DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
2. Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has overcome the outstanding rejection of nonstatutory double patenting.
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. Claims 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0056505 (Cress).
Foremost, Examiner notes claim 16 only positively claims the adapter ring, with the drip tray device not being positively claimed in combination until claim 17.
Regarding claim 16, Cress teaches a bottle cap drip tray system, comprising:
one or more adapter rings (14) for enabling a bottle cap drip tray device to be coupled to bottles of different sizes (e.g. para. [0007]), each of the one or more adapter rings including a cylindrical body portion with a cylindrical wall (22) having an exterior surface (radially outer surface) and an interior surface (radially inner surface), the exterior surface of the cylindrical body portion wall being oppositely disposed relative to the interior surface (radially inner and outer surfaces are opposed to each other e.g. Figure 1A), the cylindrical wall of the cylindrical body portion extending linearly from a bottom end of the cylindrical body portion to a top end of the cylindrical body portion (see 22 in Figure 1A), and the exterior surface of the cylindrical wall having a first diameter at the bottom end of the cylindrical body portion and a second diameter at the top end of the cylindrical body portion, the first diameter being generally equal to the second diameter (22 has a generally equal diameter at the lower end upper ends as seen in Figure 1A); 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 ring is adapted to be connected a threaded end of a drip tray device), 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 (each of the inter and exterior surfaces has threading 26 and 27 as seen in Figure 1A, and discussed in para. [0019]).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, at least one of the one or more adapter rings further comprises:
a first plurality of threads (26) being disposed on the exterior surface of the cylindrical wall of the cylindrical body portion, the first plurality of threads configured to be coupled to a plurality of internal threads on the bottle cap drip tray device (see Figure 1A); and
a second plurality of threads (27) being disposed on the interior surface of the cylindrical wall 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 Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 19, at least one of the one or more adapter rings further comprises a flange (24) on one the bottom 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, and the flange configured to be spaced apart from a bottom surface of the bottle cap drip tray device by a gap for allowing fingers of the user to grab the at least one of the one or more adapter rings underneath the bottom surface of the bottle cap drip tray device (Examiner notes the flange is capable of being grasped by a user in order to rotate it, and further is “configured to be spaced” in that it can be partially screwed into the cap 18 in order to create a gap between the flange and the bottom of the cap).
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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,131,571 (Nolley) in view of US 2013/0056505 (Cress).
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_image2.png
407
715
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nolley fails to teach the claimed adapter rings.
Cress, analogous to threaded connections for containers, teaches an adapter ring (14) for enabling a device to be coupled to bottles of different sizes (e.g. para. [0007]), each of the one or more adapter rings including a cylindrical body portion with a cylindrical wall (22) having an exterior surface (radially outer surface) and an interior surface (radially inner surface), the exterior surface of the cylindrical wall being oppositely disposed relative to the interior surface (radially inner and outer surfaces are opposed to each other e.g. Figure 1A), the cylindrical wall of the cylindrical body portion extending linearly from a bottom end of the cylindrical body portion to a top end of the cylindrical body portion (see 22 in Figure 1A), and the bottom end of the cylindrical body portion configured to be disposed below the floor portion of the bottle cap drip tray device when the cylindrical body portion is attached to the bottle cap drip tray device (the adapter is designed to screw into a threaded cap or closure like that of Nolley, and would thus end up located below the floor portion thereof).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a threaded adapter like that taught by Cress to secure the coupling spout of Nolley, motivated by the benefit of attaching the spout to a container having a different diameter than that which Nolley is originally designed, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 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”.
7. Claims 2-4, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,131,571 (Nolley) in view of US 2013/0056505 (Cress) as applied above, and further in view of US 5,967,384 (Mengeu).
Regarding claim 2, Nolley in view of Cress 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 in view of Cress 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 (Mengu 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 (Mengu 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).
8. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,131,571 (Nolley) in view of US 2013/0056505 (Cress) and 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 Cress and 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 Cress and 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]).
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,131,571 (Nolley) in view of US 2013/0056505 (Cress) and 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 Cress and 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 Cress and 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”.
10. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,131,571 (Nolley) in view of US 2013/0056505 (Cress) and 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 Cress and 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 Cress and 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]).
11. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,131,571 (Nolley) in view of US 2013/0056505 (Cress) as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of US Des. 419,867 (Hager).
Regarding claim 12, Nolley in view of Cress 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 in view of Cress 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).
12. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0056505 (Cress) as applied above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) to claim 16, in view of US 5,131,571 (Nolley).
Regarding claim 17, Cress as applied above fails to teach the claimed drip tray device.
Nolley, analogous to theaded connections for container necks, teaches a cap drip tray device, the bottle cap drip tray device configured to be attached to the neck of the bottle (12), the bottle cap drip tray device including:
an upstanding inner wall portion (15);
an upturned peripheral edge portion (radially distal portion of 21) forming an outer peripheral boundary of the bottle cap drip tray device; and
a floor portion (portion of 21 immediately extending radially outwardly from 23) extending between the upstanding inner wall portion and the upturned peripheral edge portion, the upturned peripheral edge portion surrounding 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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a threaded adapter like that taught by Cress to secure the coupling spout of Nolley, motivated by the benefit of attaching the spout to a container having a different diameter than that which Nolley is originally designed, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 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”.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 14-15 are allowed.
14. Claims 13, and 20-22 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.
15. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 13, 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.
Regarding claim 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.
Regarding claim 20, from which claim 21 depends, none of the cited prior art teaches the claimed finger cutouts in the flange of a threaded adapter.
Regarding claim 22, none of the cited prior art teaches the claimed diametrically opposed finger cutouts in the flange of a threaded adapter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights