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 .
Response to Amendment
The indicated allowability of claim 7 (now added to amended claim 1) is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference to Jinkins et al. (U.S. 11,396,408). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
In view of the new grounds of rejection, the finality of the previous Office Action is withdrawn and THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
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, 3 and 8-18 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. The claims are considered vague and indefinite for the following reasons:
It is unclear if “a platform” on line 1 of claim 11, refers to the previously introduced platform or if the claimed invention has two platforms,
The limitation “configured to receive retains and a second portion” on lines 6-7 of claim 1 is unclear and confusing,
It is unclear if “an aperture” on line 2 of claim 15, refers to the previously introduced aperture or if the invention has two apertures,
It is unclear if the “a platform” on line 1 of claim 16, refers to the previously introduced platform or if the claimed invention has two platforms, and
The dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim since they inherently contain the same deficiencies therein.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jinkins et al. (U.S. 11,396,408).
Regarding claim 1, Jinkins et al. teaches a cap assembly 100 for a container, comprising a base 102 configured to be removably coupled to the container (via threads 166), a drink spout 104 extending away from the base (figure 2), a closure 136 configured to selectively obstruct a passage through the drink spout (figure 11), a tether 110 coupling the closure to the base, wherein a first portion (at lead line 110) of the tether 110 comprises an aperture 140 extending through the tether and retains 136 (see 162 and 164 in figure 11) and a second portion of the tether at 126 is pivotably connected to the base at 124 at a location spaced away from the drink spout 104 (figure 11) such that the tether 110 is transitionable between a closed arrangement (figure 11) in which the closure is positioned over the drink spout and an opened arrangement (figure 12) in which the closure is spaced away from the drink spout, and a biasing device 132 configured to bias the tether from the closed arrangement toward the opened arrangement (col. 3 lines 30-35), wherein the biasing device 132 includes a biasing body 132 disposed between the base and the tether, and the biasing body 132 is a ring (figure 2) wherein the base includes a platform (top surface of 102) and a post at 124 projecting from the platform at a location spaced away from the drink spout (figure 2), wherein the second portion 126 of the tether 110 is pivotably connected to the post, and further wherein the biasing body 132 is connected to the post at 130, wherein the tether 110 includes a floor (portion of 110 from which 140 extends) defining an aperture 140 sized to receive the closure (at 162, 164 in figure 11), opposing legs 126 projecting from the floor, wherein the legs combine to define a gap sized to receive the post 124, and a finger (shown below in reproduced figure 15) projecting from the floor proximate the gap, wherein the ring 132 is captured by, and extends between, the post and the finger (col. 3 lines 30-35),and further wherein the ring 132 exerts a pulling force onto the finger in the closed arrangement (pulling force necessary to retain the ring in position and release of pulling force enables biasing function).
PNG
media_image1.png
740
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, wherein the biasing body is formed of a resilient material (132 is “elastic in nature”; col. 3 lines 30-50).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinkins et al. (U.S. 11,396,408) in view of Lane (U.S. 8,622,229).
Regarding claim 8, Jinkins et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the spout being assembled to the base. Lane teaches that it is known to provide a closure wherein the spout is assembled to the base (see elements 28 and 30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly of Jinkins et al. with the spout being assembled to the base, as taught by Lane, in order to allow the user to replace the spout if it becomes damaged.
Regarding claim 9, a material of the drink spout differs from a material of the base, as modified by Lane above (col. 12 lines 5-11 of Lane).
Regarding claim 10, the drink spout is formed of a silicone material as modified by Lane above, (col. 12 lines 5- 11 of Lane).
Regarding claim 11, the base 102 includes a platform (top surface of 102) defining an opening and a tubular body projecting from an upper face of the platform in alignment with the opening, and further wherein the drink spout is configured for assembly within an interior of the tubular body, as modified by Lane above (figure 7 of Lane).
Regarding claim 12, the passage, as modified by Lane above, extends between, and is open to, opposing ends of the drink spout, and further wherein an exterior face of the drink spout defines a circumferential channel at a location between the opposing ends, the channel sized to receive a length of the tubular body (figure 7 of Lane).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinkins et al. (U.S. 11,396,408) in view of Davies (U.S. 2023/0322448).
Regarding claim 13, Jinkins et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the closure being rotatably retained by the first portion of the tether. Davies teaches that it is known to provide a closure is rotatably retained by the first portion of the tether (see figure 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly of Jinkins et al. with the closure being rotatably retained by the first portion of the tether, as taught by Davies, in order to secure the closure to the spout by threads to improve the seal between the closure and the spout.
Regarding claim 14, the closure includes a cap body defining a cover panel and a side wall projecting from the cover panel (as modified by Davies above; see element 140 of Davies), and further wherein a portion of the side wall defines interior threads configured to threadably engage threads of the base (see elements 142 of Davies; figure 7).
Regarding claim 15, the side wall defines an exterior face forming a circumferential channel, wherein the first portion of the tether defines an aperture circumscribed by a rim (see element 160 of Davies), and further wherein the circumferential channel is sized to slidably receive the rim, as modified by Davies.
Regarding claim 16, the base includes a platform defining an opening and a tubular body projecting from an upper surface of the platform in alignment with the opening, and further wherein an exterior surface of the tubular body defines a threaded surface configured to threadably engage the interior threads of the cap body, as modified by Davies (spout is considered tubular body).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinkins et al. (U.S. 11,396,408) in view of Shepard et al. (U.S. 10,512,347).
Regarding claim 17, Jinkins et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the handle being rotatably coupled. Shepard et al. teaches that it is known to provide a cap with a rotatable handle (see element 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly of Jinkins et al. with the handle being rotatable, as taught by Shepard et al., in order to allow the user to move the handle into multiple positions for use and storage.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinkins et al. (U.S. 11,396,408) in view of Shepard et al. (U.S. 10,512,347), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Bullock et al. (U.S. 2022/0127049).
Regarding claim 18, the modified assembly of Jinkins et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the handle being formed of a thermoplastic elastomer material. Bullock et al. teaches that it is known to provide a cap with a handle being formed of a thermoplastic elastomer material (see paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified cap of Jinkins et al. with handle being formed of a thermoplastic elastomer material, as taught by Bullock et al., in order to give the handle a softer tactile feel, as disclosed in paragraph [0027] of Bullock et al.
Conclusion
In view of the new grounds of rejection, THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights