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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 12/31/2025 with respect to Claims 1-4 have been considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons:
. The issues outlined in the applicant’s arguments for the revised claims are outlined below:
The applicant’s arguments correctly respond to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Reisman as modified by Henry. The body of the rejection also cites James et al. – which is unchallenged by the applicant.
Due to the Examiner’s Error in the annotation of the of heading of the rejection, the rejection is reissued with the corrected heading as a Second Non-Final Rejection.
The applicant is thanked for narrowing the scope of the embodiments under review to the embodiment shown in the replacement sheet submitted with the Arguments dated 12/31/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reisman (US US7066323, hereinafter referred to as Reisman) in view of Henry (US 7377383 – hereafter referred to as Henry) in further view of James et al. (US 20170203947 – hereafter referred to as James) in further view of Zoss et al. (US 8485378 – hereafter referred to as Zoss). The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram A for Reisman follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
722
1270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram A
In regards to Claim 1, Reisman teaches a double outlet capsule packing container (Reisman, Examiner’s Annotated Diagram A, Item A), comprising: a housing body (Annotated Diagram A, Item B – Housing Body assembly with component parts.), wherein a partition portion (32) is provided in the housing body (B), the partition portion (32) divides the housing body into two chambers (Container – 40 – Upper Chamber, Container 2 – Lower Chamber), one chamber (Lower Chamber – 2) of the two chambers (2 and 40) is a connection portion (Receptacle – 26), a second chamber (40) of the two chambers (2 and 40) is a storage portion (Annotated Diagram A, Item C), and a first sealing portion (Top Seal – 16) is connected at an opening (Diagram A, Item H) of the storage portion (2), a threaded structure (Internal Threads – 30) is provided in an inner wall (Internal Threads – 30 are shown in the inner wall in Diagram A, Figures 1 and 2) of the connection portion (26), an inner diameter (32) of the partition portion (26) is matched with an inner diameter (Shown in Figure 2, Diagram A – Both Inner Diameters are “matched” in terms that they are connected at the inner diameter – per annotated Diagram A, Figure 2 – where the partition portion – 32 and the housing body – b are connected per Column 3, Lines 16-19)) of the housing body (B), and the partition portion (32) is separated from an inner wall (At 30) of the housing body (B) under an external force in a direction from bottom to top (Column 3, Lines 30-032 – describes where the partition portion – 32 is “non-elastically deformed” by the upper edge of the lower container – 2 and is “…compressed between the shoulder – 6 of the first container – 2 bottom – 24 of the second container – 40.” – Column 3, Lines 32-35), (NOT EXPLICITLY TAUGHT) {a thickened area is provided at a connection position between an outer edge of the partition portion and the inner wall of the housing body, and the thickened area is always connected with the housing body, the partition portion is obliquely arranged in the housing body}, (NOT EXPLICITLY TAUGHT) {a protrusion portion is provided on a contacting area between a bottom of the partition portion and a bottle mouth, the protrusion portion is a protruded block, a protruded point, or a rhombic corner, an anti-leak area is provided at a connection position between the housing body and the partition portion, the anti-leak area is an anti-leak ring, an edge of the anti-leak ring is arc shaped, an external thread is provided on an outer wall of a bottom of the housing body, and the outer edge of the partition portion is integrally connected with the inner wall of the housing body.}
Reisman does not explicitly teach a thickened area of the partitioned portion
Henry – in a related disclosure on dual mixing containers with an oblique partition – does teach some of the missing limitations. The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram B for Henry follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
758
1122
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram B
Henry teaches: a thickened area (Henry, Hinged Portion – 54) is provided at a connection position (Illustrated at Annotated Diagram B, Figure 6, Item 54 and Column 4, Lines 24-26 where the hinged portion is connected at a slant with the breakaway disk - 50.) between an outer edge of the partition portion (Breakaway Disk – 50) and the inner wall of the housing body (Cylindrical Wall – 56), and the thickened area (54) is always connected with the housing body (56, where Figure 6 of Annotated Diagram B that shows this connection.), and the partition portion (50)is obliquely(SP) arranged (Annotated Diagram B, Figure 5 shows the breakaway disk as obliquely arranged.) in the housing body (56) (MOTIVATION: Simplify the construction of mixing and dispensing containers that are easy to operate – Column 2, Lines 19-23.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the double outlet closure container of Reisman, providing the partition and partition connection taught by Henry (Breakaway disk – 50, Thickened Area – 54, with an oblique rupture arrangement.), motivated by the benefit of simplifying the construction of mixing and dispensing containers that are easy to operate – Column 2, Lines 19-23. Moreover, simple substitution of a known element for another (Frangible connection versus breakaway disk) with a predictable result (Mixing Container with screw connection) is rationale (B) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
Reisman as modified by Henry does not explicitly teach a protrusion portion.
James – in a similar disclosure on additive attachments to standards containers and closures – does teach the missing limitations. The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram C for James follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
836
1480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram C
However, James teaches an additive management system, including: a protrusion portion (James, Piercing Portion – 124 and Paragraph 0051) is provided on a contacting area (Flaps – 170) between a bottom of the previously taught partition portion (Valve – 144A and Annotated Diagram C, Figure 2A) and a previously taught bottle mouth, the protrusion portion (124) is a protruded block a protruded point (See Annotated Diagram C, Figure 2B where the Protruded point is a point), or a rhombic corner, an anti-leak area (Cartridge Sealing Portion – 146 and Paragraph 0057) is provided at a connection position (See Figure 1 and 1A and the interaction of Seal portion – 146 and a Rib – 130) between the housing body and the partition portion (144A), the anti-leak area (146) is an anti-leak ring (The structure is tied to 130 at an annular structure – Rib – 130 to secure the cartridge in place.), an edge of the anti-leak ring (146) is arc shaped (See Annotated Diagram C, Item A). (MOTIVATION: improving the standardization of beverage additive cartridges resulting in an improved drinking experience – Paragraph 0161.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the cartridge internal structure of Reisman as modified by Henry, providing the Cartridge structure taught by James (Protrusion portion – 124, Contact areas – 170, partition configuration - 144A – with a protruded point – Diagram C, Figure 2B and Arc Shaped Antileak Area – 146 and Annotated Diagram C, Item A), motivated by the benefit of improving the standardization of beverage additive cartridges resulting in an improved drinking experience – Paragraph 0161. Moreover, simple substitution of a known elements (Component Connection, partition, rupture mechanisms, seal mechanisms) for another with a predictable result (Controlled dispensing of additive into target drinking container.) is rationale (B) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
The modifications of Reisman/Henry/James does not explicitly have a partition portion that is integral to the housing body. NOTE THAT: The container configurations do teach a configuration where the partition portion is connected through intervening structures to the housing body (B) or are connected to the upper portion (40).
Zoss – in a similar disclosure – does anticipate the missing design choice arrangement. See Examiner’s Annotated Diagram D for Zoss:
PNG
media_image4.png
835
1392
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram D
Zoss – in a similar disclosure on dual compartment containers with partitions – does EXPLICITLY teach a partition portion where: the outer edge of the partition portion (Zoss, Valve – 320) is integrally connected with the inner wall of the previously taught housing body (Sidewall - 308) (See Annotated Diagram D, Figure 6B where the configuration is shown with respect to Figure 6 of the Instant Application) (MOTIVATION: Improving the ease of consumption for multicompartment packaging resulting in an improved package performance – Column 3, Lines 36-51.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the cartridge internal structure of Reisman as modified previously, providing the Cartridge structure taught by Zoss, where the partition portion – 320 is mounted on the inner wall of the housing structure - 308), motivated by the benefit of improving the ease of consumption for multicompartment packaging resulting in an improved package performance – Column 3, Lines 36-51. Moreover, simple substitution of a known elements (Component Connection, partition location with respect to outlet assembly) for another with a predictable result (Improve dispensing and connection performance.) is rationale (B) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
In regards to Claim 2, Reisman – as previously modified - continues to teach a double outlet capsule packing container (Reisman, Examiner’s Annotated Diagram A, Item A) wherein: the connection portion (26) is connected to a bottle mouth (Mouth of Second container – 40, See Figure 1 above), the bottle mouth (Neck – 4 of container 2) continuously applies a pressure to the partition portion (32) so that the partition portion is separated from an inner wall (42 – top surface of cylindrical wall – 28) of the housing body (Column 5, Lines 9 to 21 describe the opening process where “…container 2 rises up inside container 40, neck – 2 contacts bottom seal 32 and deforms seal 32 until it is torn).
In regards to Claim 3, Reisman – as previously modified - continues to teach a double outlet capsule packing container (Reisman, Examiner’s Annotated Diagram A, Item A) wherein: the first sealing portion (Pull tab portion – 18, and Column 3, Lines 6-7) is a film (Seal – 16) for sealing the storage portion (Item C) (Column 3, Lines 5-7 – describes “…pull tab portion is provided on torn seal – 16 to facilitate the “tear away” removal of seal – 16.).
In regards to Claim 4, Reisman – a previously modified - continues to teach a double outlet capsule packing container (Reisman, Examiner’s Annotated Diagram A, Item A) wherein: the film (16) is an aluminum film or a plastic film (Column 6, Line 66 through Column 7, Line 6 – describes the tearaway seal as being made of “foil or plastic backed paper” – meeting this limitation as both aluminum and plastic films are common in the art and do not provide a patentable distinction to the instant application.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John M. Hoppmann whose telephone number is (571)272-7344. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday-Friday 7:30 - 4:00.
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 Jenness can be reached on 571.270.5055. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOHN MARTIN HOPPMANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights