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
This application was filed without drawings. For the purposed of examination, the drawings in the priority document were used. Any response to this Office action should include a complete set of formal drawings.
The drawings are objected to because:
In Figure 2B, reference character 311 does not appear to be directed to the “upper end” of the cylindrical wall 31 as the specification indicates on page 11, line 7.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 1-11 and 13-21 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.
In regard to claim 1, an antecedent basis for “the inside” (see line 2) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 3, the term “essentially” (see line 3) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In regard to claims 3, 7, 10, 11 and 16, the term "preferably" (see claim 3, line 3; claim 7, both occurrences on the last line; claim 10, last line; claim 11, lines 3 and 4; and claim 16, line 4) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In regard to claim 17, the term “substantially” (see the last line) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In regard to claim 5, an antecedent basis for “the inside” (see line 2) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 9, an antecedent basis for “the direction” see lines 2 and 3) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 14, an antecedent basis for “the height” (see the last line) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 15, an antecedent basis for “the height” (see lines 2 and 3) and “the rising and/or descending wall” (see the last line) has not been defined (it appears claim 15 should depend from claim 5, as opposed to claim 1, since claim 5 recites “a rising and/or descending wall” (see the last two lines).
In regard to claim 17, an antecedent basis for “the end” (see line 2) has not been defined.
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 1-8, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramsey (U.S. Patent 10,562,697).
In regard to claim 1, the Ramsey reference discloses a valve cup 20 (see Figure 4) for a pressure container 12 having an inner face turned towards the inside of the container and an outer face (see Figure 4), the cup being provided with:
a peripheral deformable attachment area (P-seam) configured for attaching the cup onto the container,
a central opening configured for allowing passage of a product outlet rod (of valve 90), and
a bottom wall which surrounds the central opening and comprises a peripheral descending part 26 and a central part,
wherein the central part is provided with a protection area (defined by the vertical wall extending between the descending part 26 and the wall 28) configured for limiting the deformation of the central part during the deformation of the deformable attachment area of the cup for attaching the cup onto the container.
In regard to claim 2, the central part is provided with a planar wall 28 surrounded by the protection area, including the central opening and configured for receiving a valve body 90 on the inner face.
In regard to claim 3, the deformable attachment area comprises a deformable descending wall 22 and a bearing edge (defined by the edge of the attachment area pressed against the outer surface of the container).
In regard to claim 4, the protection area comprises a rising wall which protrudes from the peripheral descending part.
In regard to claim 5, as discussed above, the Ramsey reference discloses a valve cup 20 (see Figure 4) for a pressure container 12 having an inner face turned towards the inside of the container and an outer face (see Figure 4), the cup being provided with:
a peripheral deformable attachment area (P-seam) configured for attaching the cup onto the container,
a central opening configured for allowing passage of a product outlet rod (of valve 90), and
a bottom wall which surrounds the central opening and comprises a peripheral descending part 26 and a central part,
wherein the central part comprises a rising wall which protrudes from the peripheral descending part.
In regard to claim 6, the bottom wall comprises a bend between the peripheral descending part and the rising wall.
In regard to claim 7, an angle between the rising wall and the peripheral descending part is shown to be less than 90 degrees.
In regard to claim 8, the bottom wall comprises a turned-up edge forming a rolled edge surrounding the central opening.
In regard to claim 17, the end of the deformable attachment area (defined by the top of the folded in portion of the attachment area) is substantially horizontal.
In regard to claim 19, the Ramsey device includes a valve body 90 with a product outlet rod, the valve body being attached to the inner face of the cup with the rod passing through the central opening of the cup.
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 10, 11, 13-16, 18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey.
In regard to claim 10, the bottom wall comprises a turned-up edge forming a rolled edge surrounding the central opening. Although the Ramsey reference does not disclose the specific angle between the edge and the planar wall, viewing the drawings, this angle appears to be within the claimed range. In any event, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the angle can be any suitable angle, including that claimed, depending on the needs of the user, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Applicant has not indicated this particular parameter is critical to the overall operation of the device and the Ramsey reference does not limit the angle between the edge and the planar wall.
In regard to claim 11, the peripheral descending part 26 comprises a concave outer face (see Figure 5). Although the Ramsey reference does not disclose the specific radius of curvature, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the descending part can be designed to have any suitable radius of curvature, including that claimed, depending on the needs of the user, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Applicant has not indicated this particular parameter is critical to the overall operation of the device and the Ramsey reference does not limit the radius of curvature of the descending part.
In regard to claim 13, although the descending part 6 is shown to have a slight curvature, and does not include a planar frustoconical outer face, as claimed, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the descending part can either be designed to have a slight curvature or a planar frustoconical face, depending on the needs of the user, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Applicant has not indicated the planar frustoconical shape is critical to the overall operation of the device (as evidenced by the various embodiments showing the descending wall to have various shapes).
In regard to claims 14 and 15, although the height of the deformable attachment area and peripheral descending part do not appear to have the claim value, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the heights of the deformable attachment area and descending part can be designed to have any suitable value since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Bossch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regard to claim 16, the protection area comprises a rising wall which protrudes from the descending part wherein, viewing the drawings, the planar wall appears to form an angle with respect to the rising wall within the claimed range. In any event, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the angle can be any suitable angle, including that claimed, depending on the needs of the user, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Applicant has not indicated this particular parameter is critical to the overall operation of the device and the Ramsey reference does not limit the angle between the rising wall and the planar wall.
In regard to claim 18, although the Ramsey reference does not disclose the shape of the deformable attachment area prior to being deformed, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the deformable attachment area can be of any suitable and known shape, including that claimed, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Ramsey reference does not limit the shape of the deformable area prior to being deformed.
In regard to claims 20 and 21, although the Ramsey reference does not disclose how the valve body 90 is secured to the inner face of the central part of the bottom wall or the specifically claimed structure of the valve body, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the valve can be of any known and suitable valve structure and can be secured to the inner face of the central part of the bottom wall via any suitable method without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Applicant has not indicated the particular type of valve and the manner in which the valve is secured in critical to the overall operation of the device and the Ramsey reference does not limit the type of valve and the manner in which it is mounted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Scheindel and Conway et al. references are cited as being directed to the state of the art as teachings of other valve cup structures having protection areas for the central part thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
DJW
2/1/26