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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toussaint (US 2020/0187625) in view of Nichols (US 6149334).
Regarding claim 1, Toussaint teaches an assembly for applying a liquid or pasty product comprising a container (2) having an opening, an applicator having a stem (5) provided with an applying member (6), and a wiper (8) attached to the opening, the wiper comprising an attaching part (8d) configured to attach the wiper to an opening of a container able to contain said product, and a tubular wiping sleeve (9) connected to the attaching part, in which the wiping sleeve is more flexible than the attaching part (¶0085), and an end of the wiping sleeve opposite the attaching part forms an annular lip (9a), wherein the orifice is off-center with respect to the direction of withdrawal (due to the flexibility of the wiper sleeve, a user could shift the stem to one side during removal, resulting in an orifice that is off-center from the direction of withdrawal).
Toussaint does not teach that the lip defining an orifice chamfered with respect to a direction of withdrawal of the applicator through the wiper.
Nicoll teaches a wiper with a lip (13) that defines an orifice chamfered with respect to a direction of withdrawal of the applicator through the wiper (Fig. 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wiper of Toussaint such that that the lip defining an orifice chamfered with respect to a direction of withdrawal of the applicator through the wiper as taught by Nicoll for the purpose of promoting drips on the wiper lip to flow down the wiper and prevent blockage of the wiper (Nicoll, col. 2, ll. 37-57).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Toussaint and Nicoll teaches the assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wiping sleeve comprises a frustoconical part (Toussaint, 9) tapering towards the lip, the lip being defined by an end of the frustoconical part.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Toussaint and Nicoll teaches the assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wiping sleeve comprises a wall adjacent to the lip, a thickness of the wall being less than 0.7 mm (Toussaint, ¶00886).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Toussaint and Nicoll teaches the assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wiping sleeve comprises a wall adjacent to the lip, said wall having a hardness between 30 and 60 Shore A (Toussaint, ¶0079).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Toussaint and Nicoll teaches the assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lip defines, in cross-section, a convex orifice (Toussaint, ¶0090).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Toussaint and Nicoll teaches the assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lip is contained in a plane forming an angle between 10° and 80° with the direction of withdrawal (Nicoll, col. 1, line 67 to col. 2, line 2).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Toussaint and Nicoll teaches the assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the attaching part is made of a first material and the wiping sleeve is made of a second material having a lesser hardness than that of the first material (Toussaint, ¶0085).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Toussaint and Nicoll teaches the assembly as claimed in claim 2, wherein the greatest length of the frustoconical part of the wiping sleeve in the direction of withdrawal is greater than the widest inner radius of the wiping sleeve transversely to said direction (Nicoll teaches an orifice angled at 30°, which results in a length that has to be longer than the radius of the wiping sleeve).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Toussaint and Nicoll teaches the assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the orifice defined by the lip has a diameter between 2 and 8 millimeters (Toussaint teaches a lip diameter of 2-5 mm in ¶0093; Nicoll teaches a lip angle of 30°; combining these two dimensions results in a lip diameter of 4-10 mm).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Toussaint and Nicoll teaches the assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the smallest inner diameter of the wiping sleeve transverse to the direction of withdrawal is less than a diameter of a cross-section of the stem (Toussaint, ¶0099).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Toussaint and Nicoll teaches the assembly as claimed in claim 3, wherein the thickness of the wall is between 0.3 and 0.5 mm (Toussaint, ¶0086).
Regarding claim 15, Toussaint teaches an assembly for applying a liquid or pasty product comprising a container (2) having an opening, an applicator having a stem (5) provided with an applying member (6), and a wiper (8) attached to the opening of the container, the wiper comprising an attaching part (8d) configured to attach the wiper to an opening of a container able to contain said product, and a tubular wiping sleeve (9) connected to the attaching part, in which the wiping sleeve is more flexible than the attaching part (¶0085), and an end of the wiping sleeve opposite the attaching part forms an annular lip (9a), wherein, at rest (Fig. 3), the orifice is off- center with respect to the direction of withdrawal (due to the flexibility of the wiper sleeve, a user could shift the stem to one side during removal, resulting in an orifice that is off-center from the direction of withdrawal).
Toussaint does not teach that the lip defining an orifice chamfered with respect to a direction of withdrawal of the applicator through the wiper.
Nicoll teaches a wiper with a lip (13) that defines an orifice chamfered with respect to a direction of withdrawal of the applicator through the wiper (Fig. 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wiper of Toussaint such that that the lip defining an orifice chamfered with respect to a direction of withdrawal of the applicator through the wiper as taught by Nicoll for the purpose of promoting drips on the wiper lip to flow down the wiper and prevent blockage of the wiper (Nicoll, col. 2, ll. 37-57).
Regarding claim 16, Toussaint teaches an assembly for applying a liquid or pasty product comprising a container (2) having an opening, an applicator having a stem (5) provided with an applying member (6), and a wiper (8) attached to the opening of the container, the wiper comprising an attaching part (8d) configured to attach the wiper to an opening of a container able to contain said product, and a tubular wiping sleeve (9) connected to the attaching part, in which the wiping sleeve is more flexible than the attaching part (¶0085), and an end of the wiping sleeve opposite the attaching part forms an annular lip (9a), wherein the orifice is off-center with respect to an axis of the wiping sleeve (the claimed axis is undefined and the orifice of Toussaint is offset from many different axes, e.g., an axis on the plane defined by the portion of the wiping sleeve that attaches to the wiper body).
Toussaint does not teach that the lip defining an orifice chamfered with respect to a direction of withdrawal of the applicator through the wiper.
Nicoll teaches a wiper with a lip (13) that defines an orifice chamfered with respect to a direction of withdrawal of the applicator through the wiper (Fig. 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wiper of Toussaint such that that the lip defining an orifice chamfered with respect to a direction of withdrawal of the applicator through the wiper as taught by Nicoll for the purpose of promoting drips on the wiper lip to flow down the wiper and prevent blockage of the wiper (Nicoll, col. 2, ll. 37-57).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toussaint as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Uehara (US 9468280).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Toussaint and Nicoll teaches the assembly as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach that the applying member has a concave part in its cross-section.
Uehara teaches an applying member (21) that has a concave part (21C) in its cross-section (see Fig. 13e).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to have replaced the applying member of Toussaint with an applying member that has a concave part in its cross-section as taught by Uehara for the purpose of reducing dripping (Uehara, col. 2, ll. 64-67).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Toussaint does not teach an orifice that is off-center with respect to the direction of withdrawal because the lip would move with the applicator when a user moves the applicator to define a different direction of withdrawal.
Examiner disagrees. The wiping lip of Toussaint rests naturally in one position that is off-center to multiple directions of withdrawal. The fact that the wiping lip can move does not negate this.
Applicant argues that new claim 15 renders the obviousness rationale in the rejection of claim 1 moot.
Examiner disagrees. The fact that the rest position and the use position of the wiping lip can be different is the basis of the rejection of claim 1. The language of claim 15 does not overcome the rejection.
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 BRADLEY S OLIVER whose telephone number is (571)270-3787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7-3 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, David Angwin can be reached at (571)270-3735. 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.
/BRADLEY S OLIVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754