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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 21-30 and 41-50 are currently pending. Claims 1-20 and 31-40 have been cancelled. Claims 21, 25-27, 41-43, and 47 are currently amended. No new subject matter is added.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-24, 26, 29, 41, and 47-49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischman et al. (US 20190062033 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Fleischman”, in view of Ricchetti et al. (WO 2017055790 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Fleischman teaches a container for a mixing system (container 10, see Abstract; Figures 1-11), and the container comprising:
a body (cylindrical body 12) defining:
a chamber (interior of body 12) containing a parenteral nutrition liquid (baby formula, see Paragraph [0008]);
the body comprising:
a first connector at a first end of the body (first top neck 20), the first connector being configured to mechanically connect the container to a connector of an other container (first top neck 20 can be connected to a second cylindrical body at the second bottom recess in a stackable connection, see Figures 1 and 4), the first connector defining a first duct (interior of top neck 20 being a first duct); and
a second connector opposing the first connector at a second end of the body (first bottom recess 22), the second connector being complimentary with the first connector (first connector and second connector portions are configured to be attached and received from each other, see Figure 4), the second connector defining a second duct (interior of bottom recess portion 22).
PNG
media_image1.png
670
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Fleischman does not explicitly disclose a first membrane that seals the first duct; a second membrane that seals the second duct; a seal within the first duct; and a membrane-breaker that is configured to break the first membrane, wherein the membrane breaker is within the first duct between the first membrane and the seal, the seal holds the membrane-breaker within the first duct, and the seal provides a fluid-tight connection between the first connector and the connector of the other container when the first connector mechanically connects the container to the connector of the other container.
Ricchetti teaches a mixing container (see Abstract), comprising a wall having an upper edge defining an upper opening, and a lower edge defining a lower opening, each opening being sealed by a membrane (see pg. 1 ln 18-20; Figures 1-7) comprising a first membrane that seals the first duct (see below); a second membrane that seals the second duct (see below); a seal within the first duct (a silicon or rubber seal may be provided on a lip adjacent one or both threads, see pg. 5 ln 15-16); a membrane-breaker (the ring member 10) that is configured to break the first membrane (ring 10 comprises a lower ring 12 with a first set of teeth 15 which project upwardly from the interior edge of said ring, after a predetermined rotation, torsion causes the strings or arms 13 to break to allow continued rotation whereby the first set of teeth 15 pierces the membrane of the upper container 5a, see Figure 7; last paragraph of pg. 7), wherein the membrane breaker is within the first duct between the first membrane and the seal (the male part of the upper container engages the gripping surface 14 of the ring member 10 and causes it to rotate as the screw threads engage, see Figure 5 and 7), the seal holds the membrane-breaker within the first duct (a silicon or rubber seal may be provided on a lip adjacent one or both threads, see pg. 5 ln 15-16; the male part of the upper container engages the gripping surface 14 of the ring member 10 and causes it to rotate as the screw threads engage, see last paragraph of pg. 7), and the seal provides a fluid-tight connection between the first connector and the connector of the other container when the first connector mechanically connects the container to the connector of the other container (to provide a further water-tight engagement., see pg. 5 ln 15; see Figures 1 and 7).
PNG
media_image2.png
577
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fleischman and Ricchetti are analogous art because both discloses a stackable mixing container.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the first and second duct to include a first and second membrane; a seal within the first duct; and a membrane-breaker insert that is configured to break the first membrane, as taught by Ricchetti. Ricchetti teaches the device would be an advantage to combine or mix different substances in a portable, convenient and contained manner (see pg. 1 ln 4-6) and a silicone or rubber seal would provide a further water-tight engagement (see pg. 5 ln 15-16).
Regarding Claim 22, Fleischman and Ricchetti teach all of the limitations, as discussed above in claim 21, and Fleischman further teaches wherein:
the said second connector (22) is configured to connect to the connector (30) of the other container (14) of the mixing system to fluidly connect the chamber of the container to the other container (the first cylindrical body 12 and the second cylindrical body 14 can be selectively and vertically stacked so that the contents of the first cylindrical body and the second cylindrical body, including, e.g., liquid, powder, food stuffs, etc., can move and be mixed between the first cylindrical body and the second cylindrical body, see Paragraph [0032]; Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 23, Fleischman and Ricchetti teaches all of the limitations, as discussed above in claim 21, and Fleischman further teaches wherein:
the first connector is a male connector (top neck comprises male valve 24) and
the second connector is a female connector (bottom recess comprises female valve 26).
Regarding Claim 24, Fleischman and Ricchetti teach all of the limitations, as discussed above in claim 21, and Fleischman further teaches wherein at least one of said first and second connectors comprises a membrane (see above) and the membrane-breaker (10) opens the second membrane when the container and the other container are screwed together (when two such containers are connected by screwing or twisting, the piercing or cutting elements of each container are moved into contact with the membrane of the other container so that both said membranes become broken, see pg. 1 ln 27-30).
Regarding Claim 26, Fleischman and Ricchetti teach all of the limitations, as discussed above in claim 21, and Fleischman further teaches the first connector (22) is configured to engage with the connector of the other container to from a sealed and non-detachable connection (stackably attach the adjacent first cylindrical body to another container, see Paragraph [0009] and [0031]). Ricchetti further teaches the seal (a silicon or rubber seal may be provided on a lip adjacent one or both threads, see pg. 5 ln 15-16), when the first connector is engaged with the connector of the other container, seals the sealed and non-detachable connection (water tight seal, see pg. 5 ln 15-16).
Regarding Claim 29, Fleischman and Ricchetti teach all of the limitations, as discussed above in claim 21, and Fleischman further teaches a hanger (pull handle 80, see Paragraph [0038]; Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 41, Fleischman and Ricchetti teach all of the limitations, as discussed above in claim 21, and Fleischman further teaches wherein the membrane-breaker (10) comprises a ring (upper ring 11 and lower ring 12) that faces the first membrane (see Figure 6 and 7).
Regarding Claim 47, Fleischman and Ricchetti teach all of the limitations, as discussed above in claim 41, and Ricchetti further teaches wherein the membrane-breaker (10) comprises:
a first side that faces the first membrane (upper ring 11 that faces membrane of container 5a, see Figure 7), the first side comprising the ring (upper ring 11);
a second side the faces away from the first membrane (lower ring 12 opposite of upper ring 11 facing away from the first membrane, see Figure 7); and
a sharp edge that faces away from the first membrane (second set of teeth 16 facing away from the first membrane of container 5a, see Figure 6-7).
Regarding Claim 48, Fleischman and Ricchetti teach all of the limitations, as discussed above in claim 47, and Ricchetti further teaches wherein:
the membrane-breaker further (10) comprises a cone projecting from the second side in a direction away from the second membrane (the cutting edge need not be a razor- sharp edge, but is shaped and dimensioned so as to pierce and cut through a flexible membrane with applied pressure. It may, for example, be a simple inverted V-shaped piece of plastic carried on the edge, or perhaps a narrow pyramid shape, see pg. 5 ln 21-27), and
an end of the cone comprises the sharp edge (inverted V-shaped piece of plastic carried on the edge).
Regarding Claim 49, Fleischman and Ricchetti teach all of the limitations, as discussed above in claim 48, and Ricchetti further teaches wherein the sharp edge is configured to break a membrane of the other container when the container and the other container are connected (when two such containers are connected by screwing or twisting, the piercing or cutting elements of each container are moved into contact with the membrane of the other container so that both said membranes become broken, see pg. 1 ln 27-30).
Claim 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischman and Ricchetti, as taught above in claim 21/26, and in further view of Sharon (US 20060272963 A1).
Regarding Claim 25, Fleischman and Ricchetti teach all of the limitations, as discussed above in claim 21, and Ricchetti further teaches the seal is a first seal (silicone or rubber seal, see pg. 5 ln 15-16) the membrane-breaker (10) is between the second membrane and the first membrane (membrane breaker 10 is between the first membrane that seals the first duct and the second membrane that seals the second duct of the first container when rotatably sealed, see Abstract; Figure 7).
However, Fleischman and Ricchetti do not explicitly disclose a second seal that is temper-evident.
Sharon teaches a container system for storing multiple components of a formulation in separate individual container assembly units (see Abstract) comprising: a first container (30) with a tamper-evident seal (top opening 32 of cartridge unit 30 is a sealable opening 35 that can be sealed with a displaceable sealing wall 64, see Figure 3).
Fleischman, Ricchetti, and Sharon are all analogous art because all teach a container assembly system with separate containers.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the bottle spout of modified Fleischman and further include a tamper-evident seal placed within the first duct, as taught by Sharon. Sharon teaches the each container may have one or more removable or frangible covers or caps to seal the container openings until ready for use and mixing, e.g., (see Paragraph [0058]).
Regarding Claim 27, Fleischman and Ricchetti teach all of the limitations, as discussed above in claim 21, and Fleischman further teaches wherein the first connector is configured to engage the connector of the other container to form the sealed and non-detachable connection (stackably attach the adjacent first cylindrical body to another container, see Paragraph [0009] and [0031]) prior to a fluid communication between the container and the other container (adjacent container includes valves for advantageously and selectively allowing the fluids in each of the connected adjacent containers to move and mix with each other through each of the connected fluid containers, see Paragraph [0007]).
However, Fleischman and Ricchetti do not explicitly disclose the container is configured to engage the connector of the other container to form the seal and non-detachable connection without having to twist the container.
Sharon teaches a container assembly system for storing multiple components of a formulation in separate individual container assembly units (see Abstract) comprising a first container (30) and a dispensing unit (10), wherein the container is configured to connect with said another container in a non-detachable manner without having to twist said container (a fluid-tight seal between cartridge unit 30 and flange portion 14 of the dispensing unit 10 is formed by one or more sealing ridges 36 provided on the outer surface of joining sleeve 34; Figures 8 and 9).
Fleischman, Ricchetti, and Sharon are analogous art because all deal with a container assembly system with separate containers.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the connection of the first container and another container of modified Fleischman and replace it with a friction fit seal as disclose by Sharon. Sharon teaches a friction fit seal allows a container system to store multiple components of a formulation in separate individual containers that can be assembled easily into a single multi-compartment container (see Paragraph [0003]).
Claims 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischman and Ricchetti, as taught above in claim 26, and in further view of Balakier (US 20140332494 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Balakier”.
Regarding claim 28, Fleischman and Ricchetti teach all of the limitations, as discussed above in claim 26. However, Fleischman and Ricchetti do not explicit disclose wherein: formation of the seal and non-detachable connection generates a visual and audial signal.
Balakier teaches a container with a dispensing schedule comprises a bottle (102) with formation of the seal and non-detachable connection (threaded neck 103) and a complementarily threaded cap (104) having a cylindrical rim and an internal schedule display (see Abstract; Figure 1) wherein said non-detachable connection generates a visual and audial signal (a single indication 112, printed, attached, or otherwise included in the visible portion 108 of the schedule display, is aligned with the indication-display aperture for display to a user, see Figure 1; an aesthetically pleasing click or other physical indication of indication advancement, can be used both for single-thread and multi-thread bottle threading, see Paragraph [0031]).
Fleischman, Ricchetti, and Balakier are analogous art because all deal with a container assembly system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the seal and non-detachable connection of modified Fleischman and further include an aesthetically pleasing click or other physical indication of indication advancement and a scheduled display, as taught by Balakier. Balakier teaches a display indication is relatively large and clear, to facilitate viewing by vision-impaired users, and the indication-advancement mechanism is robust and reliable. In addition, the cap and internal schedule display include features that allow the displayed indication to be set to a particular indication (see Paragraph [0009]).
Regarding Claim 30, Fleischman and Ricchetti teach all of the limitations, as discussed above in claim 21. However, Fleischman and Ricchetti do not explicit disclose wherein said container is a blow-molded plastic bottle.
Balakier teaches a container with a dispensing schedule comprises a bottle (102), wherein the container is a blow-molded plastic bottle (a threaded container can be blow molded, see Paragraph [0008]).
Fleischman, Ricchetti, and Balakier are analogous art because all deal with a container assembly system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the container in modified Fleischman and further include wherein said container is a blow-molded plastic bottle, as taught by Balakier. Balakier teaches a blow-molded bottle can be readily manufactured to have a neck portion smaller in diameter than the diameter of the main portion of the bottle. Blow-molded bottles can be easily scaled to have larger volumes without proportionally increasing cap sizes. Blow-molded bottles can be manufactured to have different volumes, shapes, and sizes that share a commonly sized neck and thus a commonly sized cap. Blow-molded, threaded bottles are mass-produced at low cost (see Paragraph [0008]).
Claim 42-46 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischman and Ricchetti, as taught above in claim 21/41, and in further view of Faurie (US 20040074925 A1).
Regarding Claim 42, Fleischman and Ricchetti teach all of the limitations, as discussed above in claim 41. However, Fleischman and Ricchetti do not explicit disclose wherein the first membrane comprises a pre- cut that corresponds to the ring.
Faurie teaches a container (1) for a liquid (see Abstract) comprising: a membrane (frangible partition 7) that isolates the membrane from the liquid contained in the bottle until the time of first use whereupon it is fractured by a striker (18) secured to the said dispensing head (4), wherein the membrane (partition 7) comprises a pre-cut that corresponds to a piercing element (precut line 33 corresponding to a piercing element 18, see Paragraph [0041]; Figure 3 and 4).
Fleischman and Ricchetti, and Faurie are analogous art because all teach a container assembly for storing liquids.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the first membrane of modified Fleischman and further include a pre-cut that corresponds to the piercing element, as taught by Faurie. Faurie teaches when pressure is exerted on the center of the partition, it tears along the lines, and thus forms, at its center, a passageway for the liquid contained in the container (see Paragraph [0041).
Regarding Claim 43, Modified Fleischman teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 42 and Ricchetti further teaches wherein:
the ring comprises a plurality of breakers (first set of teeth 15),
a side of each of the plurality of breakers faces the first membrane (see Figure 6 and 7) and is configured to break the first membrane at the pre-cut (as discussed above in the rejection of claim 42), and
the side of each of the plurality of breakers is flat (the cutting edge need not be a razor- sharp edge, but is shaped and dimensioned so as to pierce and cut through a flexible membrane with applied pressure; i.e. semi-circular blade of plastic material, see pg. 5 ln 23-28).
Regarding Claim 44, Modified Fleischman teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 43 and Ricchetti further teaches wherein:
the membrane-breaker (10) comprises a channel extending therethrough (see below), and
the plurality of breakers are distributed circumferentially around the channel (teeth 16 is arranged around the channel, see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
391
671
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 45, Modified Fleischman teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 44 and Ricchetti further teaches the plurality of breakers (teeth 16). However, Modified Fleischman does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of breakers are wedges with a tip of the wedge pointing towards the channel of the membrane-breaker.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Modified Fleischman to have a wedge shape pointing towards the channel of the membrane-breaker since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of the relative breaker shape of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative breaker shape would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In the instant case, the device of Modified Fleischman would not operate differently with the claimed breaker shape and since the shape of the membrane-breaker is used for the purpose of piercing the membrane. The device would function appropriately having the claimed shape. Further, applicant places no criticality on the shape of the device claimed, indicating simply that the breaker shape “are essentially” wedge shaped (specification pg. 22 ln 13-15).
Regarding Claim 46, Modified Fleischman teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 45 and Faurie further teaches wherein the pre-cut defines a plurality of wedges that correspond to the plurality of breakers (precut line 33 corresponding to a piercing element 18, see Paragraph [0041]; Figure 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 50, Fleischman and Ricchetti teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 21. However, Fleischman and Ricchetti do not explicitly disclose wherein: the first membrane comprises a pre-cut pattern, and the second membrane comprises a pre-cut pattern.
Faurie teaches a container (1) for a liquid (see Abstract) comprising: a membrane (frangible partition 7) that isolates the membrane from the liquid contained in the bottle until the time of first use whereupon it is fractured by a striker (18) secured to the said dispensing head (4), wherein the membrane (partition 7) comprises a pre-cut that corresponds to a piercing element (precut line 33 corresponding to a piercing element 18, see Paragraph [0041]; Figure 3 and 4).
Fleischman, Ricchetti, and Faurie are analogous art because all teach a container assembly for storing liquids.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the first and second membrane of modified Fleischman and further include a pre-cut pattern, as taught by Faurie. Faurie teaches when pressure is exerted on the center of the partition, it tears along the lines, and thus forms, at its center, a passageway for the liquid contained in the container (see Paragraph [0041).
Modified Fleischman teach all of the limitations, as discussed above. However, Modified Fleischman does not explicitly disclose the second membrane comprises a pre-cut pattern that is different from the pre-cut pattern of the first membrane.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Modified Fleischman to have the second membrane with a pre-cut pattern that is different from the pre-cut pattern of the first membrane since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative membrane pre-cut pattern of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative second membrane pre-cut pattern would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In the instant case, the device of Modified Fleischman would not operate differently with the claimed second membrane pre-cut pattern and since the pattern of the second membrane pre-cut is used for the purpose of allowing easier piercing of the membrane. The device would function appropriately having the claimed pattern. Further, applicant places no criticality on the pattern of the device claimed, indicating simply that the second membrane precut pattern is a star-shaped precut (specification pg. 25 ln 32-34).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues in Claim 21 that Fleischman and Ricchetti fails to teach the newly amended limitations requiring the seal to be within the first duct and the membrane-breaker within the first duct between the first membrane and the seal.
The examiner respectfully disagrees that Fleischman and Ricchetti fails to teach the newly amended limitations. As described above, “a seal within the first duct” is no longer interpreted as threads (22a) in Fleischman, but rather Ricchetti teaches a silicon or rubber seal may be provided on a lip adjacent one or both threads (see pg. 5 ln 15-16). This interpretation reads on the new limitations requiring the seal to be within the first duct.
Specifically, Applicant argues in Claim 21 that Ricchetti fails to teach the newly amended limitations requiring the membrane-breaker to be within the first membrane and the seal. The applicant further states that the membrane-breaker (10) is first rested on the female end of lower container and male container is placed on.
The examiner respectfully disagrees that Fleischman and Ricchetti fails to teach the newly amended limitations. As described above, Ricchetti teaches ring (10) comprises a lower ring (12) with a first set of teeth (15) which project upwardly from the interior edge of said ring, after a predetermined rotation, torsion causes the strings or arms (13) to break to allow continued rotation whereby the first set of teeth (15) pierces the membrane of the upper container (5a, see Figure 7; last paragraph of pg. 7). It is understood that the first set of teeth would be between seal and the first membrane right before the first set of teeth pierces the first membrane. Therefore, Claim 21 would remain rejected in view of Fleischman and Ricchetti.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC RASSAVONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am-5:30pm PT.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/ERIC RASSAVONG/ (2/20/2025)Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JESSICA ARBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781