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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/14/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the outer diameter” in the last line of the limitation about the holder should be “an outer circumference” or “an outer perimeter”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a step between the large diameter section and the small diameter section” should be “a step between the larger diameter section and the small diameter section of the applicator”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: add “of the holder” after “flange”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarajano (US 2020/0237568) in view of Tinsley (GB 1,029,339), Guerett (US 2002/0054783), and Morris (US 4,936,700).
Regarding Claim 1, Tarajano teaches a package (formulation delivery system 100), comprising:
a jar (body portion 106) having an inner dimension (dimension between interior of sidewall of jar);
a liquid formulation (liquid formulation 104) within the jar (Figure 1B, 1C);
an applicator (porous applicator 102) having a first surface (the surface of applicator 102 at the junction with formulation storage cushion 110 at application surface 120), the applicator is made of a first porous material (described as porous applicator 102, therefore made of a porous material);
a reservoir (porous formulation storage cushion 110) that sits in the liquid formulation (Figure 1B, 1C), the reservoir having a second surface (the surface formulation storage cushion 110 at the junction with applicator 102 at application surface 120) including a second porous material (the formulation storage cushion 110 is described as porous therefore the material of the cushion and the surface of the cushion is porous), wherein the contact between the first and second surfaces is configured to transfer the liquid formulation from the second surface to the first surface without consuming the reservoir (¶ 39); and
an outer cap (cap 108).
While the first and second surfaces of the applicator of Tarajano are 3-dimensional surfaces by their existence, these surfaces may be considered to be relatively flat, so if such flat surfaces are not considered to teach the recited length, width, and height.
Tinsley, in the same field of endeavor of applicators and packaging for cosmetics (title, page 1 lines 9-10), teaches wherein the first surface (bottom of felt nib 24, seen in Figure 2 to protrude into absorbent filler cartridge 16) and second surface (top of absorbent filler cartridge 16 where it contacts felt nib 24) are corresponding 3-dimensional shapes (Figure 2), and the contact between the two is configured to transfer liquid without consuming the reservoir (page 2 lines 49-54). Along with this 3-D shape at the interfacing surfaces, the narrowing of the applicator (felt nib 24), leads to the applicator having a larger diameter section (the middle section with straight sides) above a smaller diameter section (the area where the nib narrows as it interfaces with cartridge 16).
Therefore 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 package as taught by Tarajano to have the first and second surfaces meet in an angled arrangement as taught by Tinsley. This is a simple substitution of the relatively flat interface taught by Tarajano for the angled and 3-dimensional interface taught by Tinsley. Both interface shapes are known to draw liquid contents from the reservoir to the applicator.
Tarajano and Tinsley do not teach a holder or an inner cap.
Guerett, in the same field of endeavor of packaging and applicators for liquid cosmetics (¶ 2) comprising multiple porous materials (Figure 5, ¶ 57), teaches a package (unit 1, embodiment in Figure 5) comprising a holder (intermediate piece 22) configured to hold the applicator (Figure 5; ¶ 57), the holder has an outer sidewall formed in a ring shape (vertical wall of intermediate piece 22 that lines neck 4), a flange extending radially outward at a top of the holder (extending part of intermediate piece 22 above neck 4), the holder further comprising an inward protruding sealing bead (annular bead 9) on an entire inside circumference of the sidewall (annular bead 9 is ring shaped therefore lines the entire inside circumference of the sidewall), the sealing bead is located below the flange (Figure 5), and the sealing bead makes contact with the outer diameter of the applicator to prevent liquid from escaping (Figure 5; ¶ 57; while the annular bead 9 is not explicitly described as being present to prevent liquid from escaping, it is obvious that is part of the intended function because Figure 5 contains liquid (product P) that one would want to prevent escaping when the container in tipped or even used upside down (see Figures 2A and 2B where another embodiment which also has annular bead 9 is used upside down)). Guerett teaches the use of a holder rather than the applicator being directly fit into the jar to allow for greater flexibility in the shape of the applicator relative to the shape of the jar (¶ 57).
Therefore 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 package as taught by Tarajano and Tinsley to include a holder as taught by Guerett in order to allow greater flexibility with regards to the shape of the applicator and jar (Guerett ¶ 57). Furthermore, Guerett teaches package with a holder (Figure 5) and without a holder (Figure 1B, applicator installed directly into neck of jar like shown in Tarajano), therefore it would have been obvious to try the holder taught by Guerett.
Tarajano, Tinsley, and Guerett do not teach an inner cap.
Morris, in the same field of endeavor of packaging and applicators for liquid toiletries (col 1 lines 8-11), teaches an inner cap (inner cap member 26) between the jar (case 10) and the outer cap (outer cap member 28), the inner cap has an outer continuous sidewall surrounding a closed top, and a shelf forms a transitional section connecting a top of the sidewall and the closed top (seen annotated Figure 2 below). Morris teaches the presences of an inner cap so that the inner cap can form a tight fit while the outer cap presents a more aesthetic appearance (col 5 lines 11-30).
Therefore 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 package as taught by Tarajano, Tinsley, and Guerett to include an inner cap as taught by Morris in order for the inner cap to provide the tight fit to close the container while the outer cap provides the desired aesthetic appearance (Morris col 5 lines 11-30). By combining the inner cap taught by Morris with the jar taught by Tarajano and the holder taught by Guerett, the inner cap will be between the holder and the outer cap as the flange of the holder will lay across the top tip of the jar as shown in Guerett Figure 5.
Regarding Claim 2, Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, and Morris teach the package of Claim 1 (as presented above). Tarajano further teaches wherein the applicator absorbs the liquid formulation through contact of the first and second surfaces (¶ 39).
Tinsley and Guerett (in the embodiment in Figure 5, ¶ 57) also teach a liquid formulation moving between a reservoir and an applicator via the interfacing surfaces of the reservoir and applicator.
Regarding Claim 4, Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, and Morris teach the package of Claim 1 (as presented above). Tarajano further teaches wherein the first surface is made from a foam (¶ 36 teaches the porous applicator can be made of foam while the reservoir section may be from a different material).
Guerett also teaches an applicator connected to additional porous materials which contact the liquid wherein the applicator is made from a foam (¶ 57 states the embodiment in Figure 5 includes multiple blocks of foam 12, 12’, 12”)
Regarding Claim 6, Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, and Morris teach the package of Claim 1 (as presented above). Tinsley further teaches wherein the first surface extends down into the reservoir (Figure 2) with at least one portion angled downward and therefore teaches a conical surface. Additionally, changing the shape of the applicator surface is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the applicator’s first the surface was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Regarding Claim 8, Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, and Morris teach the package of Claim 1 (as presented above). Tarajano further teaches wherein the outer cap has an outer continuous sidewall surrounding a closed top (Figures 1A-C).
Regarding Claim 13, Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, and Morris teach the package of Claim 1 (as presented above). Tinsley further teaches wherein the small diameter section includes the first surface extending in length, width and height that contacts the reservoir (Figure 2 – the smaller diameter section is the section where the applicator narrows at an angle and contacts the reservoir).
Regarding Claim 22, Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, and Morris teach the package of Claim 1 (as presented above). Guerett further teaches wherein the applicator (applicator 10, made up of blocks 12, 12’, 12”) further comprises a groove (annular groove 11) on the periphery of the large diameter section of the applicator (Figure 5 shows the groove is in the main portion of the applicator). Guerett also teaches that the applicator could be held in place by a bead (annular bead 9) or fins or tabs (¶ 20, 49).
Therefore 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 holder taught by Guerett to include both an annular sealing bead and tabs in the sidewall to cooperate with grooves in the applicator in order to redundantly and effectively secure the applicator. Since the device of Guerett, and the package as taught by Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, and Morris, is intended to be used at multiple angles with the applicator connected to the jar holding the liquid formulation, one may be motivated to provide redundant methods to secure the applicator to ensure it does not accidentally fall out or allow for leaking of liquid when held at different angles.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarajano (US 2020/0237568), Tinsley (GB 1,029,339), Guerett (US 2002/0054783), and Morris (US 4,936,700) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Woodruff (US 4,480,940).
Regarding Claim 12, Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, and Morris teach the package of Claim 1 (as presented above). They do not explicitly teach a step between the large and small diameter sections or a radially inward extending lip of the holder.
However, Woodruff, in the same field of endeavor of packaging and applicators for liquids to be applied to the skin (abstract), teaches an applicator (porous plastic applicator head 20) wherein a step (see Figure 2 where the transition between cylindrical outer portion 44 and inner cylindrical portion 31 forms a horizontal step) between the large diameter section (cylindrical outer portion 44) and the small diameter section (inner cylindrical portion 31) is supported on a radially inward extending lip (inner cylindrical segment 38 connected to outer cylindrical segment 36 by annular undulate member 39) of the holder (annular elastic spring 35). Woodruff teaches the step in the applicator head being supported by a lip so compression or movement of the applicator into the container will be stopped (col 4 lines 21-27).
Therefore 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 package as taught by Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, and Morris to further include the applicator having a step and the holder having a cooperating lip as taught by Woodruff in order to prevent compression of the applicator into the container (col 4 lines 21-27).
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarajano (US 2020/0237568), Tinsley (GB 1,029,339), Guerett (US 2002/0054783), and Morris (US 4,936,700) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Niedermann (US 2021/0321747, filed 09/15/2019)
Regarding Claim 14, Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, and Morris teach the package of Claim 1 (as presented above). Tarajano teaches the reservoir at least having corners, but only shows a cross section of the jar. Therefore Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, and Morris do not explicitly teach the caps, holder, and jar having corners.
Niedermann, in the same field of endeavor of cosmetic packaging (abstract), teaches a package (container 5) wherein the outer cap (cover or lid 25), the inner cap (inner insert 28), and the jar (housing 24) each includes four corners of each respective periphery (Figure 5), wherein the four corners of the outer cap line up with the four corners of the jar (Figures 1, 2, and 5).
Therefore 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 package taught by Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, and Morris to have corners as taught by Niederman. This modification would have been obvious to try because Niedermann teaches the package being cube shaped (ex. Figures 1-14) or round (ex. Figures 15-17), and the shape chosen would be a matter of design choice for the aesthetics of the package. While Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, Morris, and Niedermann do not explicitly teach the holder also having corners, but such a change of shape would be a matter of design choice.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarajano (US 2020/0237568), Tinsley (GB 1,029,339), Guerett (US 2002/0054783), Morris (US 4,936,700), and Niedermann (US 2021/0321747, filed 09/15/2019) as applied to claim 14 above, and in further view of Lu (US 2019/0174898).
Regarding Claim 15, Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, Morris, and Niedermann teach the package of Claim 14 (as presented above). Niedermann further teaches wherein the inner cap (inner insert 28) includes a flat border around a circular sidewall and a closed top (see annotated Figure 3 below).
Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, Morris, and Niedermann do not explicitly teach the inner cap being connected to the outer cap by a tab and slot mechanism.
Lu, in the same field of endeavor of cosmetic packaging (abstract) teaches a package (cosmetic container 100) with two caps wherein the inner cap (inner cover 42; Fig. 2) includes a tab projects upward from each of the four corners of the inner cap (seen in Fig. 2, disclosed as being well known in the art in ¶ 18), a slot is placed inside of outer cap (outer cover 41; see Figure 3 wherein the inner shape of outer cap matches the shape of the inner cap (the shape of the inner cap being seen best in Fig. 2)), wherein each tab of the inner cap fits into a slot of the outer cap (Fig. 3).
Therefore 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 inner and outer cap of the package as taught by Tarajano Tinsley, Guerett, Morris, and Niedermann to include the tabs and cooperating slots taught by Lu. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to place the cooperating tabs and slots in the corners in order to fully secure the outer cap to the inner cap. One of ordinary skill would have made this modification for the purpose of using known technique in the art (as cited in Lu ¶ 18) to secure the outer and inner cap together without having to introduce a new material (the magnets 29 in the corners (Figure 3) taught by Niedermann).
Claims 21 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarajano (US 2020/0237568), Tinsley (GB 1,029,339), Guerett (US 2002/0054783), and Morris (US 4,936,700) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of DE 29918252 (page and line numbers are with reference to the translation from eSpaceNet provided with office action).
Regarding Claim 21, Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, and Morris teach the package of Claim 1 (as presented above). They do not explicitly teach the inner cap further comprising an annular wall.
DE 29918252, in the same field of endeavor of cosmetic containers (page 3 lines 8-11), teaches a package (container B) wherein the cap (cover part 10) further comprising an annular wall (lip 23) extending downward from the underside of the shelf connected only at a top edge of the annular wall to the shelf (Figures 3 and 4 show the lip 23 extending down from the cover section 15), thereby forming a gap between the annular wall and the sidewall of the inner cap (gap seen clearly in magnified view in Figure 4), wherein the sidewall and annular wall are configured to connect to a side of a mouth of the jar (Figures 3 and 4). DE 29918252 teaches the annular wall in order to have the cover both engage the jar at the screw threads for attaching and at the annular wall for a high sealing effect (page 3 lines 34-45).
Therefore 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 inner cap of the package taught by Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, and Morris to further include an annular wall on the inner cap as taught by DE 29918252 in order to provide additional sealing effect (page 3 lines 34-45).
Regarding Claim 16, Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, Morris, and DE 29918252 teach the package of Claim 21 (as presented above). DE 29918252 further teaches the annular wall and the mouth of the jar interacting with a sealing bead (radial bead 9).
DE29918252 does not explicitly teach the sealing bead interacting with a groove, but the holder and applicator of Guerett teaches a sealing bead (annular bead 9) cooperating with a groove (trough 11), therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the bead for sealing taught by DE 29918252 cooperate with a groove in the complementary structure.
While DE 29918252 teaches the bead on the annular wall rather than the mouth of the jar, a mere reversal of parts would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration on the respective pieces was significant. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A).
Regarding Claim 17, Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, Morris, and DE 29918252 teach the package of Claim 16 (as presented above). Guerett further teaches wherein the radially outward extending flange (extending part of intermediate piece 22 above neck 4) rests on a top edge of the mouth of the jar (Figure 5) without the inner cap compressing the holder (the holder is described as being held in place due to its fitting in the neck such as by gluing, snap-fitting, etc. (¶ 57) therefore it would rest in the shown location without compression from a cap).
Regarding Claim 18, Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, Morris, and DE 29918252 teach the package of Claim 16 (as presented above). The inner cap and cooperating jar taught by Morris have features (threads 16) which when engaged would compress the annular wall taught by DE 29918252 (lip 23) against the outer periphery of the mouth of the jar (tightening down the cap using the threads taught by Morris would lead to the wedge-shaped annular wall taught by DE 29918252 compressing more against the mouth of the jar; this same effect is achieved in DE 29918252 which has threads on the cap but does not have an inner and outer cap).
Regarding Claim 19, Tarajano, Tinsley, Guerett, Morris, and DE 29918252 teach the package of Claim 16 (as presented above). DE 29918252 further teaches wherein the annular wall of the inner cap (lip 23) has a tapered wedge profile that is thicker on a top and thinner on a bottom (Figure 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer P. Connell whose telephone number is (703)756-1169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30 am - 3:30 pm ET.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571)270-7855. 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.
/JENNIFER P CONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799