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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/30/2025 has been entered. Currently, claims 1-3 and 5-16 are pending in the application and are examined on the merits. This is a non-final office action.
Specification
The amendment filed 12/30/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “The label may be blank, as seen, e.g., in Fig. 10.” Applicant argues that support for this amendment is found in Fig. 10. However, Fig. 10 only shows a label marked 106 and does not show a blank label. The previous specifications and drawings never showed or discussed a blank label. This amendment attempts to introduce new matter into the disclosure.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 16 recites “the label is blank”. Page 1 of the remarks filed on 12/30/2025 argues that the support is found in the amended specification on page 6 with Fig. 10 showing the blank label. However, this is improper. First, drawing in Fig. 10 does not show a label that is blank. Fig. 10 merely shows a label marked as 106. The previous specifications did not ever discuss this label being blank and the applicant cannot amend the specification at this point in prosecution to argue that the figures always shows the limitation in question. There is insufficient support in the specification and the drawing. Thus, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mon et al. (“Mon” hereinafter) (US PN 7,331,486) in view of Kilma, Jr. et al. (“Kilma” hereinafter) (US PN 6,123,230) and Leonard et al. (“Leonard” hereinafter) (US PG PUB 2004/0124988).
Regarding claim 1, Mon teaches a cartridge (item 40, figure 5) comprising a) a body (item 42, figure 5) including a receptacle for receiving a product, and b) a top having a closure (item 52, figure 5), the improvement wherein the closure includes a closure platform (item 46, figure 5) having an opening (opening defined by wall 54, figure 6) including a closure seal (item 56, figure 6) covering the opening, and wherein a cartridge bottom (figure 6) has an opening (opening defined by wall 41, figure 6) with a bottom seal (item 48, figure 6) the opening with seal or lines of weakness being suitable to permit a dip tube (item 36, figure 3) to penetrate said cartridge top and open said cartridge bottom wherein at least one of the closure seal and the seal at the bottom of the cartridge are made by molding.
Furthermore, Kilma teaches providing a label on spray bottle packages (column 1, lines 55-58).
Similarly, Leonard teaches providing a functional label (item 32, figure 2) attached to an aerosol can (item 30, figure 2) that includes a battery and a refill sensor (paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a physical label on top of a cartridge, the closure seal, the bottom seal, the container, or any other plastic component of the dispenser of Mon to indicate the contents, various operating parameters, advertisements, etc. to an end-user. Labeling consumer products is old and well-known in the art and within the range of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have placed the label on the closure seal or any other suitable component of the dispenser since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)).
Regarding claim 2, Mon teaches indicia visible from the outside of the cartridge (the cartridge has a visible flange structure and closure can act as a visual indicia, figures 5-9).
Claims 5, 6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mon in view of Kilma and Leonard as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Giblin et al. (“Giblin” hereinafter) (US PN 6,223,945).
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 15, Mon teaches that the container, the cartridge, and the seals can be made of polyethylene by thermoforming or blow molding or any other suitable plastics manufacturing techniques (column 2, lines 27-31, column 4, lines 18-30). However, Mon is silent to the closure seal, the bottom seal, and the cartridge having an in-mold label.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the components of the cartridge from high density polyethylene or any other suitable material it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. (See MPEP § 2144.07).
Giblin teaches a polymer container bottle (item 2, figure 8) that is manufactured via blow molding and comprises an in-mold label (item 310, figure 8) where a label is affixed during the blow molding process and provides an advantage during lab drop and stress test procedures (column 12, lines 35-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Mon by forming seals of the closure and cartridge bottom by in mold labeling as taught by Giblin or any other suitable plastics manufacturing techniques as taught by Mon since doing so only involves a routine skill in the art and is well-known in art. Furthermore, Mon teaches that the seals integrally made with the cartridge at the time of manufacturing. Thus, the in-mold labeling formation would be obvious and within the range of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have placed the in-label on the closure seal or any other suitable component of the dispenser since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mon in view of Kilma and Leonard as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Stidham (US PG PUB 2013/0233889).
Regarding claim 16, Mon does not teach a blank label on the cartridge closure seal.
Stidham teaches another dispenser with a decorating label or ornamental features, wherein a label may be blank for a user to add or write information (paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Mon as taught by Stidham to provide blank labels on the closure seal of the cartridge to provide a user to add or write additional information on the dispensers for various purposes.
Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have placed the blank label on the closure seal or any other suitable component of the dispenser since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 7-14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable (as long as the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections are overcome) if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, and 15 under Mon, Kilma, Leonard, and/or Giblin have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant again argued, regarding independent claim 1, that combination of Mon, Kilma, and Leonard does not render the claim obvious because it does not have a motivation to provide a closure seal with a label. Applicant further argued, in light of new claim 16, that Mon does not teach a blank label.
Examiner once again reiterates that claim 1 has been rejected under Mon in view of Kilma and Leonard but the applicant’s arguments only attack Mon separately. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, applicant argues that it would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to place a label on the closure seal of Mon. However, applicant has ignored the teachings of Kilma and Leonard which teach use of labels on various parts of the dispenser to indicate various parameters of the dispenser. Non only that, the closure seal of the cartridge is a logical place for a label to indicate to a user the contents of the cartridge before using the cartridge in the dispenser. For these reasons, claims 1 and 2 remain rejected as being obvious over Mon as modified by Kilma and Leonard.
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 15, Giblin teaches a method and structure of providing an in-mold label. Once again, examiner points out that modifying molding components to provide in-mold label only requires a routine skill in the art and the combined teachings of Giblin and Mon would render the claims obvious since they teach all of the limitations. Therefore, claims 5, 6, and 15 remain rejected under Mon as modified by Kilma and Leonard, further in view of Giblin.
Additionally, examiner would like to point out that the subject matter of claim 16 is new matter and applicant is attempting to improperly amend the application at this stage in the prosecution. Nevertheless, as discussed above, Stidham teaches use of blank labels for dispensers for user to add their own contents and information for various purposes. Therefore, the combination of Mon, Kilma, Leonard and Stidham also renders claim 16 (which is improper because it adds new matter).
For these reasons, claims 1-2, 5-6, and 15-16 remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL J PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-9324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9 am - 7 pm).
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/Vishal Pancholi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754