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 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 9-12 and 19 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 9 and 19, it is unclear how the body component can be a cylindrical shape as well as any shape or size.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamilton (U.S. Patent No. 0571088).
Regarding Claim 1, Hamilton discloses a drip stopper device (Figure 1) that provides a way for drips to stop from rolling down a bottle and creating a mess, the drip stopper device comprising: a body component B (Figure 1); and an absorbent interior side C (figure 1); wherein the absorbent interior side is secured to the body component and can act to catch and absorb any liquid dripping from a bottle’s mouth (Figure 1); and further wherein the body component and the absorbent interior side sits tight around a bottle’s neck (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Hamilton discloses the body component is configured in a cylindrical shape with an open bottom end and an open top end (Figure 1 and 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 3, 4, 13, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton (U.S. Patent No. 0571088) in view of Steinberg (U.S. Pub. No. 20140014610).
Regarding Claim 3, Hamilton teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the body component comprises an elastic exterior side and the absorbent interior surface. However, Steinberg teaches the body component comprises an elastic exterior side and the absorbent interior surface (paragraph 36, figure 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamilton to include the above, as taught by Steinberg, in order to allow for a tight attachment to the bottle.
Regarding Claim 4, Hamilton teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the body component is adjustable for width by widening the elastic exterior side to fit the drip stopper device over the bottle’s mouth in order to get it on the bottle’s neck. However, Steinberg teaches the body component is adjustable for width by widening the elastic exterior side to fit the drip stopper device over the bottle’s mouth in order to get it on the bottle’s neck (paragraph 36, figure 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamilton to include the above, as taught by Steinberg, in order to allow for a tight attachment to the bottle.
Regarding Claim 13, Hamilton discloses a drip stopper device (Figure 1) that provides a way for drips to stop from rolling down a bottle and creating a mess, the drip stopper device comprising: a body component B (Figure 1) configured in a cylindrical shape with an open bottom end and an open top end (Figure 1 and 3) and an absorbent interior side C (Figure 1). Hamilton does not disclose the body component comprises an elastic exterior side and wherein the body component is adjustable by stretching of the elastic exterior side. However, Steinberg teaches an elastic exterior side and wherein the body component is adjustable by stretching of the elastic exterior side (paragraph 36, figure 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamilton to include above, as taught by Steinberg, in order to allow for easy attachment to a bottle.
Regarding Claim 14, Hamilton teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for a plurality of indicia. However, Steinberg teaches a plurality of indicia (paragraph 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamilton to include above, as taught by Steinberg, in order to identify the device and bottle.
Regarding Claim 20, Hamilton discloses a method of preventing a mess from a dripping bottle, the method comprising the following steps: providing a drip stopper device (Figure 1) comprising a body component B (Figure 1) with an absorbent interior side C (Figure 1); sliding the drip stopper device down onto the neck of the bottle (Figure 1); and adjusting the drip stopper device on the neck of the bottle so it is sitting tight to the bottle neck and near the mouth of the bottle to catch drips (Figure 1). Hamilton does not disclose stretching (elastic) the bottom edge of the drip stopper device over the mouth of the bottle and adjusting the width of the drip stopper device on the bottom edge. However, Steinberg teaches elastic (which allows for stretching and adjusting width; paragraph 36, figure 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamilton to include the above, as taught by Steinberg, in order to allow for a tight attachment to the bottle.
Claim(s) 5-9, 15, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton (U.S. Patent No. 0571088) in view of Steinberg (U.S. Pub. No. 20140014610) and Ackerman (U.S. Patent No. 4222504).
Regarding Claim 5, Hamilton discloses the body component has an absorbent material for the absorbent interior side C (Figure 1). Hamilton and Steinberg does not discloses the body component is comprised of silicone rubber material for the elastic exterior side. However, Ackerman teaches silicone (Column 3, lines 34-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamilton and Steinberg to include the above, as taught by Ackerman, in order to allow for an easy grip and cleaned material.
Regarding Claim 6, Hamilton teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the absorbent interior side extends onto an upper edge of an elastic exterior side in order to catch droplets that don’t slide directly down a side of a bottle. However, Steinberg teaches an elastic exterior side (paragraph 36, figure 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamilton to include the above, as taught by Steinberg, in order to allow for easy attachment to a bottle.
Regarding Claim 7, Hamilton teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the open bottom end of the elastic exterior side extends widthwise while the open top end of the elastic exterior side remains tight to the bottle so that the device remains tight to the bottle’s neck after pulled on. However, Steinberg teaches the open bottom end of the elastic exterior side extends widthwise while the open top end of the elastic exterior side remains tight to the bottle so that the device remains tight to the bottle’s neck after pulled on (paragraph 36, figure 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamilton to include the above, as taught by Steinberg, in order to allow for a tight attachment to the bottle.
Regarding Claim 8, Hamilton and Steinberg teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the body component is dishwasher safe and eco-friendly because of material used. However, Ackerman teaches the body component is dishwasher safe and eco-friendly because of material used (Column 2, lines 36-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamilton and Steinberg to include the above, as taught by Ackerman, in order to allow for easy cleaning and disposal.
Regarding Claim 9, Hamilton discloses the body component discloses a variety of shapes and sizes depending on the shape and size of the bottle being used (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Hamilton discloses an absorbent material for the absorbent interior side C (Figure 1). Hamilton and Steinberg does not discloses the body component is comprised of silicone rubber material for the elastic exterior side. However, Ackerman teaches silicone (Column 3, lines 34-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamilton and Steinberg to include the above, as taught by Ackerman, in order to allow for an easy grip and cleaned material.
Regarding Claim 16, Hamilton teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the open bottom end of the elastic exterior side extends widthwise while the open top end of the elastic exterior side remains tight to the bottle so that the device remains tight to the bottle’s neck after pulled on. However, Steinberg teaches the open bottom end of the elastic exterior side extends widthwise while the open top end of the elastic exterior side remains tight to the bottle so that the device remains tight to the bottle’s neck after pulled on (paragraph 36, figure 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamilton to include the above, as taught by Steinberg, in order to allow for a tight attachment to the bottle.
Regarding Claim 19, Hamilton discloses the body component is available any suitable size or shape to fit tightly around the neck of the bottle (Figure 1).
Claim(s) 10, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton (U.S. Patent No. 0571088) in view of Steinberg (U.S. Pub. No. 20140014610), Ackerman (U.S. Patent No. 4222504) and Bunkers (U.S. Pub. No. 20040195254).
Regarding Claims 10 and 17, Hamilton, Steinberg, Ackerman teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the elastic exterior side of the body component comprises a gripping texture area to provide a non-slip grip. However, Bunkers teaches a gripping texture area to provide a non-slip grip (paragraph 37). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamilton, Steinberg and Ackerman to include the above, as taught by Bunkers, in order to easily grip and remove the device.
Regarding Claim 11, Steinberg teaches a plurality of indicia (paragraph 34).
Claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton (U.S. Patent No. 0571088) in view of Steinberg (U.S. Pub. No. 20140014610), Ackerman (U.S. Patent No. 4222504), Bunkers (U.S. Pub. No. 20040195254) and Bouwer (U.S. Patent No. 8833611).
Regarding Claims 12 and 18, Hamilton, Steinberg, Ackerman and Bunkers teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the body component, specifically the absorbent interior side, is covered in an antimicrobial coating and the elastic exterior side is covered in an antimicrobial coating. However, Bouwer teaches antimicrobial coating (Column 8, lines 41-44). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamilton, Steinberg, Ackerman and Bunkers to include the above, as taught by Bouwer, in order to assist in maintaining cleanliness of the device.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm est.
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.
/ELIZABETH J VOLZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3733