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 Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. Claim 2 line 2, claim 9, line 1 recites “circular part 10” and “the swivelable cover 1” which the reference number should be either in parentheses or cancel.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: “protrusions’” which should be –protrusions--. Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/07/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 2A-2E are too faint (i.e. grayscale) for publication or reproduction. Each of the figures mentioned above need to be replaced with black and white drawings. See MPEP §608.02(VII)(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.
Claims 1-11 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.
As to claim 1, lines 6 and 7, applicant recites “the sealer” which is lack of proper antecedent basis.
As to claim 1, line 8, applicant recites “the extension” which is lack of proper antecedent. Line 7 discloses “an extension arm”, which is not clear whether applicant is referring to “an extension arm” in line 7 or referring to a completely different structure. Correction is required.
As to claim 1, line 8, applicant further claiming “the sealer part” which is lack of proper antecedent basis.
As to claim 2, line 1, applicant recites “the swivelable cover” which is lack of proper antecedent basis.
As to claim 2, applicant recites “on the surface of the can” which is lack of proper antecedent basis as claim 1 only referring to a container top and never disclose that the container top further comprises a can nor any surface of a can. Clarification is required
As to claim 3, line 1, applicant recites “the a container top member” which is not clear whether applicant is referring back to claim 1 with “a container top member” or a completely new structure. For the purpose of examination, examiner presumes that applicant is referring to the same structure as claim 1 and the limitation should be change to “the container top member”.
As to claim 3, applicant recites “has extension” which is not clear whether applicant is referring to same structure as recited in claim 1,line 6. Correction is required.
As to claim 3, line 2, applicant recites “function as cutter for the for shearing the press button”. Many 112(b) is found in this sentence. 1) “cutter” is lack of proper antecedent basis. 2) “for the for shearing” requires clarification and 3) “the press button” is also lack of proper antecedent basis. Correction is required.
As to claim 3, applicant recites “the container top member has extension, functioning as cutter for the shearing the press button” which is very confusing to the examiner. According to applicant’s specification [0023], which recites the circular part 10 has extension 14, function as cutter for the for shearing the press button. For the purpose of examination, examiner presumes that applicant is referring to the “cover” or “sealer” as claimed in claim 1 have the extension function as cutter. Clarification is required.
As to claim 4, applicant recites “the side of the can surface” which is lack of proper antecedent basis and not clear which side of the can surface applicant is claiming since applicant never mention a can in claim 1.
As to claim 5, applicant recites “sealing ring” which lacks proper antecedent basis and not clear whether applicant is refer “the elastic sealing element” as recited in claim 1 or different structure. Clarification is required.
As to claims 6-7, applicant recites “the circular shaped sealing element”, “the bottom are all lack of proper antecedent basis. As to claim 8, applicant recites “the safety cover mechanism”, “the ring shaped seal material” and “the hole” are all lack of proper antecedent basis.
As to claim 10, applicant recites “integrated onto the container top or added on thereto by adding on the tracts and swivelable cover” which is not clear and not understand by the examiner of what structure is being integrated on the container top or added on thereto by adding on the tracts and swivelable cover. Claim 1 recites a container top and not understand how “the container top” can be integrated onto the container top. Clarifications required.
As to claim 11, applicant recites “a disk-shaped sealing element” which is not clear whether applicant is referring back to “an elastic sealing element” or adding a completely new structure into the claim. Clarification is required.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examiner can only point out so many 112(b) issue in the claim. Applicant and applicant’s representative is required to review all the claims to correct all 112(b) issue to conform with current U.S. practice.
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) 1-3, 5, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharpe et al (5,779,087).
As to claim 1, Sharpe discloses a container top (30) comprising a container top member (30) comprising at one circular slit circulating an upper opening (Figure 3, annular sealing channel 31), bottom tearable member which seals said opening (Figure 1, opening panel 35 that can be open via arcuate scoreline), a cover placed over said bottom tearable member (Figure 1, closing tab 10); and an elastic sealing element located in between the cover and at least the circular slit (Figure 2, annular sealing ring 12); wherein the sealer is swivelable to at least one side around a fixed axis (axis form at the post 32), wherein the sealer has an extension arm extending from said fixed axis, such that when the extension is pushed downwards the sealer part above the opening is elevated (Figure 4, lever end 22).
As to claim 2, Sharpe further discloses the swivelable cover (10) is comprised of circular part having ring shaped protrusions' (Figure 3, annular sealing ring 12) which are compatible with the circular slit on the surface of the can (as shown in Figure 3, the annular sealing ring 12 is inside the annular sealing channel 31).
As to claim 3, as best understood, Sharpe further discloses the cover (10 and 20) has extension ,functioning as cutter for the for shearing the press button (the opening tab 20 having extension with lever end to open and rupture opening panel 35 along arcuate scoreline 36).
As to claim 5, Sharpe further discloses the sealing ring is part of the cover and not of the surface of the can (Figure 3 shows that the annular sealing right 12 is part of cover 10).
As to claim 7, Sharpe further discloses the circular shaped sealing element (sealing ring 12) having a press button sealer (as shown in Figure 3A, 3B further shows the sealing ring with specific shape that requires press into the channel).
As to claim 8, Sharpe further discloses the safety cover mechanism is swiveled to be place above the opening and pushed inside the circle around the opening of the can covering and sealing the opening , where the ring shaped seal material in place the ring shaped slit surface providing complete sealing of the hole (Figure 2, column 5, lines 7-16).
As to claim 9, Sharpe further discloses the swivelable cover has a disk-shaped sealing element (the cover has circular sealing ring 12 in the form of a disk shape).
As to claim 10, Sharpe further discloses integrated onto the container top or added on thereto by adding on the tracks and swivelable cover (as shown in Figure 1 and 3, the closing tab with projections and annular sealing channel 31 in the form of a tracks).
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.
Claims 4, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharpe et al (5,779,087) in view of Huffman et al (2007/0062946).
As to claims 4, 6 and 11, Sharpe does not disclose at the side of can surface there is a depression enabling smooth swiveling of the cover, the circular shaped sealing element having silicon layer on the bottom creating sealed locking and the disk shaped sealing element made of silicon. Huffman discloses a can resealing mechanism comprises a container top (Figure 1E) comprises a container top member comprising at one circular slit circulating an upper opening (420), bottom tearable member (416) which seals said opening, a cover (100) use to reseal the opening , and an elastic sealing element (104) located below the cover, the cover is swivelable to at least one side of the fixed axis (414), on the side of the can surface comprises a depression enabling smooth swiveling of the cover (Figure 1E and 1G shows on the side opposite the opening, a depression is form to have the cover (100) rest inside the depression), the inner flange forming a circular shape with material made from polyurethanes, silicone elastomers, silastic silicone rubber, etc. 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 cover and the elastic sealing element of Sharpe with depression and the material being silicone material as taught by Huffman in order to have the cover rest inside the depression to prevent accidental movement of the cover and using the FDA approved silicone elastomers would be a great material choice to prevent toxic substance into the covered beverage.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN HOI CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5:30PM.
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 Aviles 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.
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736