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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in line 6, said abstract contains “The present disclosure”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the undercut" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 5, 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bloom et al (US 7,503,469), hereinafter Bloom.
Regarding claim 1, Bloom teaches an overmolding valve (36, Fig 1-3, 12-14) comprising: a rigid (Col 4, Ln 20-21) connecting ring (100) used for connecting to a water outlet (at 32) of a bottle body (22); a flexible (Col 4, Ln 21-22) valve body (102), wherein the flexible valve body and the rigid connecting ring are integrally formed (Col 4, Ln 18-20) and fixedly connected and cover the water outlet (as shown in Fig 1); and a valve port (138, Fig 12) arranged in a middle of the flexible valve body, wherein the flexible valve body is squeezed and deformed to open the valve port (Col 2, Ln 60-67).
Bloom further teaches in claim 2 (interpreted as product-by-process claim) wherein the flexible valve body and the rigid connecting ring are molded by double color injection to overmold an integrated valve (Col 4, Ln 18-20; Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985.) See MPEP 2113);
in claim 5 wherein the rigid connecting ring comprises a connecting ring body (106), and a limit step (116, Fig 14) is arranged on a surface of a water-outlet side of the connecting ring body (as shown in Fig 1, 13-14), and a top cylinder surface (122, Fig 14) is arranged at an outer wall of the flexible valve body, wherein the top cylinder surface is embedded in the connecting ring body and connected to the limit step (Fig 1, 13-14);
in claim 7 wherein the valve port is cross-shaped (Fig 12) or star-shaped; and
in claim 10 (as best understood) a bottle comprising: a bottle body (22), wherein a water outlet (54) is arranged on the bottle body; and the overmolding valve according to claim 1 (see claim 1), wherein the overmolding valve is connected to the water outlet (Fig 1), wherein the bottle body comprises a body (26) and a bottle cap (42), the bottle cap is connected to the body (Fig 1), and the water outlet is arranged on the bottle cap (Fig 1), and wherein the undercut (between 54 & 56, Fig 11) is arranged on an inner wall of the water outlet, and the overmolding valve is clamped at the bottle cap (Fig 1).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloom.
Regarding claim 9, Bloom is silent wherein a hardness of the flexible valve body is Shore A 30-80 degree, and a hardness of the rigid connecting ring is Shore D 50-95 degree. Bloom does not disclose any hardness ranges.
The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. Tec Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bloom’s device to have any suitable dimensions, including those claimed. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular bristle lengths (see Specification) and it appears that Bloom’s device would work equally well if made within the claimed range of hardness for the flexible and rigid portion of the overmolding valve.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6, 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 8,608,034 to Bloom, US 11,111,061 to Nagai et al are directed to the state of the art as relevant teachings of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C CHIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5613. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10 AM- 6 PM EST.
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.
/JENNIFER C CHIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754