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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A – Figs. 1-2 and 4 an claims 1-15 in the reply filed on January 16, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Reference characters 102, 112 and 122 (in Fig. 1) have NO lead lines; therefore, it is unclear as to which structure(s) they are referring to or referencing.
Reference character 110 (in Fig. 1) is pointing to the wrong structure. It is currently pointing to the rim (of the bottom end) NOT the diameter of the bottom end.
Reference character 204 (in Fig. 2) has NO lead lines; therefore, it is unclear as to which structure(s) they are referring to or referencing.
Reference characters 404 (in Fig. 4) has NO lead lines; therefore, it is unclear as to which structure(s) they are referring to or referencing.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: as noted in the drawing objections above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, ln. 1, the preamble currently reads “A cap for an alcohol bottle comprising;” should be change to “A cap for an alcohol comprising[[;]]:” to correct the typographical error.
In claim 9, ln. 1, the preamble currently reads “A cap for an alcohol bottle comprising;” should be change to “A cap for an alcohol comprising[[;]]:” to correct the typographical error.
The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 7, ln. 1-2, the phrase, “…a plurality of LEDs extending around a terminal edge of said tapered wall…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear from the original disclosure as to how the plurality of LEDs will work or powered WITHOUT any corresponding circuitry or power source provided. Further clarification is required. An art rejection is provided as best understood by the examiner; emphasis added.
In claim 15, ln. 1-2, the phrase, “…a plurality of LEDs extending around a terminal edge of said tapered wall…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear from the original disclosure as to how the plurality of LEDs will work or powered WITHOUT any corresponding circuitry or power source provided. Further clarification is required. An art rejection is provided as best understood by the examiner; emphasis added.
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 1-15 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 1 is drawn to the sub-combination of: a cap FOR an alcohol bottle, OR whether the claim is drawn to the combination of: a cap AND an alcohol bottle and its corresponding structures (i.e. neck and threads). This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (see claim 1, ln. 1-2, “for an alcohol bottle” and “for sealing on a neck of a bottle”), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (see claim 1, ln. 11, requiring “wherein said plurality of threads matingly engage a plurality of threads on an alcohol bottle”). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the alcohol bottle and its corresponding structure(s) is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the alcohol bottle and its corresponding structure(s) are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim(s) is/are required.
In claim 1, ln. 2 and 11, the phrases in each instance, “…a bottle…” and “...an alcohol bottle…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is encompassing the same “an alcohol bottle” (of ln. 1) OR different “bottle(s)” in these occurrences. Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 2, ln. 1-3, the phrases, “…a top end of the alcohol bottle…”, “…the plurality of threads of the alcohol bottle…” and “…the alcohol bottle…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT positively recited the alcohol bottle and its corresponding structure(s) per se in claim 1 (which claim 2 depends from). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 4, ln. 2, the phrase, “…the top end of the alcohol bottle…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT positively recited the alcohol bottle and its corresponding structure(s) per se in claims 1-3 (which claim 4 depends from). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 8, ln. 1, the phrase, “…said sealable shot cap…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claims to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
Claim 9 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 1 is drawn to the sub-combination of: a cap FOR an alcohol bottle, OR whether the claim is drawn to the combination of: a cap AND an alcohol bottle and its corresponding structures (i.e. neck and threads). This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (see claim 9, ln. 1-2, “for an alcohol bottle” and “for sealing on a neck of a bottle”), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (see claim 9, ln. 11, requiring “wherein said plurality of threads matingly engage a plurality of threads on an alcohol bottle”). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the alcohol bottle and its corresponding structure(s) is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the alcohol bottle and its corresponding structure(s) are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim(s) is/are required.
In claim 9, ln. 2 and 11, the phrases in each instance, “…a bottle…” and “...an alcohol bottle…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is encompassing the same “an alcohol bottle” (of ln. 1) OR different “bottle(s)” in these occurrences. Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 10, ln. 2-3, the phrases, “…a top end of the alcohol bottle…”, “…the plurality of threads of the alcohol bottle…” and “…the alcohol bottle…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT positively recited the alcohol bottle and its corresponding structure(s) per se in claim 9 (which claim0 10 depends from). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 12, ln. 2, the phrase, “…the top end of the alcohol bottle…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT positively recited the alcohol bottle and its corresponding structure(s) per se in claims 9-11 (which claim 12 depends from). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
As for claims 2-8 and 10-15, due to their dependencies from claims 1 and 9 (respectively), they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-3 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn (US 20080011710 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Cohn) in view of Wall (US 2804103 A; hereinafter Wall).
Regarding claim 1, Cohn teaches a cap for an alcohol bottle comprising;
a shot cap (5) having a plurality of threads (10; for sealing on a neck of a bottle);
wherein said shot cap having a tapered wall extending from a circular top closed end to a circular bottom open end;
wherein said circular top closed end having a first diameter;
wherein said circular bottom open end having a second diameter;
wherein said first diameter is less than said second diameter;
wherein said plurality of threads extend around an inner surface of said tapered wall proximal to said circular top closed end;
wherein said plurality of threads matingly engage a plurality of threads on an alcohol bottle (Cohn [0010-0012] and Fig. 1).
However, Cohn fails to teach wherein said shot cap having a plurality of measures, and further wherein said plurality of measures selected from the group consisting of 1.50-ounce, 1.00-ounce, 0.75-ounce, and 0.50-ounce.
Wall is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a measuring threaded cap or closure. Wall teaches a measuring threaded cap embodiment (10; as shown in Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a cap having a plurality of threads (15; for sealing on a neck of a bottle (16));
wherein said cap having a circular top closed end to a circular bottom open end;
wherein said cap having a plurality of measures (i.e. in the form of series of marks or graduations (22));
wherein said plurality of threads extend around an inner surface proximal to said circular top closed end;
wherein said plurality of threads matingly engage with a plurality of threads on the bottle; and
wherein said plurality of measures selected from the group consisting of 0.50 oz, 1.00 oz or 1.50 oz (Wall Col. 2 ln. 30-48).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the shot cap (of Cohn) with a similar plurality of measures (as taught by Wall) to allow the user to dispense exact amount of content from the bottle.
Regarding claim 9, Cohn teaches a cap for an alcohol bottle comprising;
a shot cap (5) having a plurality of threads (10; for sealing on a neck of a bottle);
wherein said shot cap having a tapered wall extending from a circular top closed end to a circular bottom open end;
wherein said circular top closed end having a first diameter;
wherein said circular bottom open end having a second diameter;
wherein said first diameter is less than said second diameter;
wherein said plurality of threads extend around an inner surface of said tapered wall proximal to said circular top closed end;
wherein said plurality of threads matingly engage a plurality of threads on an alcohol bottle; and
wherein said shot cap having a material of translucent plastic (Cohn [0010-0012] and Fig. 1).
However, Cohn fails to teach wherein said shot cap having a plurality of measures, wherein said plurality of measures and a liquid contained in said shot cap are visible through said tapered wall; and further wherein said plurality of measures selected from the group consisting of 1.50-ounce, 1.00-ounce, 0.75-ounce, and 0.50-ounce.
Wall is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a measuring threaded cap or closure. Wall teaches a measuring threaded cap embodiment (10; as shown in Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a cap having a plurality of threads (15; for sealing on a neck of a bottle (16));
wherein said cap having a circular top closed end to a circular bottom open end;
wherein said cap having a plurality of measures (i.e. in the form of series of marks or graduations (22));
wherein said plurality of threads extend around an inner surface proximal to said circular top closed end;
wherein said plurality of threads matingly engage with a plurality of threads on the bottle; and
wherein said plurality of measures selected from the group consisting of 0.50 oz, 1.00 oz or 1.50 oz (Wall Col. 2 ln. 30-48).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the shot cap (of Cohn) with a similar plurality of measures (as taught by Wall) to allow the user to dispense exact amount of content from the bottle.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, modified Cohn as above further teaches wherein said circular top closed end rests on a top end of the alcohol bottle when said plurality of threads are fully engaged with the plurality of threads of the alcohol bottle to seal the alcohol bottle (Cohn [0010-0012]).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, modified Cohn as above further teaches wherein said plurality of threads originate at a periphery adjacent to said circular top closed end (see Cohn Fig. 1).
Claims 4-6, 8 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claims 1 and 9 above) and further in view of Earls (US 4273247 A; hereinafter Earls).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, modified Cohn as above further teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claims 1 and 9 (respectively), except for wherein said circular top closed end having an inner surface including a liner for providing a seal with the top end of the alcohol bottle.
Earls is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a cap assembly. Earls teaches a cap assembly comprising:
a cap (i.e. the combination of cup (11) AND bottle cap (21)) having a plurality of threads (22; for sealing a neck (18) of a bottle (12));
wherein said cap having a tapered wall (27) extending from a circular top closed end (26) to a circular bottom open end;
wherein said circular top closed end having a first diameter;
wherein said circular bottom open end having a second diameter;
wherein said first diameter is less than said second diameter;
wherein said plurality of threads extend around an inner surface of said tapered wall proximal to said circular top closed end;
wherein said plurality of threads matingly engage a plurality of threads (19) on the bottle; and wherein said circular top closed end having an inner surface including a liner (see annotated Earls Figs. 2 below) for providing a seal with a top end of the bottle (Earls Col. 2 ln. 48 – Col. 3 ln. 50 and Col. 3 ln. 60-68 and Figs. 1-3 and 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inner surface of the said circular top closed end (of Cohn) with a similar liner (as taught by Earls) as additional seal which acts as a tamper-evident feature (to let the user know if the bottle has been previously opened).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, modified Cohn as above further teaches wherein said shot cap having a volume of at least one ounce (Cohn [0012]).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, modified Cohn as above further teaches wherein said tapered wall having said plurality of measures including 0.50 oz and 1.00 oz (see Wall Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, modified Cohn as above further teaches wherein said [sealable] shot cap having a material selected from the group consisting of a metal or a plastic (Cohn [0012]).
Claims 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claims 6 and 14 above) and further in view of Chang (US 8403514 B2; hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Cohn as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claims 6 and 14 (respectively), except for wherein said tapered wall having a plurality of LEDs extending around a terminal edge of said tapered wall.
Chang is in the same filed of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is an illuminated beverage container (i.e. cup or glass). Chang teaches a cup (10) having a tapered wall (11 and 113) extending from a circular top closed end (112) to a circular bottom open end (111);
wherein said circular top closed end having a first diameter;
wherein said circular bottom open end having a second diameter;
wherein said first diameter is less than said second diameter; and
wherein said tapered wall having a plurality of LEDs (125) extending around a terminal edge (i.e. adjacent to the circular bottom open end (111)) of said tapered wall (Chang Col. 1 ln. 25 – Col. 2 ln. 36 and Figs. 1-2).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the terminal edge of said tapered wall (of Cohn) with similar plurality of LEDs (as taught by Chang) to allow the user to easily locate the overall cap or glass.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
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 BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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. Avilés can be reached on 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 ttps://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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736