DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
2. Claim 20 is 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 claim 20, the limitation “the axis” in the last line lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2007/0169524 (Tharp).
Regarding claim 1, Tharp teaches a cap couplable to a container, the cap comprising:
a body (40) engageable with the container and rotatable about an axis to couple or decouple the body from the container (see para. [0023]);
a handle (36) couplable to the body; and
a key lock assembly operable to selectively couple the handle to the body for co-rotation, the key lock assembly including a lift cam (60) supported within the body, the lift cam having a first cam surface (peripheral edge thereof), a clutch plate (64) supported within the handle, the clutch plate having a second cam surface (66), the second cam surface being engageable with the first cam surface (see end of para. [0026]), and a key lock cylinder (56) coupled for co-rotation with the lift cam, the key lock cylinder rotatably coupled to the handle (rotatable within the handle by key actuation) and movable between an unlocked position where the handle is coupled to the body (see para. [0028]) and a locked position where the handle is decoupled from the body (see para. [0029]), wherein rotation of the key lock cylinder towards the locked position rotates the lift cam so the first cam surface engages the second cam surface to axially displace the clutch plate to uncouple the handle to the body (see engagement of cam 60 with cam follower surface 66 at the end of para. [0026]).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 10-20 are allowed.
6. Claims 2-9 are 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.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, from which claim 3 depends, Tharp fails to teach that the first cam surface and the second cam surface each include a contoured surface defining raised portions and lowered portions, the raised portions of the first cam surface are aligned with the lowered portions of the second cam surface when the key lock cylinder is in the unlocked position, and the raised portions of the first cam surface are aligned with the raised portions of the second cam surface when the key lock cylinder is in the locked position. Tharp does not disclose any contour on the lift cam surface (60).
Regarding claim 4, Tharp fails to teach that a spring is positioned between the handle and the clutch plate, and the spring is configured to urge the clutch plate downwards so the first cam surface engages the second cam surface. Tharp does not disclose any form of spring or biasing mechanism.
Regarding claim 5, from which claim 6 depends, Tharp fails to teach that a ratchet is supported within the clutch plate, the ratchet being rotatable relative to the clutch plate to limit torque transfer from the handle to the body in at least one rotational direction. Tharp does not disclose anything supported within clutch plate (64).
Regarding claim 7, Tharp fails to teach that a first plurality of axially-extending teeth extends downwardly from a bottom side of an outer annular wall of the clutch plate, a second plurality of axially-extending teeth extend upwardly from a top side of the body, and the clutch plate is movable along the axis to selectively engage and disengage the first and second pluralities of axially-extending teeth in response to rotation of the key lock cylinder about the axis. Tharp discloses teeth (72) extending form clutch plate (64) but these do not extend downwardly from a bottom side thereof (see Figure 6), nor is there any motivation to modify the clutch plate to provide the teeth in such a manner.
Regarding claim 8, from which claim 9 depends, Tharp fails to teach the cap further comprising an air intake filter supported within an internal cavity of the body, the air intake filter configured to restrict debris from entering the container, and a filter cover coupled to the body to secure the air intake filter within the internal cavity of the body. Tharp does not disclose any form of intake filter.
Regarding claim 10, from which claims 11-16 depend, Tharp at least fails to teach that the lift cam having a first cam surface defining raised portions and lowered portions, a clutch plate supported within the handle on top of the lift cam, the clutch plate having a second cam surface defining corresponding raised and lowered portions that are engageable with the raised portions and lowered portions of the first cam surface. Tharp does not disclose any contour on the lift cam surface (60).
Regarding claim 17, from which claims 18-20 depend, Tharp at least fails to teach an air intake filter supported within an internal cavity of the body, the air intake filter configured to restrict debris from entering the container, and a filter cover coupled to the body to secure the air intake filter within the internal cavity of the body. Tharp does not disclose any form of intake filter.
No motivation could be found to modify Tharp in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 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, 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.
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733