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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
There is a missing period at the end of claim 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 4, 7 – 11 & 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kline (US 6237818).
Regarding claim 1, Kline disclose;
A spout and closure assembly (Fig. 2, 20) for a container (Fig. 1, 10), the assembly comprising:
a spout (Fig. 2, 22) having:
a base end (Fig. 3, 34) configured to be sealingly securable about the periphery of a dispensing opening (see annotated Fig. 3 below depicting the dispensing opening) of the container,
and an outlet end (Fig. 2, 22) which is movable between a retracted position in which the outlet end lies within or adjacent to the base end and an extended position in which the outlet end lies outward of the base end relative to the container opening ([Col. 4, Lines 15 – 20]; The flexible neck portion 32 allows the spout 22 to be selectively moved between the nested position shown in FIG. 3 and an extended position (not shown) whereby the spout 22 extends beyond the plane of the container lid 12 to facilitate the pouring of material from the container 10).
a removable closure cap (Fig. 3, 24) securable to the outlet end (Fig. 2, 22),
and a retainer (Fig. 2, 26) removably securable about the closure cap (Fig. 3, 24);
the retainer (Fig. 2, 26) comprising a detent (Fig. 4, 54) by which the retainer (Fig. 2, 26) and closure cap (Fig. 3, 24) are held within or adjacent to the dispensing opening (see annotated Fig. 3 below depicting the dispensing opening);
the retainer (Fig. 2, 26) comprising a frangible line of weakness (Fig. 2, 52) which when broken splits the retainer (Fig. 2, 26) so as to allow disengagement of the detent (Fig. 4, 54), extension of the spout and removal of the closure cap from the outlet end (Frangible lines of weakness 52 connect the retainer 26 and detent 54 to the closure cap 24. When the weakness lines 52 are broken, retainer 26 is split from the closure cap 24 and detent 54 is disengaged, allowing the closure cap 24 to be removed and the spout to be extended);
the frangible line of weakness (Fig. 2, 52) being positioned in the retainer (Fig. 2, 26) so that when the retainer is in place with the detent engaged, at least a portion of a force generated by pressure within the container and tending to expel the spout and closure cap is transmitted to the detent without passing through the line of weakness (The detent 54 is capable of being receiving force generated by pressure within the container without passing it through the line of weakness 52).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
835
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitation in claim 1, Kline discloses;
in which the line of weakness (Fig. 2, 52) extends substantially axially and/or radially within the retainer (Fig. 2 depicts the lines of weakness 52 extending radially within the retainer 26).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitation in claim 1, Kline discloses;
in which the line of weakness (Fig. 5, 52) extends substantially non-circumferentially in the retainer (Fig. 5 depicts the lines of weakness 52 extending non-circumferentially).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitation in claim 1, Kline discloses;
in which the line of weakness (Fig. 2, 52) is provided with a tear tab (Fig. 2, 48).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitation in claim 1, Kline discloses;
in which the detent (Fig. 4, 54) comprises a radially projecting, upwardly facing surface of the retainer (see annotated Fig. 4 below), engageable beneath a complementary downwardly facing surface (Fig. 4, 64) provided about the dispensing opening (Fig. 4, 14) of the container.
PNG
media_image2.png
926
1004
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitation in claim 7, Kline discloses;
in which the complementary downwardly facing surface (Fig. 4, 62) is provided on a neck or rim (Fig. 4, 14) on the container surrounding the dispensing opening (see annotated Fig. 3 below depicting the dispensing opening).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
835
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitation in claim 7, Kline discloses;
in which the complementary downwardly facing surface (Fig. 4, 62) is provided on the base end (Fig. 4, 34) of the spout (Fig. 3, 22).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitation in claim 7, Kline discloses;
in which the complementary downwardly facing surface (Fig. 4, 62) is provided on a securing member (Fig. 4, 60) permanently securable about the dispensing opening (Fig. 4 depicts a securing member 60 permanently securable about the dispensing opening).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitation in claim 10, Kline discloses;
in which the securing member (Fig. 4, 60) comprises a malleable ring crimpable onto or over an edge of the dispensing opening of the container ([Col. 3, Lines 47-54]; In order to secure the closure 20 to the container lid 12, the metal securing ring 60 is clamped in place over the periphery flange 56 using, preferably, some form of crimping tool).
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the limitation in claim 7, Kline discloses;
in which the radially projecting, upwardly facing surface of the retainer (see annotated Fig. 4 below) comprising the detent (Fig. 4, 54) extends radially outwardly from the retainer and the complementary downwardly facing surface (Fig. 4, 64) is recessed within the dispensing opening of the container whereby in use the retainer is at least partly nested within the dispensing opening (see annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
684
955
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the limitation in claim 1, Kline discloses;
in which the closure cap (Fig. 4, 24) comprises a chamfered support surface (see annotated Fig 4 below) configured to lie against a flange (Fig. 4, 48) bearing the detent (Fig. 4, 54), whereby container internal pressure tending to expel the spout and closure cap urges the flange radially outward to press the detent into tighter engagement (flange 48 is capable of being urged radially outward from internal pressure acting on the closure cap 24 to press detent 54 into tighter engagement).
PNG
media_image4.png
760
853
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the limitation in claim 1, Kline discloses;
in which the closure cap (Fig. 2, 24) comprises a bail handle (Fig. 2, 48) extending radially outward of the retainer (Fig. 2, 26).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kline (US 6237818I in view of Letica et al (US 20140069955).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations in claim 10, Kline discloses;
a securing member (Fig. 4, 60) on or over the dispensing opening of the container.
Kline does not disclose;
in which the securing member is a snap fit on or over the dispensing opening of the container.
However, Leticia teaches;
in which the securing member (Fig. 2, 18) is a snap fit on or over the dispensing opening of the container ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date ofthe claimed invention, to have replaced the method of securing the securing member of Kline with method of securing the securing member as taught by Leticia, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of securing method of Kline for the securing method of Leticia. (MPEP 2143.I.B) Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kline (US 6237818I in view of Baughman et al (US 20090212079).
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations in claim 10, Kline discloses;
a securing member (Fig. 4, 60)
Kline does not disclose;
in which the securing member comprises a screw-on ring with anti-backoff features.
However, Baughman teaches;
in which the securing member (Fig. 31, 109) comprises a screw-on ring (Fig. 31, 111) with anti-backoff features (the threads of element 111 act as anti-backoff features since they prevent disengagement of the spout and closure assembly from the container).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date ofthe claimed invention, to have replaced the method of securing the securing member of Kline with method of securing the securing member as taught by Baughman, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of securing method of Kline for the securing method of Baughman. (MPEP 2143.I.B) Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kline (US 6237818) in view of McLelland et al (US 5899364).
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations in claim 10, Kline discloses;
a securing member (Fig. 4, 60) about the dispensing opening
Kline does not disclose;
in which the securing member is insert-molded into the container about the dispensing opening.
However, McLelland teaches;
in which the securing member (Fig. 4, 26) is insert-molded into the container about the dispensing opening ([Col. 4, Lines 13 – 29]).
The advantage of the securing member being insert-molded into the container is to provide a stronger and more compact connection and eliminating the need for extra fasteners or adhesives. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have incorporated the teachings of McLelland with the invention of Kline to provide a securing member being insert-molded into the container.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 6 & 18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's
disclosure. US Patent 6966469 B2 is directed to the state of spout and closure assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYANT K HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-8630. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571)-270-3735. 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.
/B.K.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
