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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one helical thread”, as recited in claims 8, 16, and 19, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 4, 5, 7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 4, 5 and 7-16 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12, 116, 190. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
The limitations recited in claim 4 of the instant application are identical as the structure recited in claim 1 of the US Patent.
The limitations recited in claim 5 of the instant application are identical as the structure recited in claim 2 of the US Patent.
The limitations recited in claim 7 of the instant application are identical as the structure recited in claim 7 of the US Patent.
The limitations recited in claim 11 of the instant application are identical as the structure recited in claim 7 of the US Patent.
The limitations recited in claim 12 of the instant application are identical as the structure recited in claim 8 of the US Patent.
The limitations recited in claim 13 of the instant application are identical as the structure recited in claim 9 of the US Patent.
The limitations recited in claim 14 of the instant application are identical as the structure recited in claim 10 of the US Patent.
The limitations recited in claim 15 of the instant application are identical as the structure recited in claim 11 of the US Patent.
The limitations recited in claim 16 of the instant application are identical as the structure recited in claim 12 of the US Patent.
The limitations recited in claim 17 of the instant application are identical as the structure recited in claim 13 of the US Patent.
The limitations recited in claim 18 of the instant application are identical as the structure recited in claim 14 of the US Patent.
The limitations recited in claim 19 of the instant application are identical as the structure recited in claim 15 of the US Patent.
The limitations recited in claim 20 of the instant application are identical as the structure recited in claim 16 of the US Patent.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 116, 190. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the structural features required in the claims of the instant application are recited in the claims of the US Patent.
The structural limitations required in claims 1 and 2 of the instant application are recited in claim 1 of the US Patent.
The structural limitations required in claim 3 of the instant application are recited in claim 9 of the US Patent.
The structural limitations required in claim 4 of the instant application are recited in claim 10 of the US Patent.
The structural limitations required in claim 7 of the instant application are recited in claim 3 of the US Patent.
The structural limitations required in claim 8 of the instant application are recited in claim 4 of the US Patent.
The structural limitations required in claim 9 of the instant application are recited in claim 5 of the US Patent.
The structural limitations required in claim 10 of the instant application are recited in claim 6 of the US Patent.
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 8, 10, 16, 17, 19 and 20 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. Regarding claims 8, 16 and 19, the recitation of “the device”, “the flow of rate”, and “the reservoir”, lacks antecedent basis. Nowhere in the claim from which depends, or previously in the claim any of those terms are properly introduced. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear to what structure, such as what flow of liquid, what device, or to which reservoir applicant is referring.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gordon (GB 2,538,235).
Claim 1
PNG
media_image1.png
266
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gordon discloses a cap for providing point-of-use wetting of a towel, the cap comprising a lid (26); and an inner bowl disposed within the lid (see figure above).
Claim 2
PNG
media_image2.png
384
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gordon further discloses a lid surface with a lid surface interruption that defines a towel void having a void top surface that further defines a void wall between the lid surface and the void top surface (see figure above).
Claim 3
Gordon further discloses the void top surface is interrupted by a patterned interruption (defined by slits between spikes 17) that extends clear through the void top surface (see figure above).
Claim 9
Gordon further discloses the cap is adapted to interface with a towel holding portion (defined by box which stack of wipes 24 are disposed in figure 3B).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolf (US 2020/0281421).
Claim 1
Wolf discloses a cap for providing point-of-use wetting of a towel, the cap comprising a lid (106 including projection member 152 and dome 112); and an inner bowl (154) disposed within the lid (see figure 1). Wolf further discloses the projection member is attached to the bowl by threaded connection (see [0023]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm.
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.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736