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 .
Note From Examiner
Claim 1 has been presented as:
1. (Currently amended) A water feeder stopper for preventing inverted water leakage, comprising:
a cover portion (1), wherein the cover portion (1) is a solid body, a lower end of the cover portion (1) is connected to an extension portion (2), the extension portion (2) is a hollow body, an opening and closing portion (3) is provided in the middle of the cover portion (1), and the opening and closing portion (3) remains in a closed state without an external force;
the extension portion (2) is configured to form a tight seal with an inner side wall of a water storage bottle (6), preventing fluid leakage;
wherein the opening and closing portion (3) is provided with at least one penetrating incision (5);
wherein an inner surface and an outer surface of the opening and closing portion (3) are both curved with the inner surface being convex and the outer surface being concave inward, so as to bear a water pressure when the water storage bottle (6) is inverted.
However, based on the previously made amendments (7/9/2025), the Examiner believes the claim is intended to be presented as:
1. (Currently amended) A water feeder stopper for preventing inverted water leakage, comprising:
a cover portion (1), wherein the cover portion (1) is a solid body, a lower end of the cover portion (1) is connected to an extension portion (2), the extension portion (2) is a hollow body, an opening and closing portion (3) is provided in the middle of the cover portion (1), and the opening and closing portion (3) remains in a closed state without an external force;
the extension portion (2) is configured to form a tight seal with an inner side wall of a water storage bottle (6), preventing fluid leakage;
wherein the opening and closing portion (3) is provided with at least one penetrating incision (5);
wherein an inner surface and an outer surface of the opening and closing portion (3) are both curved with the inner surface being convex and the outer surface being concave inward, so as to bear a water pressure when the water storage bottle (6) is inverted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krug et al. (US 3136440) (hereinafter Krug) in view of Smith (US 1825553).
Regarding Claim 1
Krug teaches a stopper capable of preventing inverted water leakage (below – Fig. 2 and 4), capable of being used in a water feeder, comprising: a cover portion (12/18), wherein the cover portion is a solid body, a lower end of the cover portion is connected to an extension portion (10/26), the extension portion is a hollow body, an opening and closing portion (18) is provided in the middle of the cover portion, and the opening and closing portion remains in a closed state without an external force; the extension portion is configured to form a tight seal with an inner side wall of a water storage bottle, preventing fluid leakage; wherein an inner surface and an outer surface of the opening and closing portion (18) are both curved with the inner surface being convex and the outer surface being concave inward, so as to bear a water pressure when the water storage bottle (6) is inverted (Col. 2, Ln. 45 – Cl. 4, Ln. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
259
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
473
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Krug does not teach the opening and closing portion is provided with at least one penetrating incision.
Smith teaches a stopper capable of preventing inverted water leakage (below – Fig. 14), comprising: a cover portion (37), wherein the cover portion is a solid body, a lower end of the cover portion is connected to an extension portion (36), the extension portion is a hollow body, an opening and closing portion (35) is provided in the middle of the cover portion, and the opening and closing portion remains in a closed state without an external force; the extension portion (2) is configured to form a tight seal with an inner side wall of a water storage bottle (10), preventing fluid leakage; wherein the opening and closing portion is provided with at least one penetrating incision (40) (Pg. 2, Ln. 13-38 and 95-114).
PNG
media_image3.png
518
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Krug and Smith are analogous inventions in the field of stoppers. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the opening and closing portion of Krug with the teachings of the at least one penetrating incision of Smith in order to ensure that after receipt of a projection through the incision(s), the elasticity of the closure will force the incision to tightly close and prevent any further extrusion of the contents of the container (Pg. 2, Ln. 8-12).
Regarding Claim 4
Krug in view of Smith (hereinafter “modified Krug”) teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Krug further teaches an outer diameter of the cover portion (12/18) is greater than an outer diameter of the extension portion (10/26), as can be seen in Fig. 4 above.
Regarding Claim 8
Modified Krug teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Smith further teaches a center point of the opening and closing portion (35) is located at a center point of the cover portion (36), and a center point of the penetrating incision (40) is located at the center point of the opening and closing portion, as can be seen in Fig. 14 above, and Fig. 2 (as an example).
PNG
media_image4.png
377
313
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9
Modified Krug teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Krug further teaches the opening and closing portion (18) is made of a flexible material, including synthetic rubber or natural rubber (Col. 2, Ln. 49-53).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Krug as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Manning et al. (US 623940) (hereinafter Manning).
Regarding Claim 10
Modified Krug teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Modified Krug does not teach at least one groove pattern is provided on an outer side wall of the extension portion.
Manning teaches a stopper capable of preventing inverted water leakage (below – Fig. 1 and 4), comprising: a cover portion (80), wherein the cover portion is a solid body, the cover portion being attached to an extension portion (100), the extension portion is a hollow body, an opening and closing portion (82) is provided in the middle of the cover portion, and the opening and closing portion (3) remains in a closed state without an external force; the extension portion is configured to form a tight seal with an inner side wall of a water storage bottle (6), preventing fluid leakage; wherein the opening and closing portion (3) is provided with at least one penetrating incision (84); and at least one groove pattern (104) is provided on an outer side wall of the extension portion, as can be seen in Fig. 1 and 4 below (Col. 7, Ln. 66 – Col. 8, 46).
PNG
media_image5.png
344
622
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
345
539
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Modified Krug and Manning are analogous inventions in the field of stoppers. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the stopper of modified Krug with the teachings of the groove pattern of Manning in order to provide additional resistance for the stopper against any internal pressure from the container that would attempt to dislodge the stopper.
Regarding Claim 11
Modified Krug in view of Manning teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Manning further teaches the inner side wall of the water storage bottle is provided with at least one raised pattern (70) engaged with the least one groove pattern (104), as can be seen in the figures above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Krug does not teach a penetrating incision; Smith does not teach the specific curved surface configuration; or modified Krug does not teach the groove pattern and raised pattern engagement. The Examiner notes that none of these are state in the rejection. As such, the Applicant’s arguments appear to be moot.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights