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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2025 (2) are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1 of each claim, “A cover” should be change to –The cover--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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.
As to claim 1, line 1-2, applicant recites “a cover for a ball tube, which incudes a body part, to which are located a pressure valve” which applicant’s language is sort of confusing due to the arrangement of the language. It is not clear where the “pressure valve” is in the body part or a cover. Line 3-4, applicant recites “fastening elements include annular top part and bottom part, located on top of each other around the body part” which is again sort of confusing language because it is not clear which structure is on top of which structure around the body part. Line 5, “as well as moving elements for moving the bottom part and the body part in relation to each other” which is confusing because it is not clear what structure is the moving element and not clear which structure are moving in relation to each other, whether they bottom part, the body part, or the moving elements.
As to claim 1, applicant recites “it”, the phrase, “…it…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required. Applicant should change the phrase “it” to its correspond structure.
As to claim 3, applicant recites “on the sides” in line 2, which is lack of proper antecedent basis and “the inner sides” in line 3, which is also lack of proper antecedent basis.
As to claim 4, applicant recites “the bottom edge” in line 2, which is lack of proper antecedent basis.
As to claim 4, line 3, applicant recites “the edge” which is not clear what structure applicant is referring to and it also lack of proper antecedent basis.
As to claim 4, line 4, applicant recites “the other edge” which is not clear what structure applicant is referring to and it also lack of proper antecedent basis.
As to claim 4, line 5, applicant recites “the top edge” in line 2, which is lack of proper antecedent basis.
Claims 2 and 5 are also rejected under 112(b) due to its dependency to the rejected claim 1.
It appears that the claims and specification are direct translation from the foreign parent application which include multiple 112(b) antecedent basis and unclear to the language. Applicant is suggesting to review the entire application to have the claim language comply to US practice.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (WO2014032466, cited prior art) in view of Wilson (3,233,727).
As to claim 1, Xu discloses a cover (2) of a ball tube (1), which includes a body part (24), fastening elements (21, 22 and 23) for fastening the body part to the ball tube, which fastening elements include annular top part (21) and bottom part (22), located on top of each other around the body part (as shown in Figure 1, the top part and the bottom part are on top of the body part 24), and seal (23), located between the bottom part and the body part, as well as moving elements for moving the bottom part and the body part in relation to each other, characterised in that the body part (24) is partially locatable inside the ball tube (Figure 1), the bottom part (22) is arranged to be located around the opening of the ball tube (1, Figure 1) and the bottom part (22) extends on both sides of the top edge of the ball tube (as shown in Figure 1, the bottom part with left and right on both side of the upper portion of the ball tube), the seal (23) is located inside the ball tube, and that the top part (21) is arranged to move the bottom part (22) and the body part (23) in relation to each other for moving the seal (23) against the inner surface of the ball tube (10) and for fastening the cover to the ball tube in a pressure-proof way (abstract teaches the tensioning piece (24) moves up and down by pressurizing and decompressing the pressure vessel (1), and the sealing ring (23) is unfolded or rebounded, and then the sealing ring (23) is abutted against or separated from an inner wall of the pressure vessel, and therefore the pressure vessel can be closed or opened automatically and rapidly). However, Xu does not disclose the body part of the cover have a pressure valve. Nevertheless, Wilson discloses a ball container comprises a cover for a ball can (10), the cover further comprises a body portion with pressure valve (19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body part of Xu with a pressure valve as taught by Wilson in order to pressurized the container via the lid without all the additional structure to attached the pump to the container that greatly reducer the weight to carry the pressurized ball.
As to claim 2, Xu as modified further discloses the cover includes locking elements (2411) for locking the bottom part and the body part to each other
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (WO2014032466, cited prior art) in view of Wilson (3,233,727),further in view of Bottomfield (9,512,853).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claims 4-5 Xu as modified further discloses a section of the bottom edge of the bottom part (22) being against the body part (24) is horizontal (as shown in Figure 1 above) such that the edge of the bottom part being against the body part is at a lower plane than the other edge (as shown in Figure 1, the bottom surface of the bottom part 22 is at the lowest point), and a protrusion (where arrow 22 is pointing) extending radially is formed to the bottom edge of the body part, the top edge (the arrow and bevelled edge annotated by the examiner) of which is at least partially bevelled the seal is a ring seal (23) which is located between the protrusion (8) of the body part and the bottom edge (6) of the bottom part. However, Xu as modified does not disclose the bottom edge of the bottom part is bevelled. Nevertheless, Bottomfield discloses a seal O-ring (76) position between a body part (70) and the bottom part (74a), a protrusion on the body part comprises a bevelled surface 74b) and the bottom part have a bevelled surface that sandwich the gasket in between the bevel surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the horizontal surface of Xu with bevelled surface as taught by Bottomfield in order to push the gasket against the inner sidewall of the ball tube for a better seal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN HOI CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5:30PM.
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 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.
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights