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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
No claim(s) is/are generic to the following disclosed patentably distinct species:
Group I, a 1st closure shown (fig. 1-5)
Group II, a 2nd closure shown in (figs 8-9a)
Group III, a 3rd closure shown in (figs. 10-10d)
The species are independent or distinct because as separated by drawings above, they have distinct walls and dispensing zones (16). In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
(C) The groups have a different field of search: in this case it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries, a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. Searching for three similar groups would be a confusing and a burden.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or a grouping of patentably indistinct species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the species to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Robert Cannusclo on 09/22/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-8,11,13. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9,10,12, are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jensen (US Pub No 2013/0087581).
With respect to claim 1,Jensen shows a flame mitigating fluid (12) dispenser (fig. 1-7) for controlling flow of flammable fluid (12) from a container (20) while mitigating flame infiltration, the dispenser configured to attach to the container (20) and comprising a top wall (22) with an upper surface, a lower surface and defining a thickness between the upper and lower surfaces, the top wall (22) having a dispensing zone (16) wherein the thickness of the top wall (22) is at least approximately 0.090 inches ( thickens of 22 is well over .09, hole 18 is .035”) is ; a plurality of holes formed in the top wall (22) in the dispensing zone (16), the holes extending through the thickness, each hole having a diameter of approximately 0.030 inches or less (.025-.04” see paragraph 10) at the point where the hole (18) meets the lower surface, each hole being spaced apart from an adjacent hole (18) by at least approximately 0.030 inches (holes are separated by a distance greater than themselves see fig. 6) on the upper surface; and a sidewall (28) formed on and depending downward from an outer periphery of the top wall (22).
With respect to claim 2, Jensen shows wherein the thickness of the top wall (22) in the dispensing zone (16) is thicker than the thickness of the top wall (22) outside of the dispensing zone (16).
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.
Claims 3, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Stull US D630,511) .
Jensen discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
With respect to claim 3, Jensen shows wherein the dispenser is part of a closure (22 is part of a closure as well) that attaches to the container (20), the sidewall (28) is cylindrical and has an open bottom; wherein the closure includes a spout (24) located on the top wall (22) and including a spout wall (24) formed integral with and projecting upwards from the top wall (22), the spout wall surrounding the dispensing zone (16) of the top wall (22); and wherein the lid is configured to removably attach to the spout for covering the dispensing zone (16).
However Jensen does not disclose a lid attached to the closure by means of an elongated flexible arm.
Stull teaches a lanyard for connecting the lid to a colure in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of keeping the lid and container together.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a lanyard or an elongated flexible arm between the lid and closure in order to keep from losing the lid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8,11,13 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN M BRADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8026. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Orlando E Aviles-Bosques 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.
/SHAWN M BRADEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
