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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossi (US 9,016,500 B1) in view of Robinson (US 2007/0235051 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rossi discloses a carrier (10) structured for removably securing a portion of a container (12) for a dispensable product therein, the container having a body portion with a dispensing end and an outer diameter (Fig. 2), and a cap attachment portion (16) with an outer diameter less than the body portion outer diameter and extending from the body portion at the dispensing end, the carrier comprising a receptacle (noting the opening in 22) defining a cavity including a first portion having a cavity wall structure with an outer diameter too small to receive the body portion therein (Fig. 4) but structured to retentively engage the cap attachment portion (16) when the cap attachment portion is positioned in the cavity first portion after removal of the cap from the cap attachment portion (Col. 2; Ll. 31-33).
Rossi does not specifically disclose an interference fit.
Robinson demonstrates the ability to connect portions by a variety of well-known attachment configurations including snap fits and interference fits (Paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Rossi and replace the cap attachment retention portion with an interference fit because such a change would have required the mere choice of one well-known connection configuration over another as demonstrated by Robinson.
Regarding claim 5, modified Rossi discloses the receptacle includes an end portion positioned adjacent the cavity first portion, the cavity first portion and the end portion combining to define a space structured to receive therein a quantity of dispensable product extending from an end of the product container (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Bump (US 1,489,924 A) in view of Robinson (US 2007/0235051 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bump discloses a carrier structured for removably securing a portion of a container for a dispensable product therein (noting a pen or pencil is considered a container for a dispensable product), the container having a body portion with a dispensing end and an outer diameter, and a cap attachment portion with an outer diameter less than the body portion outer diameter and extending from the body portion at the dispensing end (noting a well-known configuration of a pen with a cap), the carrier comprising a receptacle defining a cavity (Fig. 1) including a first portion (within 18) having a cavity wall structure with an outer diameter too small to receive the body portion therein (Fig. 2) but structurally capable of retentively engaging the cap attachment portion when the cap attachment portion is positioned in the cavity first portion after removal of the cap from the cap attachment portion.
Bump does not specifically disclose an interference fit.
Robinson demonstrates the ability to connect portions by a variety of well-known attachment configurations including snap fits and interference fits (Paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Bump and replace the cap attachment retention portion with an interference fit because such a change would have required the mere choice of one well-known connection configuration over another as demonstrated by Robinson. Such a change would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, modified Bump discloses the cavity further includes a second portion (Fig. 2, noting the portion above 18) having a cavity wall structure structured to retentively engage a body portion of the product container when the body portion of the product container is positioned in the cavity second portion. It would have been obvious to choose an interference fit for the second portion because such a change would have required a mere choice of one known suitable connection configuration and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, modified Bump discloses the second portion cavity wall structure is structured to retentively engage a cap of the product container (to the degree that the cap is properly sized and is of a similar diameter as the body of the container) when the cap is positioned in the cavity second portion so that the cap is retained in the cavity second portion when a user separates the body portion of the product container from the cap (further the spring 13 would help maintain a cap within the device in a separated state from the body).
Regarding claim 4, modified Bump discloses the receptacle further comprises an end portion defining a boundary of the cavity (noting the lowermost end), the end portion having an opening (Fig. 3) extending therethrough and is structurally capable of having an object to be inserted through the opening and into the cavity to contact the cap of the product container when the cap is positioned in the cavity, the opening being of insufficient size to allow the cap to pass therethrough.
Regarding claim 5, modified Bump discloses the receptacle includes an end portion positioned adjacent the cavity first portion, the cavity first portion and the end portion combining to define a space structured to receive therein a quantity of dispensable product extending from an end of the product container (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossi (US 9,016,500 B1) in view of Robinson (US 2007/0235051 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Su et al. (US 2003/0041870 A1)(Su).
Regarding claim 7, modified Rossi does not specifically disclose at least a portion of the receptacle is formed from a clear material.
Su demonstrates a carrier for a dispensable product including a clear portion (Paragraph 0020, noting the device made of a transparent material) allowing a user to check the status of the dispensable product (Paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Rossi and use include a transparent portion in order to allow the user to check on the status of the product held within the carrier without having to remove from the carrier to inspect the product as suggested by Su.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bump (US 1,489,924 A) in view of Robinson (US 2007/0235051 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murray (US 9,451,815 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Bump includes a spring clip but does not specifically disclose a base portion and a support portion extending from the base portion to the receptacle and structured to support the receptacle so that the product container extends at a non-zero angle with respect to a flat plane defined by a pair of bearing surface surfaces of the base portion when the portion of the product container is removably secured in the carrier.
Murray demonstrates a carrier including a base portion (58/36) and a support portion (28) extending from the base portion to the receptacle and structured to support the receptacle so that the product container extends at a non-zero angle with respect to a flat plane defined by a pair of bearing surfaces (Figs. 28 and 29 noting the device placed on a surface with portions 150 or 152 and the surfaces thereof contacting the support surface, noting each leg of 150 or 152 is considered a bearing surface) of the base portion when the portion of the product container is removably secured in the carrier (Fig. 19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Bump and use the teaching of Murray and include a base and pair of bearing surfaces similar to that of Murray in order to allow the device to be attached or sit on different supporting structures and thereby increasing its versatility.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bump (US 1,489,924 A) in view of Robinson (US 2007/0235051 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Su et al. (US 2003/0041870 A1)(Su).
Regarding claim 7, Bump does not specifically disclose at least a portion of the receptacle is formed from a clear material.
Su demonstrates a carrier for a dispensable product including a clear portion (Paragraph 0020, noting the device made of a transparent material) allowing a user to check the status of the dispensable product (Paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Bump and use include a transparent portion in order to allow the user to check on the status of the product held within the carrier without having to remove from the carrier to inspect the product as suggested by Su.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 2020/0170373 A1) in view of Robinson (US 2007/0235051 A1) and Obersteller et al. (US 5,338,123 A)(Obersteller).
Regarding claim 1, Wilson discloses a carrier structured for removably securing a portion of a container for a dispensable product therein (Figs. 1-5), the container having a body portion with a dispensing end and an outer diameter, and a cap attachment portion with an outer diameter less than the body portion outer diameter and extending from the body portion at the dispensing end, the carrier comprising a receptacle defining a cavity (Fig. 3) that is capable of constricting around the body of the container (Paragraph 0018).
Wilson does not specifically disclose an interference fit.
Robinson demonstrates the ability to connect portions by a variety of well-known attachment configurations including snap fits and interference fits (Paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Wilson and replace the cap attachment retention portion with an interference fit because such a change would have required the mere choice of one well-known connection configuration over another as demonstrated by Robinson. Such a change would have yielded predictable results.
Wilson does not specifically include a first portion having a cavity wall structure with an outer diameter too small to receive the body portion therein but structured to retentively engage the cap attachment portion when the cap attachment portion is positioned in the cavity first portion after removal of the cap from the cap attachment portion.
Obersteller discloses a similar double ended sleeve (3), the sleeve including a cavity wall structure with a portion (noting projecting ridge 16) having outer diameter too small to receive a body portion therein but structured to retentively engage a cap attachment portion (noting portion 16 is structured to engage potions 9/10) when the cap attachment portion is positioned in the cavity first portion after removal of the cap from the cap attachment portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Wilson and use the teaching of Obersteller and include inwardly projecting ridges proximal a central portion of the tube because such a change would allow the device of Wilson to more securely engage and grip containers held therein in order to prevent the containers from accidentally falling out of the device and getting lost. It is noted that a ridge similar to 16 of Obersteller would engage a cap engaging structure of a properly sized and shaped container.
Regarding claim 2, modified Wilson discloses a second portion having a cavity wall structure (noting the portions extending between the openings at each end extending up to, or near, the ridges) structured to retentively engage a body portion of the product container (noting a properly sized and shaped container) when the body portion of the product container is positioned in the cavity second portion. It would have been obvious to choose an interference fit for the second portion because such a change would have required a mere choice of one known suitable connection configuration and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, modified Wilson discloses the second portion cavity wall structure is structured to retentively engage a cap of the product container when the cap is positioned in the cavity second portion so that the cap is retained in the cavity second portion when a user separates the body portion of the product container from the cap.
Regarding claim 4, modified Wilson discloses the receptacle further comprises an end portion defining a boundary of the cavity (noting the second end), the end portion having an opening extending therethrough and structured to enable an object to be inserted through the opening and into the cavity to contact the cap of the product container when the cap is positioned in the cavity, the opening being of insufficient size to allow the cap to pass therethrough (Fig. 3, noting an elongated object could be placed from the lower opening to push the cap out of the top opening).
Regarding claim 5, Wilson discloses the receptacle includes an end portion positioned adjacent the cavity first portion, the cavity first portion and the end portion combining to define a space structured to receive therein a quantity of dispensable product extending from an end of the product container (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, modified Wilson discloses the cavity has a first open end and a second open end (Fig. 3), wherein the cavity includes a first portion having the cavity wall structure structured to retentively engage the cap attachment portion (noting the ridge 16 as taught by Obersteller) when the cap attachment portion is positioned in the cavity first portion from the first open end, and wherein the cavity includes another portion positioned adjacent the cavity first portion and having a cavity wall structure (noting a second ridge as taught by Obersteller associated with the second end open end) structured to retentively engage the cap attachment portion of the product container when the cap attachment portion is positioned in the cavity another portion after removal of the cap from the cap attachment portion. It would have been obvious to choose an interference fit for the second portion because such a change would have required a mere choice of one known suitable connection configuration and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, modified Wilson discloses the cavity includes yet another portion positioned adjacent the cavity another portion and having a cavity wall structure structured to retentively engage the product container body portion when the product container body portion is positioned in the cavity yet another portion from the cavity second open end (noting the other of the open portions extending to or near the other instance of the ridge 16). It would have been obvious to choose an interference fit for the second portion because such a change would have required a mere choice of one known suitable connection configuration and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, modified Wilson discloses the yet another portion cavity wall structure (noting a properly sized or shaped cap would fit within the cylindrical portion that engages the body of the container, at another section thereof) is structured to retentively engage a cap of the product container when the cap is positioned in the cavity yet another portion so that the cap is retained in the receptacle cavity when a user separates the body portion of the product container from the cap.
Regarding claim 13-15, modified Wilson discloses the cavity includes another portion adjacent the cavity first portion and having a cavity wall structure structured to retentively engage a cap attachment portion of another (noting a properly sized or shaped cap would fit within the cylindrical portion that engages the body of the container, at another section thereof, associated with the second opening), different-sized product container when the cap attachment portion of the other product container is positioned in the cavity another portion from the second open end, the cap attachment portion of the different-sized product container having an outermost diameter different from an outermost diameter of the cap attachment portion of the product container the cavity includes yet another portion positioned adjacent the cavity another portion and having a cavity wall structure structured to retentively engage a body portion of the different-sized product container when the body portion of the different-sized product container is positioned in the cavity yet another portion from the second open end, wherein the body portion of the different-sized product container has an outermost diameter different from an outermost diameter of the body portion of the product container. Further Wilson demonstrates the ability to make the device asymmetrical whereby each end is intended to hold a differently sized container (Fig. 4; Paragraph 0021). It would have been obvious to choose an interference fit for the portion for a differently sized container because such a change would have required a mere choice of one known suitable connection configuration and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, modified Wilson discloses the yet another portion cavity wall structure (noting the other of the cylindrical open portions) is structured to retentively engage a cap of the other product container when the cap is positioned in the cavity yet another portion so that the cap is retained in the receptacle cavity when a user separates the body portion of the other product container from the cap.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 2020/0170373 A1) in view of Robinson (US 2007/0235051 A1) and Obersteller et al. (US 5,338,123 A)(Obersteller) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murray (US 9,451,815 B1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wilson an attachment to a supporting structure but does not specifically disclose a base portion and a support portion extending from the base portion to the receptacle and structured to support the receptacle so that the product container extends at a non-zero angle with respect to a flat plane defined by a pair of bearing surface surfaces of the base portion when the portion of the product container is removably secured in the carrier.
Murray demonstrates a carrier including a base portion (58/36) and a support portion (28) extending from the base portion to the receptacle and structured to support the receptacle so that the product container extends at a non-zero angle with respect to a flat plane defined by a pair of bearing surfaces (Figs. 28 and 29 noting the device placed on a surface with portions 150 or 152 and the surfaces thereof contacting the support surface, noting each leg of 150 or 152 is considered a bearing surface) of the base portion when the portion of the product container is removably secured in the carrier (Fig. 19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Wilson and use the teaching of Murray and include a base and pair of bearing surfaces similar to that of Murray in order to allow the device to be attached or sit on different supporting structures and thereby increasing its versatility.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 2020/0170373 A1) in view of Robinson (US 2007/0235051 A1) and Obersteller et al. (US 5,338,123 A)(Obersteller) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Su et al. (US 2003/0041870 A1)(Su).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wilson does not specifically disclose at least a portion of the receptacle is formed from a clear material.
Su demonstrates a carrier for a dispensable product including a clear portion (Paragraph 0020, noting the device made of a transparent material) allowing a user to check the status of the dispensable product (Paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Wilson and use include a transparent portion in order to allow the user to check on the status of the product held within the carrier without having to remove from the carrier to inspect the product as suggested by Su.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 2020/0170373 A1) in view of Robinson (US 2007/0235051 A1) and Obersteller et al. (US 5,338,123 A)(Obersteller) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of Page (US 2018/0168323 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wilson discloses the receptacle having at least some flexibility (Paragraph 0018) but does not specifically disclose the device is formed from a resiliently deformable material structured to enable a user to move a portion of a product container, including a cap applied to the product container, into the cavity first portion by exerting a force on the product container in a direction toward the cavity first portion, wherein the receptacle includes an end portion positioned adjacent the cavity first portion, and wherein the resiliently deformable material is structured to enable a user to exert a force on the cap by manually resiliently deforming the end portion into contact with the cap.
Page demonstrates a carrying device including the device is formed from a resiliently deformable material (Paragraph 0014) structured to enable a user to move a portion of a product container, including a cap applied to the product container (as it is sized to allow a properly sized and shaped device having a cap therein), into the cavity first portion by exerting a force on the product container in a direction toward the cavity first portion, wherein the receptacle includes an end portion (16) positioned adjacent the cavity first portion, and wherein the resiliently deformable material is structured to enable a user to exert a force on the properly sized and configured cap by manually resiliently deforming the end portion into contact with the cap.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Wilson and use the teaching of Page and make at least an end portion out of resiliently deformable material in order to allow the user to manipulate the dispensing device when it is held within the holder.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of 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 MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is 571-270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday - Thursday.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/M.T.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights