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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,246,886. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. (Note that claim 16 encompasses all of the limitations of claim 15).
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 11-14 and 18-20 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. The claims are considered vague and indefinite for the following reasons:
Claim 11 is considered vague and confusing because it introduces a “second pin joint portion”. However a first pin joint portion has not been previously introduced in the claims.
Claim 18 sets forth a third present path. However, a first and second present path have not been previously introduces in the claims from which 18 depends.
The dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim since they inherently contain the same deficiencies therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beausire et al. (WO 2018/153951A1). Beausire et al. teaches a container lid 3, shown in figure 1, comprising a lid body (at lead line 3) and an outlet lid 41, wherein the lid body is provided with a liquid outlet 31, and the outlet lid 41 is movably connected to the lid body (via hinge at 413a, 413b), and configured to define a closed state (figure 6), an opened state (figure 10), and a detachable state of the container lid (figure 8), when the container lid is in the closed state (figure 6), the liquid outlet 31 is closed (by 411), when the container lid is in the opened state (figure 10), the liquid outlet 31 is opened, and when the container lid is in the detachable state (figure 8),the outlet lid is separated from the lid body (by detaching 413a, 413b),wherein the outlet lid 41 is detachably and pivotally connected to the lid body, and configured to open and cover the liquid outlet of the lid body (figures 6, 8, 10), wherein when the outlet lid 41 pivots relative to the lid body, the container lid is able to switch between the closed state and the opened state, and the opened state comprises a detachable opened state.
Regarding claim 2, when the outlet lid 41 is pivoted to make the container lid in the closed state (figure 6), the outlet lid 41 is near the liquid outlet 31 to seal the liquid outlet, when the outlet lid 41 is pivoted to make the container lid in the opened state (figure 10), the outlet lid 41 is away from the liquid outlet 31 to open the liquid outlet (411 is moved away from opening 31), and when the outlet lid is pivoted to make the container lid in the detachable opened state, the outlet lid is rotated to separate from the lid body (lid 41 can be detached in open state because 411 is removed from 31, then 413a, 413b can be detached from 35a, 35b).
Regarding claim 3, the outlet lid 41 comprises a pivot portion 413a, 413b connected to the lid body and a sealing cover (between 413a, 413b in figure 8) extending from the pivot portion along a radial direction of a cross section of the lid body, when the sealing cover of the outlet lid pivots around the pivot portion, the container lid is capable of switching between the closed state and the detachable opened state (as 411 is disengaged from 31 and 413a, 413b can then be disengaged from 35a, 35b), and when the container lid is in the detachable opened state, the pivot portion of the outlet lid is rotated around an end of the pivot portion to separate the outlet lid from the lid body.
Regarding claim 15, Beausire et al. teaches a container lid 3, comprising a lid body at 3 and an outlet lid 41, wherein the lid body is provided with a liquid outlet 31, and the outlet lid 41 is movably connected to the lid body (via hinges at 413a, 413b), and configured to define a closed state (figure 6), an opened state (figure 10), and a detachable state (figure 8) of the container lid, when the container lid is in the closed state (figure 6), the liquid outlet is closed, when the container lid is in the opened state (figure 10), the liquid outlet 31 is opened, and when the container lid is in the detachable state (figure 8), the outlet lid is separated from the lid body.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 4, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beausire et al. (WO 2018/153951A1) in view of Choltco-Devlin et al. (U.S. 2018/0050848). Regarding claim 4, Beausire et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the pair of detaching grooves. Choltco-Devlin et al. teaches that it is known to provide a lid with a pair of detaching grooves (see elements 124 in figure 17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lid of Beausire et al. with the pair of detaching grooves, as taught by Choltco-Devlin et al., in order to prevent accidental fracturing of the outlet lid by eliminating the need for deflecting of the outlet lid to disconnect it from the lid body.
Further regarding claim 4, the lid body, as modified above, is further provided with a pair of pivot grooves (35a, 35b of Beausire et al.) and a pair of detaching grooves (124 of Choltco-Devlin et al.), the pair of pivot grooves are configured to match with two ends of the pivot portion 413a, 413b, the pair of detaching grooves is in communication with the pivot groove (as taught by Choltco-Devlin et al.), the two ends of the pivot portion 413a, 413b of the outlet lid are inserted in and pivotally connected to the pair of pivot grooves 35a, 35b of the lid body, respectively, when the pivot portion of the outlet lid is rotated around the end of the pivot portion, another end of the pivot portion of the outlet lid is capable of sliding out of the pivot groove along the pair of detaching grooves (as taught by Choltco-Devlin et al.).
Regarding claim 5, bottom surfaces of the pair of detaching grooves (124 of Choltco-Devlin et al.) obliquely extend from groove bottoms of the pair of pivot grooves (122 of Choltco-Devlin et al.) towards a notch of the pair of pivot grooves (upper opening of 122 of Choltco-Devlin et al.), so as to lead the pivot portion of the outlet lid to depart from the pair of pivot grooves (figure 17 of Choltco-Devlin et al.).
Regarding claim 8, the sealing cover (between elements 413a, 413b) of the outlet lid is integrally formed with the pivot portion (figure 8), and extends from the pivot portion, and the pivot portion of the outlet lid is provided with a deforming groove (between 412 and 413).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beausire et al. (WO 2018/153951A1) in view of Choltco-Devlin et al. (U.S. 2018/0050848), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Meyers et al. (U.S. 2013/0062351). Regarding claim 9, the modified closure of Beausire et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the flexible member and deforming groove. Meyers et al. teaches that it is known to provide a lid with a flexible member and deforming groove (see paragraph [0035]; flexible member is the spring and deforming groove is the groove of the outlet lid that receives the pivot pin). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified lid of Beausire et al. with the flexible member and deforming groove, as taught by Meyers et al., in order to allow the outlet lid to be easily installed onto the closure.
Regarding claim 10, the modified closure of Beausire et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the pivot chambers and pivot pins. Meyers et al. teaches that it is known to provide a lid with pivot chambers and pivot pins (see paragraph [0035]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified lid of Beausire et al. with the pivot chambers and pivot pins, as taught by Meyers et al., in order to allow the outlet lid to be easily installed onto the closure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7 and 17 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.
Claims 11-14 and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art is cited for the detachable hinged lid.
THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736