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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 5, 11, and 17 recite “the squeezing/compressing mechanism comprises multiple form factors”. It is not clear what this means and there such recitation reasonably conveys the subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The specification also does not provide sufficient support for such limitation besides repeating the same language that is present in the claims. For the purposes of examination, the limitations of these claims will be interpreted as “the squeezing/compressing mechanism comprises different sized components”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giannuzzi (US PN 5,184,757).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, and 15, Giannuzzi discloses an extruder apparatus comprising (figure 1):
a flexible pouch system (items 20, 21, figure 1) of the extruder apparatus for holding material to be extruded;
an extrusion device (items 10-19, 37-40, figures 1-4) having a squeezing/compressing mechanism (items 41-45, figure 4) that is configured to accept the flexible pouch system in a slot (space of barrels 10, 11, figure 1) of the extrusion device, the squeezing/compressing mechanism for squeezing/compressing the flexible pouch system such that the pouch system is evacuated of at least a portion of the material (see figures 13-14, some or all of the material from the pouches 20, 21 is extruded or expelled);
said flexible pouch system including a fitment (item 35, figure 1) having threads (column 5, lines 48-54), the fitment being removably coupled to the extrusion device; and
a spout (item 36, figure 2) being mechanically, but also removably coupled to the fitment (via threads, column 5, lines 48-54) of the extrusion device, the spout for delivering the portions of the material of the pouch system to a location exterior of the extruder apparatus when the squeezing/compressing mechanism of the extrusion device is engaged, wherein the portions of the material in the pouch system are extruded through the spout (figures 13-14).
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 14, Giannuzzi discloses that the flexible pouch system can hold any pasty or viscous material (column 1, lines 10-20) and thus is capable of holding any of the recited materials in the claim.
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 17, Giannuzzi discloses that the squeezing/compressing mechanism comprises different size components (figures 1-14).
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 18, Giannuzzi discloses that the squeezing/compressing mechanism includes clamp arms (items 37-40 help in clamping down the pouches inside barrels 10, 11 for optimal extrusion operation, figures 1-4) specially designed to engage with the flexible pouch system, wherein the squeezing/compressing mechanism is able to squeeze the flexible pouch system to optimally extrude its contents.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the squeezing/compressing mechanism includes a clamp plate (item 40, figure 1) having an opening hole (space in plate 40 for accepting fitments for accepting the fitment.
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, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giannuzzi in view of Liberatore (US PG PUB 2009/0045230).
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 16, Giannuzzi teach the spout but does not explicitly teach that it is adjustable to alter the location where the material of the flexible pouch system is to be extruded.
However, it would be obvious to make the elongated spout (item 36, figure 1) flexible such that it can be manipulated to reach different locations for optimal extruding.
Furthermore, Liberatore teaches an extrusion system comprising multiple embodiments of flexible nozzles (items 40, 600, 700, figures 11, 26, 27) which attach to an extrusion system for better spreading of the extruding material (paragraphs [0085], [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Giannuzzi such that the spout is flexible or adjustable as taught by Liberatore in order to spread or extrude the material better and more evenly and also provide access to hard-to-reach spaces. Such modification involves changing the material and size of the spout and is within the range of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2025 regarding the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under Giannuzzi and Liberatore have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, applicant argued that 112(a) rejections of claims 5, 17, and 19 should be withdrawn because the specification provides sufficient support and a person of ordinary skill in the art is familiar with known extrusion techniques and terms. Examiner disagrees and would like to reiterate that the specification merely recites the same language that is present in the claims without providing any additional support. Furthermore, regardless of the knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art regarding form factors, the claims still should have sufficient support in the specification that regarding the structure and point out its novelty in the claim language. none of these are present in the disclosure nor the claims. Therefore, claims 5, 17, and 19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as discussed in detail above.
Regarding novelty, applicant argued, in light of amended independent claim 1, that Giannuzzi fails to disclose a spout as recited in the claims and the mixing nozzle 36 of Giannuzzi is not removably coupled to both a fitment and the extrusion device. Examiner disagrees and would like to the point out that claim 1 does not recite that the spout is removably coupled to both a fitment and an extrusion device. Line 14 of claim 1 clearly only recites “a spout being mechanically, but also removably coupled to the fitment of the extrusion device”. Here, applicant is attempting to impart structure in the claims without any positive recitation. Giannuzzi clearly teaches a fitment 35 that includes threads and is removably coupled to the extrusion device and the spout 36 as shown in figures 1-4. Thus, contrary to applicant’s assertions, Giannuzzi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant further argued, in light of amended independent claim 7, that Giannuzzi fails to disclose a pouch system coupled to a fitment as recited in the claim. Applicant asserted that nipple 35 is not coupled to a fitment made for sliding into a slot of the extrusion device as claimed. Examiner disagrees and would like to point out that claim 7 only recites, in lines 8-12, “said pouch system being mechanically, but removably coupled to a fitment for sliding into a slot of the extrusion device for securely, but removably coupling the pouch system to the extrusion device”.
The claim clearly states that the pouch system is removably coupled to a fitment and the pouch system is sliding into a slot of the extrusion device, wherein the pouch system is mechanically and removably coupled to the extrusion device. Applicant is misinterpreting the claim language in an attempt to circumvent the prior arts. Here, Giannuzzi teaches pouches 20 and 21 which fit into the slots of barrels 10 and 11 and are removably but mechanically connected to the fitment 35. The pouches 20 and 21 slide into the barrels as recited in the claims. Thus, Giannuzzi teaches a pouch system that is removable but a part of the extrusion device as recited in claim 7.
Applicant further argued, in light of amended independent claim 13, that Giannuzzi fails to disclose a compressing mechanism as recited in the claim. Applicant asserted that the pistons 41 and 42 are pistons that travel through barrels of Giannuzzi to perform the compression function and thus not meeting the claim limitation. Here, examiner notes that applicant clearly agrees that the pistons are part of the compressing mechanism and it is not clear to the examiner whether the applicant is attempting to make a coherent and convincing argument regarding why Giannuzzi does not anticipate claim 13. In absence of such arguments, it is clear that Giannuzzi teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as recited.
Applicant further argued, regarding claims 4, 10, and 16, that the combination of Giannuzzi and Liberatore do not render the claims obvious because there is no motivation or suggestion provided to combine the prior arts. Applicant asserted that, as a result, the obviousness rejection in improper. Once again, it is not clear to the examiner what argument that applicant is trying to make because the rejection clearly includes the motivation to combine Giannuzzi and Liberatore. Page 7 of the non-final rejection clearly states that “It would have been obvious…to have modified the invention of Giannuzzi such that the spout is flexible or adjustable as taught by Liberatore in order to spread or extrude the material better and more evenly and also provide access to hard-to-reach spaces. Such modification involves changing the material and size of the spout and is within the range of one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Applicant attempted and failed to support their argument by citing case law and its holding but did not clearly point out how the rejection does not provide motivation or suggestion to combine. On the contrary, the non-final reject is clear and pinpoints the motivation to combine the prior art that would render the claims obvious. For all of these reasons, claims 4, 10, and 16 remain rejected as being obvious over Giannuzzi in view of Liberatore.
Therefore, claims 1-20 remain rejected under Giannuzzi and/or Liberatore as discussed in detail above.
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 VISHAL J PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-9324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9 am - 7 pm).
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/Vishal Pancholi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights