DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
1. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
2. Claims 1-4 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,195,243 (“the ‘243 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘243 patent anticipate the instant claims.
Claims 1, 2, and 11 of the ‘243 patent
Instant claims 1-4 and 12
1. A bottle cap and drip tray device, comprising:
1. A bottle cap drip tray device, comprising:
an upstanding inner wall portion;
an upstanding inner wall portion;
an upturned peripheral edge portion forming an outer peripheral boundary of the bottle cap and drip tray device, the upturned peripheral edge portion having a curved upper surface and a curved lower surface, the curved lower surface of the upturned peripheral edge portion being oppositely disposed relative to the curved upper surface, and the curved upper and lower surfaces of the upturned peripheral edge portion being curved in a plane that is parallel to a vertical axis of the bottle cap and drip tray device; and
an upturned peripheral edge portion forming an outer peripheral boundary of the bottle cap drip tray device, the upturned peripheral edge portion having a curved upper surface and a curved lower surface, the curved lower surface of the upturned peripheral edge portion being oppositely disposed relative to the curved upper surface, and the curved upper and lower surfaces of the upturned peripheral edge portion being curved in a plane that is parallel to a vertical axis of the bottle cap drip tray device; and
a floor portion extending horizontally between the upstanding inner wall portion and the upturned peripheral edge portion, the floor portion having an upper surface and a lower surface, the lower surface of the floor portion being oppositely disposed relative to the upper surface, the upper surface of the floor portion being adjoined to the curved upper surface of the upturned peripheral edge portion, the lower surface of the floor portion being adjoined to the curved lower surface of the upturned peripheral edge portion, and the curved upper and lower surfaces of the upturned peripheral edge portion each having a varying slope from a first location where the curved upper and lower surfaces adjoin the upper and lower surfaces of the floor portion to a second location at the outer peripheral boundary of the bottle cap and drip tray device;
a floor portion extending between the upstanding inner wall portion and the upturned peripheral edge portion, the floor portion having an upper surface and a lower surface, the lower surface of the floor portion being oppositely disposed relative to the upper surface, the upper surface of the floor portion being adjoined to the curved upper surface of the upturned peripheral edge portion, the lower surface of the floor portion being adjoined to the curved lower surface of the upturned peripheral edge portion, and the curved upper and lower surfaces of the upturned peripheral edge portion each having a varying slope from a first location where the curved upper and lower surfaces adjoin the upper and lower surfaces of the floor portion to a second location at the outer peripheral boundary of the bottle cap drip tray device;
wherein the bottle cap and drip tray device is configured to prevent the substance being poured from the bottle from dripping down one or more sides of the bottle.
wherein the bottle cap drip tray device is configured to prevent a substance being poured from a bottle from dripping down one or more sides of the bottle.
1. … a bottle cap configured to engage with an opening of a bottle, the bottle cap including:
2. The bottle cap drip tray device according to claim 1, further comprising a bottle cap configured to engage with an opening of the bottle, the bottle cap including:
a cap base portion, the cap base portion formed by the upstanding inner wall portion and a top wall connected to the upstanding inner wall portion, and the cap base portion further including a dispensing aperture disposed through the top wall for pouring a substance from the bottle, the dispensing aperture being located substantially closer to one end of a diameter of the cap base portion than the other end of the diameter;
a cap base portion, the cap base portion formed by the upstanding inner wall portion and a top wall connected to the upstanding inner wall portion, and the cap base portion further including a dispensing aperture disposed through the top wall for pouring the substance from the bottle; and
a lid portion pivotably coupled to the cap base portion, the lid portion being pivotable between a closed position where the dispensing aperture is covered and an open position where the dispensing aperture is accessible for the pouring of the substance; and
a lid portion pivotably coupled to the cap base portion, the lid portion being pivotable between a closed position where the dispensing aperture is covered and an open position where the dispensing aperture is accessible for the pouring of the substance.
a hinge member pivotably coupling the lid portion to the cap base portion of the bottle cap, the hinge member defining a pivot axis about which the lid portion is rotatable relative to the cap base portion of the bottle cap, the pivot axis of the hinge member being disposed at an outer edge of, or being disposed below, the top wall of the cap base portion;
3. The bottle cap drip tray device according to claim 2, wherein the bottle cap further comprises a hinge member pivotably coupling the lid portion to the cap base portion of the bottle cap.
2. The bottle cap and drip tray device according to claim 1, wherein the pivot axis of the hinge member is in a form of a substantially horizontal pivot axis about which the lid portion is rotatable relative to the cap base portion of the bottle cap.
4. The bottle cap drip tray device according to claim 3, wherein the hinge member defines a substantially horizontal pivot axis about which the lid portion is rotatable relative to the cap base portion of the bottle cap.
11. (Previously Presented) The bottle cap and drip tray device according to claim 1, wherein the bottle has an animal or human figurine shape, and the bottle cap and drip tray device is in a shape of a hat disposed on a head of the animal or human figurine.
12. The bottle cap drip tray device according to claim 1, wherein the bottle has an animal or human figurine shape, and the bottle cap drip tray device is in a shape of a hat disposed on a head of the animal or human figurine.
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 5,131,571 (Nolley).
Regarding claim 1, Nolley teaches a bottle cap drip tray device, comprising:
an upstanding inner wall portion (17);
an upturned peripheral edge portion (portion of 21 extending outwardly away from 17) forming an outer peripheral boundary of the bottle cap drip tray device (clearly seen in Figure 1), the upturned peripheral edge portion having a curved upper surface and a curved lower surface (21 clearly shown to have curved upper and lower surfaces in Figure 1), the curved lower surface of the upturned peripheral edge portion being oppositely disposed relative to the curved upper surface (clearly seen in Figure 1), and the curved upper and lower surfaces of the upturned peripheral edge portion being curved in a plane that is parallel to a vertical axis of the bottle cap drip tray device (curved in the vertical plane that is Figure 1 which is parallel to a vertical axis of the drip tray); and
a floor portion extending between the upstanding inner wall portion and the upturned peripheral edge portion (portion of 21 extending inwardly toward 17; see annotated Figure 1 below), the floor portion having an upper surface and a lower surface (these portions inherently have upper and lower surfaces; clearly seen in Figure 1), the lower surface of the floor portion being oppositely disposed relative to the upper surface (clearly seen in Figure 2), the upper surface of the floor portion being adjoined to the curved upper surface of the upturned peripheral edge portion (clearly seen as a continuous upper surface of 21 in Figure 1, extending from inner wall 17, radially outwardly),
the lower surface of the floor portion being adjoined to the curved lower surface of the upturned peripheral edge portion (clearly seen as a continuous lower surface of 21 in Figure 1, extending from inner wall 17, radially outwardly), and the curved upper and lower surfaces of the upturned peripheral edge portion each having a varying slope from a first location where the curved upper and lower surfaces adjoin the upper and lower surfaces of the floor portion to a second location at the outer peripheral boundary of the bottle cap drip tray device (see continuous curvature of 21 in Figure 1, resulting in varying tangential slope from 17, radially outwardly to the peripheral edge);
wherein the bottle cap drip tray device is configured to prevent a substance being poured from a bottle from dripping down one or more sides of the bottle (explicitly stated in col. 5, lines 4-10).
PNG
media_image1.png
407
715
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 2-4, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,131,571 (Nolley) as applied above under 35 USC 102(a)(1) to claim 1, in view of US 5,967,384 (Mengeu).
Regarding claim 2, Nolley as applied above to claim 1 fails to teach:
a cap base portion, the cap base portion formed by the upstanding inner wall portion and a top wall connected to the upstanding inner wall portion, and the cap base portion further including a dispensing aperture disposed through the top wall for pouring the substance from the bottle; and
a lid portion pivotably coupled to the cap base portion, the lid portion being pivotable between a closed position where the dispensing aperture is covered and an open position where the dispensing aperture is accessible for the pouring of the substance.
Mengeu, analogous to threaded caps with dispensing structures, teaches a cap base portion (2), the cap base portion formed by an upstanding inner wall portion (7; analogous to wall 17 of Nolley because it is where the cap is threaded to the container neck) and a top wall (11) connected to the upstanding inner wall portion, and the cap base portion further including a dispensing aperture (13; col. 3, line 6) disposed through the top wall for pouring the substance from the bottle; and
a lid portion (5) pivotably coupled to the cap base portion (at 41), the lid portion being pivotable between a closed position (col. 4, lines 18-20) where the dispensing aperture is covered and an open position (Figure 1) where the dispensing aperture is accessible for the pouring of the substance.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the drip tray device of Nolley with the cap of Mengeu, motivated by the benefit of preventing dripping down the side of the container of Mengeu. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. (2007) at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 3, the bottle cap further comprises a hinge member pivotably coupling the lid portion to the cap base portion of the bottle cap (hinge 29 further comprises plug 47 which couple the lid 5 to the base 3).
Regarding claim 4, the hinge member defines a substantially horizontal pivot axis about which the lid portion is rotatable relative to the cap base portion of the bottle cap (hinge 29 is allows the lid 5 to pivot about a horizontal axis, e.g. see pivoting in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, an interior surface of the upstanding inner wall portion of the cap base portion comprises a plurality of internal threads (Nolley 9) that are configured to thread with a plurality of corresponding external threads disposed on a neck of the bottle (Nolley col. 2, line 66 through col. 3, line 1).
Regarding claim 11, the upturned peripheral edge portion has a top rim and the lid portion of the bottle cap has a top surface, the top rim of the upturned peripheral edge portion being disposed beneath the top surface of the lid portion of the bottle cap (Examiner notes Nolley teaches the drip catcher edge located well below the top of the upstanding wall, and it would be obvious not to located the cap below the edge, in order to provide uninhibited access thereto).
7. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Nolley) as applied above under 35 USC 102(a)(1) to claim 1, in view of US 5,967,384 (Mengeu) as applied above to claim 4, and further in view of US 2013/0175234 (Mackenzie).
Regarding claim 5, Nolley in view of Mengeu as applied above fails to teach that the hinge member is coupled to the cap base portion by a hinge pin that engages with a pair of apertures in the cap base portion, the substantially horizontal pivot axis of the hinge member being disposed through a center of the hinge pin.
Mackenzie, analogous to flip closures, teaches it is known to form a hinge pin (54) that engages with a pair of apertures located in ears (52) in the cap base portion, the substantially horizontal pivot axis of the hinge member being disposed through a center of the hinge pin (see para. [0030] and Figure 1).
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 hinge of Nolley in view of Mengeu, providing a hinge pin to engage with a pair of apertures in the cap base portion as taught by Mackenzie, motivated by the use of an suitable alternative hinge structure, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 6, the lid portion comprises a hinge protrusion (Mackenzie 56) extending downwardly from a peripheral edge of the lid portion, the hinge protrusion including a hinge aperture disposed therethrough for receiving the hinge pin (see pin 54 extending through aligned openings in Mackenzie para. [0030]).
8. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,131,571 (Nolley) in view of US 5,967,384 (Mengeu) as applied above to claim 2, and further in view of US 4,801,054 (Nycz).
Regarding claim 7, Nolley in view of Mengeu as applied above to claim 2 teaches the cap base portion comprises an upstanding collar (Mengeu raised lip 15) circumscribing the dispensing aperture, but fails to teach the lid portion comprising a circular recess at a bottom of the lid portion for accommodating the upstanding collar of the cap base portion when the lid portion is in the closed position.
Nycz, analogous to hinged dispensing closures, teaches a lid portion comprising a circular recess at a bottom of the lid portion for accommodating the upstanding collar of the cap base portion when the lid portion is in the closed position (see recess formed between plug 40 and sealing fin 42, which seal the inner and outer surfaces of spout 32, which is analogous to the raised lip 15 of Mengeu).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Nolly in view of Mengeu, providing a circular recess in the bottom of the lid portion, as taught by Nycz, motivated by the benefit of sealing the outside, as well as the inside, of the raised lip. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. (2007) at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
9. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Nolley) in view of US 5,967,384 (Mengeu) as applied above to claim 4, and further in view of US 2018/0251269 (Klapper).
Regarding claim 9, Nolley in view of Mengeu as applied above fails to teach the drip tray device, further comprising one or more adapter rings as limited in claim 9.
Klapper, analogous to threaded connections, teaches one or more adapter rings (B1 and B2) enabling the cap base portion of the bottle cap drip tray device to be coupled to bottles of different sizes (see para. [0067]), each of the one or more adapter rings including a cylindrical body portion (read as being annular and not geometrically cylindrical) with an exterior surface and an interior surface (radially inner and outer surfaces), the exterior surface of the cylindrical body portion being oppositely disposed relative to the interior surface (see Figure 18 showing adapters having opposed inner and outer surfaces); and
a first plurality of threads being disposed on the exterior surface of the cylindrical body portion (see radially outer surface of B1 and B2 in Figure 18), the first plurality of threads configured to be coupled to a plurality of internal threads on the bottle cap drip tray device (see external threads of B1 engaging with internal threads in base A in Figure 17); and
a second plurality of threads being disposed on the interior surface of the cylindrical body portion, the second plurality of threads configured to be coupled to a plurality of external threads on the neck of the bottle (see radially inner threads on B1 and B2 in Figure 18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adapter rings of Klapper with the threaded cap of Nolley in view of Mengeu, motivated by the benefit of allowing it to be used on bottles having necks of differing diameters, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 10, at least one of the one or more adapter rings further comprises a flange (Klapper 32) on one end of the cylindrical body portion, the flange configured to be grasped by a hand of a user to facilitate a removal and tightening of the at least one of the one or more adapter rings into and out of the bottle cap drip tray device (see Klapper knurling 33; para. [0071]).
10. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,131,571 (Nolley) as applied above under 35 USC 102(a)(1) to claim 1, in view of US Des. 419,867 (Hager).
Regarding claim 12, Nolley as applied above to claim 1 fails to teach the bottle has an animal or human figurine shape, and the bottle cap drip tray device is in a shape of a hat disposed on a head of the animal or human figurine.
Hager teaches a bottle, including an externally threaded neck, in the shape of an animal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the drip tray device of Nolley onto the bottle of Hager, motivated by the benefit of preventing dripping down the side of the container. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. (2007) at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Moreover, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
11. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0251269 (Klapper) in view of US 5,131,571 (Nolley).
Regarding claim 16, Klapper teaches a bottle cap drip tray system, comprising:
one or more adapter rings (B1 and B2) for enabling a bottle cap drip tray device (not taught) to be coupled to bottles of different sizes (see para. [0067]), each of the one or more adapter rings including a cylindrical body portion (read as being annular and not geometrically cylindrical) with an exterior surface and an interior surface (radially inner and outer surfaces), the exterior surface of the cylindrical body portion being oppositely disposed relative to the interior surface (see Figure 18 showing adapters having opposed inner and outer surfaces); and
wherein the exterior surface of the cylindrical body portion of each of the one or more adapter rings is configured to be coupled to the bottle cap drip tray device (the exterior threaded portion can be inserted into a threaded bore), and the interior surface of the cylindrical body portion of each of the one or more adapter rings is configured to be coupled to a neck of a bottle (see internal threading in adapters B1 and B2, e.g. Figure 17).
Klapper fails to teach the adapter rings enabling a bottle cap drip tray device.
Nolley, analogous to threaded closures, explicitly teaches the device is to prevent dripping down the container (explicitly stated in col. 5, lines 4-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adapter rings of Klapper with the threaded cap of Nolley, motivated by the benefit of allowing it to be used on bottles having necks of differing diameters, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 17, further comprising the bottle cap drip tray device, the bottle cap drip tray device configured to be attached to the neck of the bottle, the bottle cap drip tray device including:
an upstanding inner wall portion (17);
an upturned peripheral edge portion (portion of 21 extending outwardly away from 17) forming an outer peripheral boundary of the bottle cap drip tray device (clearly seen in Figure 1); and
a floor portion extending between the upstanding inner wall portion and the upturned peripheral edge portion (portion of 21 extending inwardly toward 17; see annotated Figure 1 below), the upturned peripheral edge portion surrounding the floor portion (see annotated Figure 1 above with regard to claim 1 showing the edge portion located radially outward from the floor portion);
wherein the bottle cap drip tray device is configured to prevent a substance from dripping down one or more sides of the bottle when the substance is being poured from the bottle (explicitly stated in col. 5, lines 4-10).
Regarding claim 18, at least one of the one or more adapter rings further comprises:
a first plurality of threads being disposed on the exterior surface of the cylindrical body portion (see radially outer surface of B1 and B2 in Figure 18), the first plurality of threads configured to be coupled to a plurality of internal threads on the bottle cap drip tray device (see external threads of B1 engaging with internal threads in base A in Figure 17); and
a second plurality of threads being disposed on the interior surface of the cylindrical body portion, the second plurality of threads configured to be coupled to a plurality of external threads on the neck of the bottle (see radially inner threads on B1 and B2 in Figure 18).
Regarding claim 19, at least one of the one or more adapter rings further comprises a flange (32) on one end of the cylindrical body portion, the flange configured to be grasped by a hand of a user to facilitate a removal and tightening of the at least one of the one or more adapter rings into and out of the bottle cap drip tray device (see knurling 33; para. [0071]).
Regarding claim 20, the flange on the one end of the cylindrical body portion of the at least one of the one or more adapter rings comprises one or more cutouts (read as the grooves or gaps between knurling as described in para. [0071]) formed in the flange for accommodating one or more fingers of the hand of the user during the removal and tightening of the at least one of the one or more adapter rings into and out of the bottle cap drip tray device (explicitly stated to assist in gripping in para. [0071]).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 14 and 15 allowed.
13. Claim 13 is 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.
14. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding each of claims 13 and 14, from which claim 15 depends, none of the cited prior art teaches the claimed drip tray comprising a textured inner surface comprising a plurality of ribs that define recesses between the ribs for trapping the substance being poured from the bottle.
No motivation could be found to modify the cited prior art 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