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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 4, 7, and 8 are amended. Claims 1-3 are cancelled. Claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 are as originally presented. Therefore, claims 4-10 are considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/15/2025 has been entered. As such, the amendment overcomes the previously set forth Drawing objections, Specification objections, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 4-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is in response to substantive amendments to the newly independent claim 4 and depending claims.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: sufficient description of the "limit platform for limiting position" as it is unclear as to how or what the limiting platform is preventing movement of.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "discharge cavity" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegelhoff (WO 2016186748 A1) in view of Debush (US 5305786 A).
Regarding claim 4, Spiegelhoff discloses a cosmetic packaging bottle restricting backflow, including a soft tube packaging bottle (container 44, described as soft in para. 0044) and a liquid discharge head (body 54, para. 0054), wherein: and also including a non-return valve sheet (valve head portion 160, para. 0066), which is placed within the liquid discharge head (refer to fig. 6a), the non-return valve sheet has a one-way flow restriction function (para. 0066), so that contents of the soft tube packaging bottle are squeezed out in one direction and cannot flow back (function of the non-return valve sheet is shown, for example, in figs. 6A and 6B); wherein: a middle part of the non-return valve sheet is provided with a cross-shaped cutout (slits 204 and fig. 9), the non-return valve sheet is closed in the normal state (referring to fig. 6A), the non-return valve sheet is squeezed by the contents to open upward to discharge contents (para. 0069); wherein: the mouth of the soft tube packaging bottle is provided with a flow restriction seat (retainer ring 60), the non-return valve sheet is attached to an upper part of the flow restriction seat (referring to the assembly view of fig. 2 and fig. 6A), and the flow restriction seat is provided with a flow restriction channel (inlet flow passage 74, which restricts flow by having a smaller diameter than the opening 48); the liquid discharge head has a concave cavity at the bottom (outlet chamber 216, fig. 6A), the liquid discharge head is capped on the flow restriction seat (via annular projection 130, fig. 6A and para. 0056), pressed against the circumference of the non-return valve sheet (via seating surface 90, fig, 6A), a middle part of the liquid discharge head is provided with a liquid discharge cavity (outlet flow passage 78), and the cross-shaped cutout of the non-return valve sheet can be opened in the direction of the liquid discharge cavity (refer to fig. 6B); and wherein: the bottom of the flow restriction seat is a concave cavity structure (refer to the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
275
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Spiegelhoff remains silent to the flow restriction channel includes a through-port placed at a side wall of the flow restriction seat, a side groove channel having a spiral shape placed between an outer portion of said side wall of the flow restriction seat and the liquid discharge head, and an upper groove channel placed in an upper surface of the flow restriction seat; the through-port, side groove channel, and upper groove channel are connected to each other in turn.
Debush teaches the flow restriction channel includes a through-port (the inlet passageway 728) placed at a side wall of the flow restriction seat (wherein the flow restriction seat corresponds to the elastomeric member 714 in cooperation with the cover member 716, refer to fig. 10A), a side groove channel having a spiral shape (wherein the passage extends in a helical fashion around the surface of the valve body, col. 7 ll. 66-68, refer to the annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image2.png
306
437
media_image2.png
Greyscale
placed between an outer portion of said side wall of the flow restriction seat and the liquid discharge head (incorporation of the valve into the liquid discharge head located said side groove channel between the outer portion of the side wall and the already disclosed discharge head of Spiegelhoff), and an upper groove channel (outlet passageway 730) placed in an upper surface of the flow restriction seat (refer to fig. 10A); the through-port, side groove channel, and upper groove channel are connected to each other in turn (col. 7 ll. 59-66). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the flow restriction seat for another known in the art. In doing so, the now modified device can be produced and assembled in a simple and cost-effective manner, with increased lifespan, all while reducing the possibility of contamination (Debush: col. 8 ll. 7-16).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 4, the already modified device further teaches wherein the side groove channel is a spiral structure (Debush: wherein the passage extends in a helical fashion around the surface of the valve body, col. 7 ll. 66-68)
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 5, the already modified device further teaches the upper groove channel extends from the middle to the edge and is connected to the side groove channel (Debush: refer to the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
488
494
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 6, Spiegelhoff further discloses the upper part of the liquid discharge head is a liquid discharge column (FIG. 6A, element 78, element 54, respectively), the inner cavity of the liquid discharge chamber, discharge cavity, forms the liquid discharge cavity and the liquid discharge cavity is connected to the outside of the liquid discharge column (FIG. 6A, the area between element 216 and 78).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegelhoff (WO 2016186748 A1) in view of Debush (US 5305786 A), as applied in claim 4 and depending claims 5-7, further in view of and Rajan (US 20200229579 A1) and Wade (US 5950878 A).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 7, the already modified device teaches the limiting platform for limiting position (Spiegelhoff: projections 94, para. 0052) but remains silent to the mouth of the soft tube packaging bottle is provided with a threaded holder, the bottom surface of the threaded holder is provided with a limit platform for limiting position, a middle part of the limit platform is provided with an opening corresponding to the open concave cavity structure of the bottom surface of the flow restriction seat, the flow restriction seat and the liquid discharge head are placed inside the threaded holder, and the outer wall of the liquid discharge head is close to the inner wall of the threaded holder. However, Rajan teaches the mouth of the soft tube packaging bottle is provided with a threaded holder (threads for connecting top element 16 with cap 12, para. 0047) the bottom surface of the threaded holder is provided with a limit platform (upper surface of top element 16, refer to fig. 5) for limiting position, the flow restriction seat (outlet wall 105, refer to fig. 3) and the liquid discharge head are placed inside the threaded holder and the outer wall of the liquid discharge head is close to the inner wall of the threaded holder (refer to the annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image4.png
489
479
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Spiegelhoff, Debush, and Rajan remains silent to the bottom surface of the threaded holder including a limit platform for limiting position. However, Wade teaches the bottom surface of the threaded holder is provided with a limit platform for limiting position, a middle part of the limit platform is provided with an opening corresponding to the open concave cavity structure of the bottom surface of the flow restriction seat (as shown in the image below, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 element 60):
PNG
media_image5.png
303
861
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Combination the already modified device as depicted in claim 7 with the threaded holder containing the liquid discharge head, flow restriction seat, and limit platform is the use of a known structure to improve a known device and one of ordinary skill could have applied the improvement of an upper groove channel to the structure previously outlined in claims 4-7 yielded results in a predictable manner. It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine such elements before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Spiegelhoff, Debush, Golub, Feenstra, and Wade remain silent to the outer wall of the liquid discharge head and inner wall of the threaded holder having a slot and convex ring. However, Rajan teaches an outer wall of the liquid discharge head and the inner wall of the threaded holder are provided with a slot and a convex ring, and the slot and the convex ring correspond to each other (para. 0011 and the image of FIG. 9 below.) Please refer to the section view for further clarification on the slot and ring configuration.
PNG
media_image6.png
554
838
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The combination of the aspects of claims 4-8 with that of claim 9 is the use of a known structure for improving a known product, where one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to combine the slot and ring configuration of another soft container to that of the claimed cosmetic packaging bottle. It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the above aspects before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegelhoff (WO 2016186748 A1), Debush (US 5305,786 A), Rajan (US 20200229579 A1) and Wade (US 5950878 A), as applied in claim 9, further in view of Gross (TW 442433 B).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 9, the already modified combination remains silent to and also includes an outer cover, the outer cover is screwed onto the threaded holder, and a raised plunger is placed in a middle part of the outer cover, and the plunger closes the upper end of the liquid discharge cavity after the outer cover is installed. However, Rajan further teaches an outer cover, the outer cover is screwed onto the threaded holder (Page 3, Para. 0042 line 1-8). Rajan remains silent to the raised plunger placed in a middle part of the outer cover which closes the end of the liquid discharge cavity. Gross teaches a raised plunger is placed in a middle part of the outer cover, and the plunger closes the upper end of the liquid discharge cavity after the outer cover is installed (Page 2 lines 4-9.) By applying known structure and techniques to a known device, which yields a predictable improvement one of ordinary skill would be motivated to do so. Furthermore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill I the art to apply the known structure to the known devices for the purpose of yielding a predictable result.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER STEVEN PARISI whose telephone number is (571)270-5490. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S. PARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754