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 .
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 2 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.
It is unclear as to how the flexible valve body can simultaneously be “integrally formed with the rigid connecting portion” and “fixedly connected to the rigid connecting portion.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1–2 and 8–10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madea (USPN 11059636 B2) in view of Ramsey et al. (USPN 6971558 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Maeda discloses a valve structure, comprising: a rigid connecting portion (4/5) having a liquid flow channel (L) axially penetrating through the rigid connecting portion (4/5); a flexible valve body (4) located inside the liquid flow channel (L) and connected (where the connection is the interface between the hinge portion 44 and element 4) to the rigid connecting portion (L), wherein a valve opening (54a) is arranged at a middle of the flexible valve body (4), but does not disclose the flexible valve body is configured to be deformed under pressure to open the valve opening.
Ramsey teaches the flexible valve body (3) is configured to be deformed under pressure to open the valve opening in order to ensure valve closure (Col. 2, Lines 51–58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve body of Madea with a flexible valve body that include slits as taught by Ramsey in order to force the valve to close which eliminates accidental leakage. Because Madea’s valve body uses a hinge mechanism and does not deform. Ramsey’s flexible valve body 3 utilizes a slit configuration which springs to the closed position once pressure is removed. Thus, automatically closing the flexible valve body, preventing accidental fluid release.
Per the Madea–Ramsey combination, Ramsey’s flexible valve body slits 61, replace Madea’s hinge valve body 45.
The Madea–Ramsey combination teaches a connecting part (Madea 52) arranged on an outer wall of the rigid connecting portion (Madea 4/5), wherein the rigid connecting portion (Madea 4/5) is detachably connected to an inner wall of a water outlet (Madea 22a) of a cap body (Madea 3) by the connecting part (Madea 52).
Regarding Claim 2, the Madea–Ramsey combination teaches the flexible valve body (Madea 4 and Ramsey 61) is integrally formed with the rigid connecting portion (Madea 4/5), is fixedly connected (Madea Fig.) to the rigid connecting portion (Madea 4/5), and covers the water outlet (Madea 22a); an upper end of the flexible valve body (Madea 4 and Ramsey 61) has a flange (Ramsey 31) that covers an upper surface of the rigid connecting portion (Madea 4/5, please note that elements 46 are not required Col. 7, Lines 8–17), and the flange (Ramsey 31) is configured to seal a connection position between the rigid connecting portion (Madea 4/5) and the cover body (Madea 4 and Ramsey 61). The Madea–Ramsey combination does not teach a diameter of an outermost edge of the rigid connecting portion is not less than 31.75 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, to change the size of the apparatus as a matter of design choice. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). Here, Madea does disclose the that the rigid connecting portion be less than 1.55 mm but this is for content that is less than 1 mm Col. 6, Lines 32–43. However, this is in the context of utilizing the invention for the purpose of dispensing sauces (Col. 1, Lines 5–10). Because the size of the rigid connecting portion is based upon the content, the size of the rigid connecting portion is a design choice. Therefore, the Madea–Ramsey combination is capable of teaching a diameter of an outermost edge of the rigid connecting portion (Madea 4/5) is not less than 31.75 mm.
Regarding Claim 8, the Madea–Ramsey combination does not teach the connecting part comprises a semi-circle spiral thread that is configured to be connected to a connection position on an inner wall of the cap body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection of the connecting part and an inner wall of the cap body with a semi-circle spiral thread since it has been held that “choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. MPEP §2143(I)(E). Here, Madea’s two elements are press fit. It is well known that press fit and threading are acceptable means of affixing parts together.
Regarding Claim 9, the Madea–Ramsey combination teaches a bottle cap comprising a cap body (Madea 3) and the valve structure according to claim 1, wherein the cap body (Madea 3) is arranged with a water outlet (Madea 33a), and the valve structure is detachably connected inside the water outlet of the cap body (Madea 3), as seen in the Madea Fig.
Regarding Claim 10, the Madea–Ramsey combination teaches a bottle body (Madea 2) and the bottle cap (Madea 3) according to claim 9.
Claim(s) 3–7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madea (USPN 11059636 B2) in view of Ramsey et al. (USPN 6971558 B2), in further view of Wong (USPN 7070065 B2).
Regarding Claim 3, the Madea–Ramsey combination teaches the rigid connecting portion (Madea 4/5) comprises: a rigid outer tube (Madea 5),
wherein the connecting part (Madea 52) is arranged on an outer wall of the rigid outer tube (Madea 5), and the liquid flow channel passes through the rigid outer tube (Madea 5) but does not teach an ice-stopping part that is detachably arranged at one end of the rigid outer tube and covers the liquid flow channel.
Wong teaches an ice-stopping part (200) that prevents undesirable fluid dispersal (Col. 3, Line 59 through Col. 4, Line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve structure of the Madea–Ramsey combination with an ice-stopping part as taught by Wong in order to prevent unwanted elements from being expelled as well as ensuring a leak–tight fit.
Wong’s ice stopping part is located between Madea’s bottle cavity and the Madea’s valve.
The Madea–Ramsey–Wong combination teaches the ice-stopping part (Wong 200) is detachably arranged at one end of the rigid outer tube (Madea 5) and covers the liquid flow channel (Madea L).
Regarding Claim 4, the Madea–Ramsey–Wong combination teaches the ice-stopping part comprises: a casing (Wong 210) embedded inside the rigid outer tube (Madea 5); and a filter part (Wong 211) arranged at the casing (Wong 210) and configured to prevent a predetermined solid object in liquid from entering the liquid flow channel, and the casing (Wong 210) connected to the rigid outer tube (Madea 5) via press fit, as seen in Wong Fig. 2. The Madea–Ramsey–Wong combination does not teach “a snap piece is arranged on an outer wall of the casing; wherein a snap groove is arranged on an inner wall of the rigid outer tube, and the snap piece is connected inside the snap groove to make the casing connected to the rigid outer tube.”
The limitation “a snap piece is arranged on an outer wall of the casing; wherein a snap groove is arranged on an inner wall of the rigid outer tube, and the snap piece is connected inside the snap groove to make the casing connected to the rigid outer tube” is a description of connecting two elements together. A person of ordinary skill would recognize that this is a known means to assemble two elements. Therefore, this claim limitation lacks criticality
Regarding Claim 5, the Madea–Ramsey–Wong combination teaches the ice-stopping part (Wong 200) further comprises a holding part (Wong 210) that is arranged at a bottom of the casing (Wong 220). The Madea–Ramsey–Wong combination does not teach “the snap piece comprises a snap boss that protrudes from a surface of the outer wall of the casing; the snap groove comprises an axial groove and a circumferential groove, wherein one end of the axial groove toward the flexible valve body is connected to the circumferential groove, and the snap boss slides along the axial groove and rotates to enter the circumferential groove; and the ice-stopping part further comprises a holding part that is arranged at a bottom of the casing.”
As discussed above, The limitation “the snap piece comprises a snap boss that protrudes from a surface of the outer wall of the casing; the snap groove comprises an axial groove and a circumferential groove, wherein one end of the axial groove toward the flexible valve body is connected to the circumferential groove, and the snap boss slides along the axial groove and rotates to enter the circumferential groove; and the ice-stopping part further comprises a holding part that is arranged at a bottom of the casing” is a description of connecting two elements together. A person of ordinary skill would recognize that this is a known means to assemble two elements. Therefore, this claim limitation lacks criticality.
Regarding Claim 6, the Madea–Ramsey–Wong combination teaches the outer wall of the rigid outer tube (Madea 5) and an inner wall of the cap body (Madea 3) are spaced apart to form a liquid outlet space (Madea S), as seen in Madea Fig. and a side hole (Madea 52) is arranged on the outer wall of the rigid outer tube (Madea 5), and the side hole (Madea 52) is connected to both the liquid outlet space (Madea D) and the liquid flow channel (Madea L), as seen in Madea Fig. and the side hole (Madea 52) is configured to allow fluid to pass through.
Regarding Claim 7, the Madea–Ramsey–Wong combination Madea–Ramsey–Wong combination does not teach “one end of the rigid outer tube deviating from the water outlet is arranged with a holding stop plate, and the holding stop plate and the inner wall of the cap body are spaced apart; and a recess is arranged at an edge of the holding stop plate, and the recess is connected to the liquid outlet space, and the recess is configured to allow fluid to pass through.”
As discussed above, The limitation “one end of the rigid outer tube deviating from the water outlet is arranged with a holding stop plate, and the holding stop plate and the inner wall of the cap body are spaced apart; and a recess is arranged at an edge of the holding stop plate, and the recess is connected to the liquid outlet space, and the recess is configured to allow fluid to pass through” is a description of connecting two elements together. A person of ordinary skill would recognize that this is a known means to assemble two elements. Therefore, this claim limitation lacks criticality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shiraishi et al. (US PGPub 20020130139 A1) Gross (USPN 5938086 ) discloses a valve closure configuration for a bottle. Walsh et al. (USPN 9908666 B2) discloses a pressure activated one–way valve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552 and email is Angelisa.Hicks@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM 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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
