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 § 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) 1-13 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levy et al. (10167120).
Regarding claim 1, Levy discloses a dispensing closure for a container having an opening between an exterior of the system and an interior of the container where a fluent substance may be stored, said dispensing closure comprising: A. a closure body (18) that 1) can be located at the container opening and that defines an inlet for communicating with the container, and 2) has an end portion (20) defining an aperture to accommodate the flow of a fluent substance through said closure body; B. a locking member (16) mounted on said closure body for rotation about a central rotational axis and relative to said closure body, said locking member having 1) a locking position (Fig. 1), and 2) an unlocking position (Fig. 2) rotated about said central rotational axis away from said locking position; and C. an actuator (14) that it can be moved between a closed, non-dispensing position (Fig. 6) and an open, dispensing position (Fig. 7) for preventing flow of a fluent substance through said closure when said actuator is in a closed, non-dispensing position and for permitting flow of a fluent substance through said closure when said actuator is in an open, dispensing position, characterized in that said actuator is rotatably fixed to said closure body (col. 2, lines 55-60), said locking member is rotatable about said central rotational axis relative to said actuator and relative to said closure body (Figs. 1-2), and said actuator includes a dispensing flow passage (24) that is in communication with said aperture of said closure body when said actuator is in said open, dispensing position and said actuator is in engagement with a portion (34) of said locking member when said locking member is in said locking position to prevent said actuator from moving into said open, dispensing position, wherein said actuator includes a first abutment (col. 10, lines 18-21) extending in a first direction and said locking member includes a second abutment extending in a second direction, said second direction being different than said first direction, whereby said first abutment and said second abutment are oriented to engage to prevent said actuator from moving into said open, dispensing position when said locking member is in said locking position (Fig. 5), wherein said actuator is pivotally attached to said closure body (Figs. 6-7), so that it can be pivoted about a pivoting axis being perpendicular to said central rotational axis between its closed, non-dispensing position and its open, dispensing position, and wherein said actuator includes a sealing element (40) which occludes said aperture of said closure body to prevent flow of a fluent substance through said closure when said actuator is in a closed (Fig. 6), non-dispensing position, and which at least partly disengages from said aperture to allow a flow of a fluent substance through said closure when said actuator is in an open (Fig. 7), dispensing position.
Regarding claim 2, said closure body has a deck portion, from which said end portion extends (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, said end portion of said closure body has a spout like form or an essentially cylindrical or an essentially conical form (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Levy discloses the claimed invention except for a rotating angle of said locking member between its locking position and its unlocking position is the range of between 15° to 40°. Instead, Levy discloses a rotating angle of said locking member between its locking position and its unlocking position is approximately 45°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotating angle as claimed because it is so close to the Levy rotating angle that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected both the claimed rotating angle and the Levy rotating angle to achieve the same result and applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, said closure body includes an attachment means (26) for pivotably attaching said actuating member to said closure body.
Regarding claim 6, said closure body includes engagement means (32) for rotatably attaching said locking means.
Regarding claim 7, said engagement means comprises at least two retaining projections (the walls defining the grooves, 32). It is also noted that the locking member comprises projections (30). Reversing the arrangement of the projections (30) and the grooves (32) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because reversing the parts would not have affected the operation of the closure device (MPEP 2144.04, VI-A).
Regarding claim 8, said retaining projections are arranged on a deck portion of said closure body (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, said sealing element is a ringlike extension, extending from said actuator (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Levy discloses the claimed invention except for a maximum pivoting angle of said actuator is in the range of between 5° and 25°. However, Fig. 7 of Levy appears to discloses a pivoting angle in the range of between 5° and 25°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pivoting angle as claimed because it is so close to the Levy pivoting angle that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected both the claimed pivoting angle and the Levy pivoting angle to achieve the same result and applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, said actuator has a flat or an essentially flat outer surface with a recessed or sloping back region (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, said locking member has an outer skirt, wherein said skirt has a cut away or recessed area (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, said locking member has an outer skirt with a cut away or recessed area that is arranged such that said recessed or sloping back region is in closest proximity to said cut away or recessed area, when said locking member is in its opened position (Fig. 7), while said recessed or sloping back region is at least partly moved out of this proximity, when said locking member is in its closed position (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17, Levy discloses the closure in combination with a container for storing a fluent substance, said dispensing closure being attachable or being attached to said container (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 18, Levy discloses the closure in combination with a container for storing a fluent substance (Fig. 6). Levy discloses the claimed invention except for said dispensing closure being an integral part of said container. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the closure and container, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, V-B).
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al. in view of Jelich (10518941).
Regarding claim 14, Levy DIFFERS in that it does not disclose said actuator comprises at least one friction element which is designed and positioned such that it at least partly comes into contact with at least one part or at least one portion of said locking member, when said locking member is in its unlocking position and when said actuator is moved between its closed position and its opened position. Attention, however, is directed to the Jelich reference, which discloses said actuator comprises at least one friction element (212) which is designed and positioned such that it at least partly comes into contact with at least one part or at least one portion of a locking member, when said locking member is in its unlocking position and when said actuator is moved between its closed position and its opened position (col. 12, lines 48-59).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Levy reference in view of the teachings of the Jelich reference by including at least one friction element for the purpose of stabilizing the actuator (col. 12, lines 48-59 of Jelich).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONNELL ALAN LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, PAUL DURAND can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/DONNELL A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights