DETAILED ACTION
NEW REJECTIONS
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 – 2, 7 and 10 – 11 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 phrase ‘ pattern selected from a zig – zag pattern and an S – shape’ is indefinite as a ‘shape’ is not the same as a ‘pattern.’ For purposes of examination, the phrase will be interpreted to include a twisted shape. Claim 1 recites the phrase ‘the shaped second end’ in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1 – 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallanyi (U.S. Patent No. 2,001,086) in view of Wilcox et al (U.S. Patent Application No. 2014/0323993 A1) and Pessels (U.S. Patent No. 1,389,071) as evidenced by KR 2003 – 0051715 A and The Free Dictionary (rod) and The Free Dictionary (strand).
With regard to Claim 1, Vallanyi discloses a dauber applicator that is a swab (first column, lines 15 — 20) comprising a container cap (second column, line 7). A cylindrically shaped stopper or plug is disclosed (second column, lines 18 — 35), and an applicator rod comprising a second end and a first end that is shaped as a rod is disclosed, as shown in Figure 2 (third column, lines 38 — 39) and that holds a swab (prevent any detachment; third column, lines 6 — 13; Figure 2). The plug is therefore a holding means. The holding means fits into a cavity
within the container cap as shown in Figure 2. The second end can be, but is not required to be, forced into a bore in the cap (it is feasible; third column, lines 1 – 5). The second end is therefore covered by the holding means and only the holding means engages with the container cap. As shown in Figure 2, the cavity comprises a projection that is a swelling, because it is extended at ‘18’ (second column, lines 50 — 55), and a depression of the holding means, which is at the bottom, fits around the projection, because a space that extends into the interior of the holding means fits over “18,” identical to Figure 5 of the instant specification. As shown in Figure 2, only a portion of the holding means fits into the cavity. The portion is therefore a first portion, and the entire first portion fits into the cavity. A first portion is therefore also disclosed, below but not including the first portion, that includes the depression formed on an upper surface.
Vallanyi fails to disclose holding means that is detachably press fit onto the swelling and a rod that is a wire having a second end having an S shape that is a single strand.
Wilcox et al teach an applicator retained within a removable cover by a friction fit for the purpose of avoiding contamination of the applicator when not in use (paragraph 0021). Wilcox et al is in the same field of endeavor, which is applicators as evidenced by paragraph 0021.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the holding means disclosed by Vallanyi to be retained in the cap by friction fit, therefore holding means detachably friction fit onto the swelling, in order to avoid contamination when not in use as taught by Wilcox et al. Circular motion would therefore be prevented. The applicator taught by Wilcox et al is a dauber because it is for applying medicated preparations to skin by contact with skin (against the skin during application; paragraph 0017). It is not disclosed that a friction fit is a press fit, but KR 2003 – 0051715 A discloses that a friction fit is a press fit (paragraph 0050) .
Pessels teaches a dauber placed over bent wire (attaching means; first column, lines 35 – 37), therefore a first end, also comprising a wire, the opposite end of the wire, therefore a second end, inserted into a cap that is a cork (second column, lines 70 – 79) for the purpose of obtaining a dauber together with a cork having a seal (first column, lines 15 – 25). Pessels is in the same field of endeavor, which is daubers as evidenced by first column, lines 35 - 37.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the dauber disclosed by Vallanyi to comprise a metal wire comprising a first end that holds a felt and a second end together with a cork having a seal as taught by Pessels. As shown in Figures 3 – 4, the cork that is taught by Pessels covers an entirety of the second end. It therefore would have been additionally obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the holding means disclosed by Vallanyi to cover an entirety of a second end that is S shaped.. Pessels does not teach that the twisted wire constitutes a rod. However, the Free Dictionary (rod) states that the definition of ‘rod’ is ‘a thin, straight piece of material’ (first page). A single strand is also not explicitly taught. However, The Free Dictionary (strand) states that the definition of ‘strand’ is ‘a complex of fibers or filaments that have been twisted together to form a thread or yarn. ’The claimed aspect of being ‘molded’ is directed to a product — by — process limitation. Therefore, if the product in the claim is the same as the prior art, the claim is obvious even though the prior art product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113. Additionally, the product is the same as the prior art, because the claimed holding means would be obtained and there is no evidence of a structure that is specific to molding.
Pessels also teaches a linear intermediate portion extending between and connecting the first and second end, because the first end is the bottom edge of Figure 3, which is a half – circle, and the linear intermediate portion is two straight lines immediately above the first end, which are both slanted at an angle.
With regard to Claim 2, a hook shape would therefore be obtained
5. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallanyi (U.S. Patent No. 2,001,086) in view of Wilcox et al (U.S. Patent Application No. 2014/0323993 A1) and Pessels (U.S. Patent No. 1,389,071) as evidenced by KR 2003 – 0051715 A and The Free Dictionary (rod) and The Free Dictionary (strand) and Sternersen et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,384,369 B1).
Vallanyi, Wilcox et al, Pessels, KR 2003 – 0051715 A, The Free Dictionary (rod) and The Free Dictionary (strand) disclose a dauber applicator as discussed above. It is not disclosed that a press fit is an interference fit, but Sternersen et al disclose that a press fit is an interference fit (column 8, lines 30 – 37).
6. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Vallanyi (U.S. Patent No. 2,001,086) in view of Wilcox et al (U.S. Patent Application No. 2014/0323993 A1) and Pessels (U.S. Patent No. 1,389,071) as evidenced by KR 2003 – 0051715 A and The Free Dictionary (rod) and The Free Dictionary (strand) and further in view of Kani (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0178222 A1).
Vallanyi, Wilcox et al, Pessels, KR 2003 – 0051715 A, The Free Dictionary (rod) and The Free Dictionary (strand) disclose a dauber applicator as discussed above. Vallanyi, Wilcox et al, Pessels, KR 2003 – 0051715 A, The Free Dictionary (rod) and The Free Dictionary (strand) fail to disclose a container that is enabled to store an adhesive solvent that is non — reactive to cement / primer solvent material and that improves the shelf life and durability of the cement / primer solvent material consisting of an inner layer comprising ethylene vinyl alcohol, a central layer comprising high density polyethylene, a thermoplastic polymer and a thermoplastic adhesive resin that is obtained during blow molding of the container, polymer tie layers that are thermoplastic polymers and an outer layer of high density polyethylene.
Kani teach a container (paragraph 0134) comprising three layers that are ‘a,’ “b1’ and ‘b2’ and the layer ‘a’ comprising ethylene vinyl alcohol and the layers ‘b1’ and ‘b2’ comprising thermoplastic resins (paragraph 0124) and tie layers between the layers (adherent resin; paragraph 0125) that are olefin polymers (paragraph 0125) that are polyethylene (paragraph 0126), therefore thermoplastic polymers, for the purpose of obtaining high barrier properties (paragraph 0007) and a laminate of a thermoplastic resin and a high barrier resin (paragraph 0120). Kani is in the same field of endeavor, which is containers as evidenced by paragraph 0164.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the container disclosed by Vallanyi to comprise three layers comprising layer ‘a’ comprising ethylene vinyl alcohol and layers ‘b1’ and “b2’ and tie layers comprising thermoplastic resins in order to obtain high barrier properties and a laminate of a thermoplastic resin and a high barrier resin as taught by Kani. An inner layer that is ethylene viny] alcohol is therefore disclosed. It is not taught by Kani that other layers are required. A container that consists of the layers is therefore disclosed. A container that is enabled to store an adhesive solvent that is non — reactive to cement / primer solvent material and that improves the shelf life and durability of the cement / primer solvent material would therefore be obtained. The thermoplastic resins taught by Kani are polyolefin — based resins (paragraph 0062) comprising high density polyethylene or alternatively blends of high density polyethylene with low density polyethylene and medium density polyethylene (paragraph 0063). A blend is therefore taught in the layer ‘b1’ comprising high density polyethylene and low density polyethylene, which is a thermoplastic resin, and medium density polyethylene, which would constitute a thermoplastic adhesive resin because it is between two other layers. The claimed aspect of ‘obtained during blow molding of the container’ is a product — by — process limitation. Therefore, if the product in the claim is the same as the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113. Additionally, the product is the same as the prior art, because the claimed container is obtained and there is no evidence of a structure that is specific to. blow molding
7. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallanyi (U.S. Patent No. 2,001,086) in view of Wilcox et al (U.S. Patent Application No. 2014/0323993 A1) and Pessels (U.S. Patent No. 1,389,071) as evidenced by KR 2003 – 0051715 A and The Free Dictionary (rod) and The Free Dictionary (strand) and further in view of Sorenson et al (U.S. Patent No. 7,344,766 B1).
Vallanyi, Wilcox et al, Pessels, KR 2003 – 0051715 A, The Free Dictionary (rod) and The Free Dictionary (strand) disclose a dauber applicator as discussed above. The holding means has a cylindrical shape (Figure 2 of Vallanyi). Vallanyi, Wilcox et al, Pessels, KR 2003 – 0051715 A, The Free Dictionary (rod) and The Free Dictionary (strand) fail to disclose a holder that is polyethylene.
Sorenson et al teach the use of a stopper that is polyethylene (column 3, lines 47 — 50) for the purpose of obtaining superior leakage properties (column 3, lines 17 — 19). Sorenson et al is in the same field of endeavor, which is stoppers as evidenced by column 3, lines 47 – 50.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the holder to comprise polyethylene in order to obtain superior leakage properties as taught by Sorenson et al..
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 10,292,479 B2.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC A PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1497. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MARC A PATTERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights