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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 24 June 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 4 and 13 have been amended, claims 3, 5, 12, and 14 have been or remain canceled. Thus claims 1-2, 4, 6-11, 13, 15-21 are presently pending in this. application, and claims 17-20 remain withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 7 April 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 of REMARKS that because the second ridges 25 (mapped to the anti-nesting projections) of Nakagawa are adjacent to both ends they are not interspersed within the low knurled portion 22 (mapped to the gripping projections) as required by the claim.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The second ridges 25 are not the only component that is mapped to the anti-nesting projections, instead, the combination of 23a, 25, and 52 are the anti-nesting projections, and as seen in Fig 5, when they are all considered as part of one feature they are interspersed with the gripping projections.
Applicant argues on page 8 that the Examiner’s mapping of the “upper rim” to the bottom of Nakagawa’s outer cylinder 44 is technically incorrect because the outer cylinder 44 is a separate concentric skirt housing the internal screw threads, so the bottom of the outer cylinder is the opening of the thread skirt, not the upper rim of the fluid receiving volume. Applicant further argues the ridges 52 on the outside of the outer cylinder do not extend beyond the inner diameter of the cap’s rim to prevent nesting; they are simply knurls on the outer skirt.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is nothing to prevent the threaded skirt from being interpreted as an upper rim. The claim does not presently require that the upper rim be an upper rim of a fluid receiving volume, the claim does not require that the volume is enclosed by the base wall, sidewall and upper rim. The threaded rim of Nakagawa has all the claimed surfaces and structures. It extends from the sidewall and defines an inner volume that is capable of receiving a medicinal fluid and as such can be interpreted as a medicinal fluid receiving volume. Similarly, the ridges 52 may be intended as simple knurls but they have all the necessary structure; they extend beyond the inner diameter of the rim. Using the label “anti-nesting” does not require additional structural limitations.
Applicant argues on page 9 that the threads of Nakagawa are not localized “retention beads” formed specifically “opposite both” gripping portions.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner appreciates the difference between a helical screw and multiple isolated and opposite projections but the differences are not recited in the claims. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes only one retention bead due to the “one or more” limitation. A helical thread is a retention bead, and because it extends around the entire circumference, it also extends to positions opposite the gripping portions. Additionally the claim is not drawn to “localized” retention beads and it is unclear how a thread is not localized.
Applicant argues on page 10 that there is no motivation to apply an asymmetric screw thread profile to a snap-on retention bead and the combination of Bericap with Nakagawa is impermissible hindsight.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The retention bead is not claimed as a “snap-on” retention bead. The examiner agrees that it would not be obvious to modify a snap-on retention bead such as that of the instant application with the structure of the threads of Bericap, however, Nakagawa uses threads, not snap-on retention beads, and a modification of the threads of Nakagawa with the structure of the threads of Bericap is reasonable. As stated in the rejections of claims 9 and 16 “It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the retention bead of Nakagawa to include the limitations as taught by Bericap to allow misaligned threads to be brought into correct engagement by making it easier to push the internal thread over an external thread ridge ([0023]).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 10-11, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa (JP 2012144280 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nakagawa discloses a dosing cup for delivery of a medicinal fluid (Abstract- “a measuring cap that allows easy measurement of content”, [0002] “containers that store liquid substances”), the dosing cup comprising: a base wall (12 Fig 1); a sidewall (14, 42, 44 Fig 1) extending from the base wall to an upper rim (See the bottom of 44 Fig 3), thereby defining a medicinal fluid- receiving volume (See the interior of the cup in Fig 3); a first gripping portion formed at a first position of the sidewall (20 in the region of θ1 on the left side of Fig 4); and a second gripping portion formed at a second position of the sidewall opposite the first position across the medicinal fluid-receiving volume (20 in the region of θ1 on the right side of Fig 4) with no gripping portion therebetween ([0014] “a smooth portion 30 having no ridges is formed between any knurled portion 20 and any other knurled portion 20.”, the sidewall 14 does not include the knurled parts in the regions of θ2 in Fig 4), wherein each of the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion comprise a plurality of gripping projections (23b Fig 5) extending from an exterior surface of the side wall, wherein each of the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion comprises one or more anti-nesting projections (23a, 25, 52 Fig 5) interspersed among the plurality of gripping projections that extend from the exterior surface of the sidewall a distance beyond the plurality of gripping projections (23a, 25, and 52 extend from the exterior surface beyond 23b Fig 5, T3 and T1 are larger than T2) and an inner diameter of the upper rim (See annotated Fig 3 below, the projections 52 extend beyond the inner diameter of the upper rim), and wherein the portion of the sidewall with no gripping portion between the first and second gripping portions defines a dosing region comprising one or more dosing indicia ([0016] “The smoothing portion 30 is formed with a first display 32 and a second display 34 that indicate the amount of contents stored in the cap body 10.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Nakagawa discloses the dosing cup of claim 1. Nakagawa further discloses wherein the one or more anti-nesting projections of the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion comprise at least two anti-nesting projections (See the at least two 23a, 25, and 52 on each side in Figs 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 6, Nakagawa discloses the dosing cup of claim 1. Nakagawa further discloses wherein the one or more anti-nesting projections extends from the upper rim along the sidewall at least half a height of the dosing cup (As shown in Fig 2b, the projections extend along at least half of the height of the cup and extend from the upper rim which is the bottom of 44 as shown in Fig 3).
Regarding claim 7, Nakagawa discloses the dosing cup of claim 1. Nakagawa further discloses wherein the one or more anti-nesting projections prevent the dosing cup from becoming nested within a second dosing cup such that friction between the dosing cup and the second dosing cup causes the dosing cup to stick to the second dosing cup (the anti-nesting projections 23a, 25, and 52 Figs 4 and 5 add to the diameter of the outer surface as shown in Fig 3, they would prevent the outer surface from fitting into a second dosing cup by extending further out radially than the inner diameter of the rim).
Regarding claim 8, Nakagawa discloses the dosing cup of claim 1. Nakagawa further discloses further comprising one or more retention beads (46 Fig 3) formed on an interior surface of the sidewall opposite both the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion (the thread 46 extends helically around the interior surface which include on the sidewall opposite both gripping portions as depicted in Fig 3), wherein the one or more retention beads are configured to releasably engage a portion of a bottle to secure the dosing cup to the bottle (threads releasably secure the cap).
Regarding claim 10, Nakagawa discloses a medicinal fluid delivery system (Abstract- “a measuring cap that allows easy measurement of content”, [0002] “containers that store liquid substances”) comprising: a bottle (9 Fig 6); and a dosing cup (1 Fig 6) configured to releasably engage a portion of the bottle ([0010] “a measuring cap 1 that is detachably attached to the container main body 9.”), the dosing cup comprising: a base wall (12 Fig 1); a sidewall (14, 42, 44 Fig 1) extending from the base wall to an upper rim (See the bottom of 44 Fig 3), thereby defining a medicinal fluid-receiving volume (See the interior of the cup in Fig 3); a first gripping portion formed at a first position of the sidewall (20 in the region of θ1 on the left side of Fig 4); and a second gripping portion formed at a second position of the sidewall opposite the first position across the medicinal fluid-receiving volume (20 in the region of θ1 on the right side of Fig 4) with no gripping portion therebetween ([0014] “a smooth portion 30 having no ridges is formed between any knurled portion 20 and any other knurled portion 20.”, the sidewall 14 does not include the knurled parts in the regions of θ2 in Fig 4), wherein each of the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion comprise a plurality of gripping projections (23b Fig 5) extending from an exterior surface of the side wall, wherein each of the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion comprises one or more anti-nesting projections (23a, 25, and 52 Figs 4 and 5) interspersed among the plurality of gripping projections that extend from the exterior surface of the sidewall a distance beyond the plurality of gripping projections (23a, 25, and 52 extend from the exterior surface beyond 23b Fig 5, T3 and T1 are larger than T2) and an inner diameter of the upper rim (See annotated Fig 3 below, the projections 52 extend beyond the inner diameter of the upper rim), and wherein the portion of the sidewall with no gripping portion between the first and second gripping portions defines a dosing region comprising one or more dosing indicia ([0016] “The smoothing portion 30 is formed with a first display 32 and a second display 34 that indicate the amount of contents stored in the cap body 10.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Nakagawa discloses medicinal fluid delivery system of claim 10. Nakagawa further discloses wherein the one or more anti-nesting projections of the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion comprise at least two anti-nesting projections (See the at least two 23a, 25, and 52 on each side in Figs 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 15, Nakagawa discloses the medicinal fluid delivery system of claim 10. Nakagawa further discloses wherein: the bottle comprises a bottle cap (7 Fig 6); and the dosing cup further comprises one or more retention beads (46 Fig 3) formed on an interior surface of the sidewall opposite both the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion (the thread 46 extends helically around the interior surface which include on the sidewall opposite both gripping portions as depicted in Fig 3), wherein the one or more retention beads are configured to releasably engage the bottle cap to secure the dosing cup to the bottle (threads releasably secure the cup 1 to cap 7 which attaches to the bottle 8 as shown in Fig 6).
Regarding claim 21, Nakagawa discloses the dosing cup according to claim 1. Nakagawa further discloses wherein the dosing indicia comprise one or more of a numerical indicator or a directional indicator (See the numerical indicators 10 and 20 in Fig 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (JP 2012144280 A) in view of Maloney et al. (US 2003/0198502 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nakagawa discloses the dosing cup of claim 1. However, Nakagawa fails to disclose wherein the plurality of gripping projections define a gradient length having a maximum length at a center of the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion and a decreasing length outward from the center of the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion.
Maloney et al. teaches a plurality of gripping projections (as shown in 93 and 98 Fig 3) define a gradient length having a maximum length at a center of the first gripping portion (93 Fig 3) and the second gripping portion (98 Fig 3) and a decreasing length outward from the center of the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion (See the gradient lengths in Fig 1 and 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to include the gripping portion lengths as taught by Maloney et al. in the device of Nakagawa to provide the user with an indication of where to grip the cup when the user is opening it using a thumb and index finger [0041] and since such a design is closer in shape to that of a fingerprint.
Regarding claim 13, Nakagawa discloses the medicinal fluid delivery system of claim 10. However, Nakagawa fails to disclose wherein the plurality of gripping projections define a gradient length having a maximum length at a center of the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion and a decreasing length outward from the center of the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion.
Maloney et al. teaches a plurality of gripping projections (as shown in 93 and 98 Fig 3) define a gradient length having a maximum length at a center of the first gripping portion (93 Fig 3) and the second gripping portion (98 Fig 3) and a decreasing length outward from the center of the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion (See the gradient lengths in Fig 1 and 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to include the gripping portion lengths as taught by Maloney et al. in the device of Nakagawa to provide the user with an indication of where to grip the cup when the user is opening it using a thumb and index finger [0041] and since such a design is closer in shape to that of a fingerprint.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (JP 2012144280 A) in view of Bericap (DE 10201003885.4 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Nakagawa discloses the dosing cup of claim 8. However, Nakagawa is silent to wherein each of the one or more retention beads comprise: a first surface extending from the interior surface of the sidewall; and a second surface extending from the interior surface of the sidewall at a position below the first surface and intersecting with the first surface, wherein: the second surface is angled relative to a horizontal axis at an angle greater than the first surface.
Bericap teaches one or more retention beads (Fig 4) comprise: a first surface (6a Fig 4) extending from the interior surface of the sidewall; and a second surface (6b Fig 4) extending from the interior surface of the sidewall at a position below the first surface and intersecting with the first surface (the surfaces 6a and 6b intersect in the triangular profile in Fig 4), wherein: the second surface is angled relative to a horizontal axis at an angle greater than the first surface (6b is angled greater relative to the horizontal axis than 6a, Fig 3a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the retention bead of Nakagawa to include the limitations as taught by Bericap to allow misaligned threads to be brought into correct engagement by making it easier to push the internal thread over an external thread ridge ([0023]).
Regarding claim 16, Nakagawa discloses the medicinal fluid delivery system of claim 15. However, Nakagawa is silent to wherein each of the one or more retention beads comprise: a first surface extending from the interior surface of the sidewall; and a second surface extending from the interior surface of the sidewall at a position below the first surface and intersecting with the first surface, wherein: the second surface is angled relative to a horizontal axis at an angle greater than the first surface.
Bericap teaches one or more retention beads (Fig 4) comprise: a first surface (6a Fig 4) extending from the interior surface of the sidewall; and a second surface (6b Fig 4) extending from the interior surface of the sidewall at a position below the first surface and intersecting with the first surface (the surfaces 6a and 6b intersect in the triangular profile in Fig 4), wherein: the second surface is angled relative to a horizontal axis at an angle greater than the first surface (6b is angled greater relative to the horizontal axis than 6a, Fig 3a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the retention bead of Nakagawa to include the limitations as taught by Bericap to allow misaligned threads to be brought into correct engagement by making it easier to push the internal thread over an external thread ridge ([0023]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Anna Vargas whose telephone number is (571)270-3873. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 4:00 PM-9:00 PM EST.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/A.E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/COURTNEY FREDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights