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
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “shrink” should be “shrinks”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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.
The claims use the term “lip” throughout. The customary meaning of “lip” is the edge of a container or opening. An applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the relevant time. In this case the term “lip” has not been clearly redefined. It is unclear if the “lip” is referring to the entire upper structure of the container, that would encompass both the container, a lip of the container, a lid, and a lip of the lid, or if the lip only refers to the closure that is used on the container.
Claim 2 recites “the container lip is in the closed state” but it is unclear when this state is occurring.
Claim 4 recites “the number of the clamping strip is two”. It is unclear if there are two clamping strips or if this is a dimension of the clamping strip.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the restricting ring" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the container" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-7 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vanhove et al. (US-20110024429-A1).
Vanhove discloses:
1. A container lip (Fig. 1), comprising a lip body (2); an inner ring (12) disposed around an outer periphery side of the lip body, wherein the inner ring is slidably connected to the lip body (Figs. 1, 2); and a first sealing ring (29) disposed between the inner ring and the lip body, wherein the first sealing ring is fixedly connected to the lip body (par. 0033), wherein a side of the inner ring towards the lip body is provided with a first step surface (Fig. 2, inner surface of 14); when the container lip is in a closed state, the first sealing ring is in contact with the first step surface (Fig. 1); and when the container lip is in an opened state, the first sealing ring is separated from the first step surface (Fig. 2).
2. The container lip of claim 1, wherein a side of the lip body towards the inner ring is provided with an inner groove (at 23), the first sealing ring is mounted in the inner groove, the first sealing ring is provided with a protrusion part towards the inner ring (formed by 30, par. 0054); the container lip is in the closed state, the protrusion part is in contact with the first step surface (Fig. 1); and when the container lip is in the opened state, the protrusion part is separated from the first step surface (Fig. 2).
3. The container lip of claim 2, wherein the side of the lip body towards the inner ring is provided with a clamping strip (23), a block (24) protrudes from the clamping strip, the block is disposed on the clamping strip, and the block is capable of being in contact with the inner ring (Fig. 1, capable when separated).
4. The container lip of claim 3, wherein a side of the inner ring towards the block is provided with a second step surface (at 26), and the block is capable of being in contact with the second step surface (Fig. 1, capable when separated).
5. The container lip of claim 4, wherein the number of the clamping strip is two, and two clamping strips are symmetrical disposed along an axis l of the lip body (Fig. 1, each half of the clamping strip can be considered a clamping strip).
6. The container lip of claim 5, wherein the two clamping strips and the lip body are an integral structure, wherein two blocks are disposed on a middle part of the two clamping strips, respectively (Fig. 1, each half of the block can be considered a block).
7. The container lip of claim 2, further comprising a second sealing ring (15), wherein the second sealing ring encircles an outer periphery side of the inner ring, and the second sealing ring is fixedly connected to the inner ring (Fig. 1).
10. The container lip of claim 3, wherein an end of the lip body towards the inner ring shrinks to define an inwards expansion end (Fig. 1), an inwards expansion groove (at 26) is disposed on an outer surface of the inwards expansion end, the inner ring is located in the inwards expansion groove, and a side of the inner ring away from the block is capable of being in contact with the inwards expansion groove (Fig. 1).
11. The container lip of claim 1, wherein the lip body comprises an outer lip (17) and an inner lip (20), the outer lip is fixedly connected to the inner lip, a gap (at 26) is defined between the inner lip and the outer lip, and the gap is configured for accommodating a container body (5) of a container.
12. The container lip of claim 11, wherein an outer surface of the inner lip comprises an external thread for being threadedly connected to the container body of the container (par. 0057).
13. A container (1), comprising the container lip of claim 1.
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) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanhove et al. (US-20110024429-A1) in view of Zhu et al. (US-20240199291-A1).
Vanhove disclose all the claimed limitations as shown above but fails to teach wherein a restricting ring and a convex ring protrude from the inner ring and the restricting ring and the convex ring are disposed on the inner ring, wherein the restricting ring is capable of being in contact with the second sealing ring; and the convex ring is capable of allowing the second sealing ring being mounted and restricting the second sealing ring, wherein a side of the second sealing ring away from the restricting ring is provided with a buffer groove.
Zhu teaches that it is known known in the art to manufacture a container lip with a restricting ring (at 22c) and a convex ring (inside 25) that protrude from an inner ring and the restricting ring and the convex ring are disposed on the inner ring, wherein the restricting ring is capable of being in contact with a second sealing ring (25); and the convex ring is capable of allowing the second sealing ring being mounted and restricting the second sealing ring, wherein a side of the second sealing ring away from the restricting ring is provided with a buffer groove (Fig. 5, the groove is formed at the tape of the second sealing ring).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the container lip of Vanhove with the restricting ring, convex ring and second sealing ring structure taught bb Zhu, in order to improve sealing and since such a modification would be a substitution of know parts to achieve a predictable result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights