, and frame are formed of cardboard (Col 3 lines 50-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Viel’s pouring spout to be alternatively made of cardboard, as a known substitute of material in the art of attached pouring spouts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through 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 J NEWHOUSE can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734