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 Submission
The amendments and remarks filed on 2026 January 20 have been entered. Claims 1-4 and 7-20 are pending. Claims 16-20 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1-4 and 7-15 are presently examined.
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 1-4, 7-9, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogan (US 20180338542 A1) in view of Disch (US 0767801 A).
Claim 1: Rogan teaches a cartridge (fig. 2 and [46-49], #100) comprising:
a first container (10a);
a second container (10b) rotatably coupled ([44], #10a and #10b are operatively coupled; [58], #10a and #10b are rotatable against each other) to the first container (10a);
and a cap (1) having a bottom planar surface (leftmost surface of 1) that defines a bottom surface of the cartridge (100), wherein the first container (10a) includes:
a cylinder (fig. 3, #11) having a space for storage, wherein an alignment mark (7a, 7b) is at an outer circumferential surface of the cylinder.
The alignment mark hinders rotation of the cylinder by generating clicks or snaps during rotation [58].
Rogan does not explicitly teach that that the alignment mark is a rotation limiter, or that the cap has a fitting groove recessed into the bottom planar surface of the cap and spaced apart from a center of the cap along a radius of the cap.
Rogan teaches, in the same embodiment, a housing comprising rotation limiters ([53], grooves which stop undesired concomitant rotation). Rogan’s rotation limiter reads on the instant rotation limiters and is merely positioned on the second container rather than on the first container and the cylinder.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Rogan’s alignment mark a rotation limiter, because doing so would stop undesired concomitant rotation of the device.
Disch teaches a cartridge (fig. 2 and lines 31-44, #1) comprising a cap (2) comprising fitting grooves (grooves of 4) recessed into a bottom planar surface (fig. 1, rightmost surface of #2) of the cap (2) and spaced apart from a center of the cap (2) along a radius of the cap (2), such that the fitting grooves can receive nails, screws, or rivets to secure the cap (lines 37-41).
Disch’s cap and fitting grooves are agnostic to the intended function of the cap to yield expectation to succeed. One of ordinary skill looking to optimize all aspects of Rogan would be motivated to add fitting grooves for Disch’s benefit of securing the cap.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Disch’s fitting grooves to Rogan’s cap, recessed into the bottom planar surface of the cap and spaced apart from a center of the cap along a radius of the cap, because doing so would enable the cap to receive nails, screws, or rivets to secure the cap.
Claim 2: modified Rogan teaches the cartridge according to claim 1, wherein the rotation limiter has a groove recessed from the outer circumferential surface of the cylinder ([58], the unmodified alignment mark comprises a groove; [53], the modified rotation limiter comprises a groove).
Claim 3: modified Rogan teaches the cartridge according to claim 2, wherein the groove extends along a circumference of the cylinder (fig. 3).
Claim 4: modified Rogan teaches the cartridge according to claim 1, wherein the rotation limiter (fig. 3, #7a and #7b) has: a first groove (7a) recessed from the outer circumferential surface of the cylinder (fig. 3); and a second groove ([58], #7b), wherein the second groove is recessed from the outer circumferential surface of the cylinder (grooves 7a and 7b can be positioned on the liquid storage component 10a which requires that 7b is recessed).
Modified Rogan does not explicitly teach that the second groove is spaced apart from the first groove in a longitudinal direction of the cylinder and is located closer to the second container than the first groove.
Arranging the first groove and the second groove apart from each other in a longitudinal direction would maintain operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C): In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The courts have held that shifting the position of the starting switch was unpatentable because it would not have modified the operation of the device. In modified Rogan, the first groove and the second groove both function to limit rotation of the device, and one of ordinary skill would see that arranging the first groove and the second groove apart from each other would maintain such a function.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide that the second groove is spaced apart from the first groove in a longitudinal direction of the cylinder and is located closer to the second container than the first groove, because doing so would be a patentably indistinct rearrangement of parts.
Claim 7: modified Rogan teaches the cartridge according to claim 1, wherein a center shaft (fig. 3, #3) of the cylinder (11) passes through the second container (10b), and the second container is rotatable relative to the first container about the center shaft of the cylinder [58].
Claim 8: modified Rogan teaches the cartridge according to claim 1, further comprising a container head (fig. 5, #8) positioned opposite the first container (10a) with respect to the second container (10b) and coupled to the second container (fig. 5).
Claim 9: modified Rogan teaches the cartridge according to claim 8, wherein the container head (fig. 5, #8) is fixed relative to the first container (fig. 5, #8 and #10b are fixed; [44], #10a and #10b are operatively coupled).
Claim 11: modified Rogan teaches the cartridge according to claim 1, further comprising a container shaft (fig. 3, #3) disposed at a center of the second container (10b), wherein the container shaft is fixed [56] to the first container (10a), and the second container is rotatably coupled ([56], #10b is alignably connected to #3; [61], #10b is rotatable with respect to #11 which as in [56] comprises fitted connector #3) to the container shaft (3).
Claim 12: modified Rogan teaches the cartridge according to claim 11, wherein the container shaft (fig. 3, #3) includes: a flange (annular part of 3 closest to 10b) fixed to the first container; and a rotating shaft (cylindrical part of 3 closest to 10b) extending upwards from the first container (10a) and positioned at the center of the second container (10b).
Claim 14: modified Rogan teaches the cartridge according to claim 13, further comprising a flange (fig. 3, annular part of #3 closest to #10b) positioned between the container shaft (3) and the container head (8) to couple the container shaft to the container head (fig. 3).
Claim 15: modified Rogan teaches the cartridge according to claim 1, wherein the second container (fig. 4, #10b) has a plurality of chambers (fig. 5, #9a-d) divided from each other and arranged along a circumference of the second container ([60], #9a-d are arranged at a circumference) about a rotational center (surrounded by 8a) of the second container.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogan (US 20180338542 A1) in view of Disch (US 0767801 A) as applied to claims 8 and 11 in further view of Hejazi (US 20190289909 A1).
Claim 10: modified Rogan teaches the cartridge according to claim 8, wherein a fitting groove (positioned at fig. 3, #1) and a container head (8) are opposite each other with respect to a center (longitudinal center) of the cartridge (100).
Modified Rogan does not explicitly teach a fitting protrusion protruding outwards from the container head.
Hejazi teaches a cartridge (fig. 4, #500) comprising a second container (522) and a container head (524), wherein a fitting protrusion protrudes outwards ([80], the device body #500 comprises detents which align with #524, so #524 must comprise protrusions which align with the detents) from the container head (524), such that a rotation position of the container head (524) can be observed by a user [80].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Hejazi’s fitting protrusion to Rogan’s container head, because doing so would enable a rotation position of the container head to be observed by a user.
Claim 13: modified Rogan teaches the cartridge according to claim 11, further comprising a container head (fig. 5, #8) positioned opposite the first container (10a) with respect to the second container (10b) and coupled to the second container (fig. 5).
Modified Rogan does not explicitly teach that the second container is rotatable relative to the container head.
Hejazi teaches a cartridge (fig. 4, #500) comprising a second container (522) and a container head (524), wherein the second container (522) is rotatable [79] relative to the container head (524), such that the second container is enabled to be rotated independently in order to select one chamber from a plurality of chambers for airflow [79].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide that the container head is rotatable together with the container shaft, because doing so would enable the second container to be rotated independently in order to select one chamber from a plurality of chambers for airflow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments of 2026 January 20 have been carefully considered. Upon further search and consideration necessitated by applicant’s amendments, a new ground of rejection is made for claim 1 over Rogan in view of Disch.
Applicant argues (p. 7-8) that Rogan and Rogan in view of Hejazi do not teach the new limitations of the fitting groove. However, Disch teaches a fitting groove recessed into a bottom planar surface of a cap and spaced apart from a center of the cap along a radius of the cap for the benefit of securing the cap.
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 Tobey C. Le whose telephone number is (703)756-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30-18:30 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, Michael H. Wilson can be reached on 571-270-3882. 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.
/TOBEY C LE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/KATHERINE A WILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747