DETAILED ACTION
Final
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/Arguments
Claims 1-14 and 16 are currently pending. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claim 15 is previously canceled. The amendment along with the remarks are not found persuasive. Applicant argues that Liebertz does not disclose that the inner circumferential sealing surface elastically deforms the sealing protrusion, but this is not the case. The sealing protrusion at 3002 that is the inner protrusion of the flexible jaws 20 does deform when the stiffening land along with the compliant member 12/14 are inserted into the annular recess 19 for a non threaded connection. For the reasons discussed below, the remarks cannot be found persuasive, and the rejections are maintained as adjusted to meet the claim limitation amendments.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, applicant argues incorrectly that the office applied the rationale of result effective variable. The rejection is based on a mere form and/or change of shape for the purpose of sealing pressurization of the container as would be routine skill in the art.
Accordingly applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine and/or modify the reference is not persuasive. Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the office applied a proper rational modification that had reasonable underpinning for the modification as recognized by an ordinary practitioner in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the remarks cannot be found persuasive as they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the reference/s. It is also noted that the specific sealing mechanism as provided, is capable of pressure containment and would be so as considered by a one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention was previously noted and without further, the rejections must be maintained.
Considering that the rejections to claim 1 are appropriate, the claims 13 and 14 are not needed to make up any claim 1 deficiencies, and are applicable for the reasons recited in the respective claim rejections.
It is noted that any further elaboration is merely to address the remarks and/or amendments to the claims and should not be considered a new grounds of rejection. This action must be 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 4, 5-8, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liebertz (US 3656668);
Claim(s) 3, 6, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liebertz as applied to claim 1 above;
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liebertz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Graux (US 2014/0076840);
Claim(s) 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liebertz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Owens (US 2017/0268727.)
Liebertz discloses in claim 1: (see at least annotated figures 1-3)
PNG
media_image1.png
700
1030
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A sealing system comprising (10): a liquid container (11) configured to hold a liquid (Col 1 ln 27-30 where the blow molded container configured of an unsaturated polymer material can hold liquid), wherein the liquid container defines an opening (at top of 15 figure 2) having an inner circumferential sealing surface (at 12/14 figure 2…) surrounding (to define) the opening; and a manifold (of 16) through which liquid is supplied to and/or removed from the liquid container (when cap 24 is removed, liquid can be supplied or removed from 11 via 16), wherein the manifold comprises a sealing protrusion (that of 3002 of the flexible entrant jaws 20 (Col 2 ln 28, claim 1) of the annular groove 19 (Col 2 ln 6)) having an outer circumferential sealing surface (interfacing 3004), which is curved (convexly) along a longitudinal axis (central axis of 16); wherein, in a connected state (as shown at figure 3), the manifold is located on the opening to supply liquid to, or to remove liquid from, the liquid container, the sealing protrusion (of 3002) extends into the opening (as shown), and the outer circumferential sealing surface (of 3004) contacts the inner circumferential sealing surface (of 12/14 as shown) to form (via surface to surface engagement…) an entirely non-threaded seal between the manifold and the liquid container (the interlocking self-contained connection is non threadedly engaged with the container thereat) and the inner circumferential sealing surface (of 12/14 which provides a land or stiffening bead Col 1 ln 31-33 to provide and) elastically deforms the sealing protrusion (i.e. the flexible jaws at 3002 of 20 during insertion that flex) inward, and wherein, in an unconnected state, prior to insertion of the manifold into the opening, a largest circumferential length (i.e. the annular circumference of 3002/20 outer.diam at surface 3004) of the outer circumferential sealing surface is greater than a largest circumferential length of the inner circumferential sealing surface (i.e. the annular circumference of 12/14 inner.diam as seen in figure 2 or 3 prior to sealing connection, where the narrower diameter of 12/14 and the larger diameter of 3002/20 provide for tight fit connection etc...) (emphasis added)
Liebertz discloses in claim 2: The system of claim 1, wherein the outer circumferential sealing surface is a convex surface (at 3004) along the longitudinal axis.
Liebertz discloses in claim 3: The system of claim 1, wherein a maximum circumferential length of the outer circumferential sealing surface in an axial direction is located within a region (at 3004) of the sealing protrusion, and begins at the end of the sealing protrusion facing towards the liquid container and extends over an axial length of the sealing protrusion in the axial direction; but Liebertz does not explicitly disclose: extending over 2/3rds the length of the axial sealing protrusion; but considering that those skilled in the art would consider for the purpose of proper sealing pressurization of the container, to adjust the size of the seal thickness and length appropriate for the container inlet;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide for Liebertz as suggested by those skilled in the art to provide the sealing protrusion length extent of at least 2/3rds the length of the axial sealing protrusion, all especially since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Liebertz discloses in claim 4: The system of claim 1, wherein, in the connected state, the sealing protrusion elastically deforms the inner circumferential sealing surface of the opening (as shown to create a locked sealing surface to surface connection).
Liebertz discloses in claim 5: The system of claim 1, wherein the sealing protrusion is shaped as a sealing lip (at 3004 which is the outer circumferential sealing surface of the protrusion) extending along the longitudinal axis, wherein the sealing protrusion further has an inner circumferential surface (the inside surface at 20 or inside surface at 3006), which extends along the outer circumferential sealing surface (i.e. to provide a recess for insertion.)
Liebertz discloses in claim 6: The system of claim 5, wherein a ratio of the length of the sealing lip over the thickness of the sealing lip is larger than [the reverse] but Liebertz does not disclose: the sealing lip is merely less than 1/3rd the length of the sealing lip; considering Liebertz teaches: the length is clearly a larger distance than the thickness as taken from the figures; and considering that those skilled in the art would consider for the purpose of proper sealing pressurization of the container, to adjust the size of the seal thickness and length appropriate for the container inlet;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide for Liebertz as suggested by those skilled in the art to provide the sealing lip with a mere thickness about less than 1/3rd the length of the sealing lip, all especially since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Liebertz discloses in claim 7: The system of claim 5, wherein the inner circumferential surface of the sealing protrusion is a curved surface (as it narrows down to the end, and also, the inside surface of 21 curves at 3006.)
Liebertz discloses in claim 8: The system of claim 7, wherein the inner circumferential surface of the sealing protrusion is a concave surface (at 3006.)
Liebertz discloses in claim 9: The system of claim 1, wherein the liquid container has an inner pressure (it must have an internal pressure), which [can be] higher than a pressure of an environment surrounding the manifold outside the liquid container (the liquid contained in the container is capable of expanding under heat to increase the internal pressure greater than that of the surrounding atmosphere, at least until the internal pressure overcomes the sealed top.) Liebertz does not explicitly disclose; developing an internal pressure greater than that of the surrounding environment; nonetheless, considering the properties of fluid transformation from a liquid to a gas under thermal expansion, one of ordinary skill in the fluid art would anticipate that the inner container holding the liquid would develop a greater internal pressure when exposed to an increase in temperature as within the confined region of the container, which would exceed the surrounding environment pressure, and so to provide a sealed top that can maintain a measurable increase in pressure;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Liebertz with a liquid container that can maintain an inner pressure, higher than an outer surrounding environmental pressure surrounding the manifold outside the liquid container, all for the purpose of maintaining the liquid contained in the container and keeping it from expanding under heat outside there of even when the increase of the internal pressure is greater than that of the surrounding atmosphere, at least until the internal pressure overcomes the sealed top.
Liebertz discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 10: The system of claim 9, wherein the higher pressure inside the liquid container applies a force onto the inner circumferential surface of the sealing lip (inside of 318 at 2006), whereby the sealing protrusion is pressed against the inner circumferential sealing surface of the opening (as shown, the sealing protrusion being deformed against the opening surface prior to pressurizing of the tank, but that the pressure will still apply to the surfaces as claimed.)
Liebertz discloses in claim 11: The system of claim 1, but does not disclose, although Graux teaches: the sealing protrusion (30 figure 1-6) is elastically deformed by contact to the inner sealing surface (ph 0021-0023), and material from the contact area is displaced such that the sealing protrusion is elongated (i.e. as seen in figure 6 the deformation of the sealing lip elongates from the base in the axial direction to seat against the inside surface) in a direction towards the liquid container (all for the purpose of providing for example, a more elastically defined sealing arrangement with a tight bearing and easy fitting.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Liebertz as taught in Graux, with the sealing protrusion being elastically deformed by contact to the inner sealing surface as taught in Graux, with material from the contact area being somewhat displaced such that the sealing protrusion is elongated from the base as taught in Graux, where the deformation of the sealing lip will somewhat elongate or straighten in the axial direction to seat against the inside surface, as taught in Graux, in a direction towards the liquid container, and all for the purpose of providing for example, a more elastically defined sealing arrangement with a tight bearing and easy fitting.
Liebertz discloses in claim 12: The system of claim 1, wherein, in an unconnected state, the outer sealing surface extends away from the longitudinal axis of the manifold (as shown it extends radially outwards.)
Liebertz discloses in claim 13: The system of claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional area of the opening and a corresponding cross-sectional area of the sealing protrusion do not have a circular shape (when taken in longitudinal cross sectional area direction the area is not circular.) If it could be persuasively argued that Liebertz does not explicitly disclose: the opening transverse cross sectional area and the sealing protrusion transverse cross sectional areas are non-circular; Owens teaches: the opening transverse cross sectional area and the sealing protrusion transverse cross sectional areas are non-circular (paragraph 0055 for the purpose of for example, assuring proper directional insertion of the manifold to the container, for the purpose of accurate and secure alignment.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Liebertz as taught in Owens, an opening transverse cross sectional area and the sealing protrusion transverse cross sectional areas that are non-circular as taught in Owens, all for the purpose of for example, assuring proper directional insertion of the manifold to the container, for the purpose of accurate and secure alignment.
Liebertz discloses in claim 14: The system of claim 1, but does not disclose, although Owens teaches: the outer sealing surface is not axially symmetric with regard to the longitudinal axis (i.e. the non circular opening of the sealing protrusion is not axially symmetric when taken in radian degrees about the longitudinal axis (per ph 0055), all for the purpose of for example, preventing improper directional insertion of the manifold to the container, for the purpose of accurate and secure alignment);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Liebertz as taught in Owens, with an outer sealing surface that is not axially symmetric with regard to the longitudinal axis as taught in Owens, where the non circular opening of the sealing protrusion when not axially symmetric and taken in radian degrees about the longitudinal axis as taught in Owens will provide accurate insertion of the seal, all for the purpose of for example, preventing improper directional insertion of the manifold to the container, for the purpose of accurate and secure alignment.
Liebertz discloses in claim 16: The system of claim 1, wherein the sealing protrusion has a stiffer upper region (at 3002 that is bulwarked in stiffening abutment but…), which elastically deforms (at 15) the inner sealing surface of the opening, and an elastic lower section, which is elastically deformed by the inner sealing surface (during deformation and connection as discussed.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights