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 § 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.
Claims 3, 5-9 and 17 are 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:
In claim 3, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the shell components”.
In claim 5, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the at least one projection”.
In claim 7, “at least one projection comprises at least two axially spaced projections” is confusing as no projection is mentioned in the respective independent claim or any of the intervening claims.
In claim 8, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the inner region”.
In claim 9, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the tooth-and-groove mechanism”.
In claim 9, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the shell components”.
In claim 17, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the first diameter”.
In claim 17, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the second diameter”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 11-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Letschert (DE 102010010302 A1):
Regarding claim 1, Letschert discloses an assembly comprising a dispenser (50) having an exterior surface of which at least a band is symmetric about a longitudinal axis of the dispenser (while the entire dispenser is symmetric about a longitudinal axis, as an example the band may be considered “76”); and an adapter (20) for surrounding at least the band of the exterior surface of the dispenser, the adapter comprising a closeable shell (20), the shell being configured to lock the dispenser in at least a region of the band so as to impede rotational slippage of the dispenser relative to the adapter about the longitudinal axis with the shell being closed (see [0042]).
Regarding claim 8, a tooth-and-groove mechanism (30, 78) in the band and the inner region locks the dispenser against rotational motion relative to the adapter about the longitudinal axis (see [0045]).
Regarding claim 9, while as discussed above with regarding to section 112, the tooth-and-groove mechanism is not clearly positively recited in this claim, nonetheless Letschert disclosed a tooth-and-groove mechanism comprises a set of striations (78) on the dispenser along an outer surface of the band, and a set of striations (30) on the adapter along the inner region opposite the band, the sets of striations engaging one another when the shell components are in a mating relationship so as to lock the dispenser against rotational motion relative to the adapter about the longitudinal axis (see [0045]).
Regarding claim 11, the adapter has an outer surface having a securing element (26 or 27). The holder discussed in the claim is not a required element of the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 12, the dispenser comprises a body (60) and a cap (70) and wherein the band is located on the cap.
Regarding claim 13, the cap is wider than at least part of the body (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, while as discussed above it is unclear what is being claimed, as the diameters of this claim do not clearly refer to diameters of positively recited elements, the claim is anticipated.
Claims 1, 11, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Piccirilli (US 3,779,298):
Regarding claim 1, Piccirilli discloses an assembly comprising a dispenser (10, 12) having an exterior surface of which at least a band is symmetric about a longitudinal axis of the dispenser (while the entire dispenser is symmetric about a longitudinal axis, see for example the band indicated by dashed lines 18,20 in Fig. 2); and an adapter (1,2) for surrounding at least the band of the exterior surface of the dispenser, the adapter comprising a closeable shell (1,2), the shell being configured to lock the dispenser in at least a region of the band (see col. 3, lines 12-15 and col. 4 lines 18-31) so as to impede rotational slippage of the dispenser relative to the adapter about the longitudinal axis with the shell being closed.
Regarding claim 11, the adapter has an outer surface having a securing element (3,4). The holder discussed in the claim is not a required element of the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 14, the dispenser comprises a body and a cap and wherein the band is located on the body of the dispenser (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, the shell comprises a flange (bottom of “2”) for supporting a bottom of the dispenser within the adapter (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, while as discussed above it is unclear what is being claimed, as the diameters of this claim do not clearly refer to diameters of positively recited elements, the claim is anticipated.
Claims 1-6, 10-13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McConnell (US 3,561,637):
Regarding claim 1, McConnell discloses a dispenser (20) having an exterior surface of which at least a band (for example the band 34) is symmetric about a longitudinal axis of the dispenser; and an adapter (35,36) for surrounding at least the band of the exterior surface of the dispenser, the adapter comprising a closeable shell (35,36), the shell being configured to lock the dispenser in at least a region of the band so as to impede rotational slippage of the dispenser relative to the adapter about the longitudinal axis with the shell being closed (see col. 3, lines 16-43).
Regarding claim 2, the band defines a minimum first diameter of an imaginary cylinder into which the band may fit (the outer diameter of 34 prior to deformation), wherein the adapter has an inner region opposite the band of the dispenser, the inner region defining a maximum second diameter (the inner diameter of 35,36 when closed) of an imaginary cylinder that may fit within the inner region of the adapter when the shell is closed; and wherein the second diameter is less than the first diameter (see col. 3, lines 16-43).
Regarding claim 3, the band of the dispenser has a uniform outer surface and the adapter comprises at least one projection (35) in the inner region, the at least one projection impeding slippage of the adapter about the longitudinal axis by deforming the band when the shell components are in a mating relationship (see col. 3, lines 16-43).
Regarding claim 4, the shell comprising at least two shell components (the locking components of 36, see Fig. 1) configured to be in a mating relationship when the shell is closed.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above with regard to section 112, the at least one projection is not clearly positively recited as a required element of the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above with regard to section 112, the at least one projection is not clearly positively recited as a required element of the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 10, the holder of this claim is not a require element; however, as seen in Fig. 1, the components of 36 are held in a locked state of the assembly is in, for example, a cylindrical holder of inner diameter similar to the outer diameter of the assembly.
Regarding claim 11, the adapter has an outer surface having a securing element (36 or a portion thereof). The holder discussed in the claim is not a required element of the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 12, the dispenser comprises a body (21) and a cap (22) and wherein the band is located on the cap.
Regarding claim 13, the cap is wider than at least part of the body (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, while as discussed above it is unclear what is being claimed, as the diameters of this claim do not clearly refer to diameters of positively recited elements, the claim is anticipated.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piccirilli (US 3,779,298) in view of Brim (3,092,277). The assembly of Piccirilli was discussed above. In Piccirilli, the dispenser is not entirely cylindrical, having a narrower cap end. Brim teaches that similar adapters can be made not just for bottle-shape dispensers but also for cylindrical dispensers (see Fig. 1 versus Fig. 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the shape of the dispenser to be cylindrical as taught by Brim because numerous commercial dispensers are of cylindrical shape with a cap of body diameter.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell (US 3,561,637). While, as discussed above with regard to section 112, it is unclear what is being claimed, the claim has been considered with regard to the prior art to the extent possible. The assembly of McConnell was discussed above. While the band, being a region rather than a structure, maybe be considered any number of axially spaced sub-bands, plural axial spaced projections are not disclosed. Nonetheless, in In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) an axially spaced array of projections was held obvious over a single projection. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided plural projections to have better secured the dispenser.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other examples of prior art adapters are cited on the Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774