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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 7, 14 and 15 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said gap" in last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the slots" in last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the liquid outlet orifice" in last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamarit Rios (U.S. Pub. 2013/0037510).
Regarding claim 1, Tamarit Rios discloses a cap for a liquid container comprising:
a perimeter wall (22, 100) to be fit to an opening of a liquid container (6), and
a first surface (24, 120) having at least one mouthpiece (23, 700) that rises from said surface and with at least one first orifice (2, 710) for the outlet of liquid from the container, the first surface also having at least one second orifice (3, 300) for the inlet of air into the container, and this second orifice having a one-way valve (4, 310) that allows air to enter the container, but prevents liquid from coming out,
the cap further comprises an air supply system (figs. 9 and 10, space between first surface 120 and surface 720) that extends from an orifice or aperture arranged in the perimeter wall to the second orifice (to lead air to said second orifice from the perimeter wall.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Tamarit Rios discloses coupling means (threads 21, and threads seen in Fig. 13) integrated into the perimeter wall for coupling to the container.
Regarding claim 13, Tamarit Rios discloses a lid (7).
Regarding claim 14, Tamarit Rios discloses that the cover has internal projections (72, 73) which block the first and second orifices and a slot (bottom of 4, 310).
Regarding claim 15, Tamarit Rios discloses that the liquid outlet orifice (2, 710) is open.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 9 and 10 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.
Claim 2 requires that the first body is arranged in a first body and that the perimeter wall is arranged in a second body formed by a second shape with a hole to insert the mouthpiece of the first body and the air supply system is at least one duct located between the first surface of the first body and the second surface of the second body in communication with the outside of the cap through at least one third orifice arranged in the perimeter wall of the second body to allow air to enter the air supply system.
Tamarit Rios’ perimeter wall is part of a single integral body and does not disclose at least one duct through a third orifice between the first surface of the first body and a second surface of a second body and it would not have been obvious to modify Tamarit Rios as required barring improper hindsight analysis. Claims 2-7, 9 and 10 depend from claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, Tamarit Rios discloses a cap wherein the first surface and the perimeter wall form a single body. However, Tamarit Rios does not disclose second channels connecting first channels to the perimeter wall. In fact, with reference to figure 4 of Tamarit Rios, it is considered that Tamarit Rios only discloses one large channel between the inside of the perimeter wall and the mouthpiece. None of the cited prior art documents discloses second channels and it would not have been obvious to modify Tamarit Rios as required barring improper hindsight analysis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892, attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MELARAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-7735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8 am - 5 pm +/- flex.
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.
/MICHAEL J. MELARAGNO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 February 23, 2026