DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2006/050620 (Germann).
Regarding claim 1, Germann teaches a bottle assembly comprising a bottle (1), a screw cap (3) and an anti-drip device (2);
wherein said bottle comprises a base (unlabeled bottom of 1; see annotated Fig. 1 below), a body (unlabeled middle of 1; see annotated Fig. 1 below) rising from the base and continuing with a tapered portion (unlabeled bottom of 1; see annotated Fig. 1 below) that is joined to a neck (4) ending with an upper edge (47);
wherein said anti-drip device is immovably attached to the neck of the bottle (see para. [0072] noting the device is held on the upper end by flanged edge 47 and on the lower end by conically outward shape of the bottle, which is read as the tapered portion); said anti-drip device having the shape of a cylindrical sleeve with a lower edge and an upper edge (see shape of 2 in Fig. 1, inherently having upper and lower edges); said anti-drip device being arranged on the outer surface of the neck of the bottle, so that the upper edge of the anti-drip device is flush with the upper edge of the neck of the bottle (shoulder 45 is explicitly taught to receive outwardly flanged edge 47 in para. [0069]; see annotated Fig. 13 below); not taught); and said anti-drip device having an external thread (9); and wherein said screw cap has an internal thread that is screwed onto the external thread of the anti-drip device (not shown; see translation para. [0051]).
PNG
media_image1.png
700
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
320
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Germann fails to teach the upper edge of the anti-drip device having a thickness lower than 1.5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the thickness of the upper edge of the anti-drip deice of Germann to a thickness lower than 1.5 mm, motivated by an obvious change in size of the prior art, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size, absent a teaching of an unexpected result, is within ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A):
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 2, Germann as applied above fails to teach that the upper edge of the anti-drip device has a thickness less 0.5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the thickness of the upper edge of the anti-drip deice of Germann to a thickness lower than 0.5 mm, motivated by an obvious change in size of the prior art, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size, absent a teaching of an unexpected result, is within ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
4. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2006/050620 (Germann) as applied above to claim 1, in view of WO 2014/170240 (Pellonara).
Regarding claim 3, Germann as applied above fails to teach that the anti-drip device is made of food grade aluminum or brass or stainless steel or PTFE.
However, the reference does teach forming the device of plastic (see para. [0052]).
Pellonara, analogous to neck attachments, teaches forming an attachment of PTFE, because it has a low coefficient of friction, helping the device function as a drip catcher (pg. 5, lines 22-26).
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 device of Germann, forming it of PTFE as taught by Pellonara, motivated by the benefit of low friction and drip catching, 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”.
Regarding claim 4, Germann fails to teach said anti-drip device has an outer surface coated with a low friction coefficient material, such as PTFE.
However, the reference does teach forming the device of plastic (see para. [0052]).
Pellonara, analogous to neck attachments, teaches forming an attachment of PTFE, because it has a low coefficient of friction, helping the device function as a drip catcher (pg. 5, lines 22-26). Examiner notes that a coating results in the same exterior surface as an entire integral formation, and thus coating is an obvious variant thereof.
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 device of Germann, coating it with PTFE as taught by Pellonara, motivated by the benefit of low friction and drip catching, 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”.
5. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2006/050620 (Germann) as applied above to claim 1, in view of US 3,836,034 (Lecinski).
Regarding claim 5, Germann as applied above fails to teach said bottle has a collar and said anti-drip device is arranged on the neck of the bottle above the collar.
Lecinski, analogous to containers with threaded rings, teaches supporting a threaded fitment (12) on its lower end through a container neck collar (34 and 35) located above a taper (see container neck expanding outwardly at 13 in Fig. 9)
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 neck of Germann, providing a collar as taught by Lecinski, motivated by the benefit of supporting the collar with a dedicated structure, 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
6. Claims 6 and 7 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.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, from which claim 7 depends, Germann fails to teach said bottle has a cylindrical milling, on the outer surface of the neck of the bottle, above the collar; said cylindrical milling defining a seat that accommodates said anti-drip device.
Examiner notes the instant Specification teaches the milling is process that reduces the external diameter of the upper part of the neck, noting the area (18) in Fig. 4, the removal of which creates the difference between the bottle as seen in Fig. 3 and the resulting bottle neck shape in Fig. 5. To the extent the process materially affects the final product, Germann does not each any such process.
No motivation could be found to modify Germann in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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
