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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-4 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 12/27/24 and 06/02/26 and 07/30/26 have been acknowledged and considered by the Office.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 08/06/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
identify the following terms in the specification by reference to the drawings, designating the corresponding part or parts therein to which each term applies: “tubular held part” and “slit opening and closing”.
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 1-4 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 per claim 1, the limitations “the held part” and “the connecting part” lack antecedent basis in the claim.
Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6293437 to Socier et al.
As per claim 1, Socier discloses a discharge cap (12, Fig. 1-4) that adapted to be used with a container having and having an elasticity and that discharges a content liquid associated with a pressure increase in an interior space of the container due to an external force applied to the container, the discharge cap comprising (Col. 4, ¶ 4-5):
a nozzle (16, 20) that forms a nozzle flow path (Fig. 1-4); and
a valve (10) that is provided on the nozzle and that is made of an elastic material (“silicone rubber” Col. 5, Ln. 9-16), wherein
the valve includes a valve part (26, 34, 45, 46) through which the content liquid in the nozzle flow path is discharged (Fig. 3-4), a tubular held (54) part that is held on the nozzle by a holder (23), and a tubular connecting part (56) that connects the valve part and the held part to each other,
the valve part includes a slit part (46) provided with a slit opening and closing (26) according to a difference between an atmospheric pressure and a pressure in the interior space of the container, and an outer circumferential part (45) coupled to the connecting part, and
the slit part more easily deforms with a pressure change in the interior space than the outer circumferential part (Fig. 3-4), deforms in a discharge direction of the content liquid at a time of discharge of the content liquid (Fig. 3-4), and deforms toward the nozzle flow path after the content liquid is discharged (closed position shown in Fig. 1 - Col. 7, Ln. 52-55; Col. 8, Ln. 60-63 “snaps closed”).
Socier does not disclose: the geometry of the mouth of the container with which the discharge cap is adapted to be used ---in particular the nozzle flow path having a sectional area smaller than an opening area of the mouth part of the container; and, the elastic material of the valve being softer than the nozzle.
In regards to the geometry of the mouth of the container, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to try to use the cap of Socier with a container of any mouth size – including having a mouth opening area larger or smaller than a sectional area of the nozzle flow path of the cap.
In regards to the claim drawn to the softness of the valve in relation to the nozzle, Socier does not disclose the particular material of the nozzle. However, it would have been obvious for Socier to choose from any among known materials, including metal having a hardness higher than silicone rubber, for forming the nozzle of Socier.
As per claim 2, Socier further discloses the slit part is integrally molded of a same elastic material as that of the outer circumferential part (Col. 5, Ln. 9-16), and is thinner than the outer circumferential part (Fig. 1-4).
As per claim 3, Socier further discloses the valve part includes an intermediate part (24, Fig. 1-4) between the slit part and the outer circumferential part, and the intermediate part is gradually thinned from the outer circumferential part to the slit part (Fig. 1-4).
As per claim 4, Socier further discloses the valve part has an outer surface being a spherical concave face (Col. 5, ¶ 5) depressed toward the nozzle flow path (Fig. 1-4), and an inner surface (40) being a flat face.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 September 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights