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.
Claim 14 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 14 recites the limitation "the extension below the panel" in lines 2-3. Claim 14 depends from claim 7 which depends from claim 1. None of these claims recite “an extension below the panel”. Therefore, 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 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baughman (US PG PUB 2015/0068643) in view of Porter et al. (“Porter” hereinafter) (US PN 5,921,296) and Ellis Calvo et al. (“Calvo” hereinafter) (US PN 6,425,424).
Regarding claim 1, Baughman teaches a refillable container and dispensing system (figures 8 and 9) comprising:
a container (item 46, figure 9) having a neck (figure 9); with a terminal edge having a protrusion (item 76, paragraph [0060]);
a closure element (item 44, figure 9) having a hollow cylindrical shape with an attachment feature including threads (item 84, figure 9, paragraph [0053]) disposed on an outer facing at a top end of the closure element and a flange (flange surrounding the neck of container, figure 9) disposed beneath the top end, the flange having a peripheral skirt extending away from the top end and an extension spaced radially inward from the peripheral skirt so as to define an annular recess (insert 44 contains a recess which snaps down on rolled edge 76 of the neck of container 46, figure 9, paragraph [0060])) on an underside of the flange opposite from the top end and wherein the annular recess is configured to snap-fit on to the protrusion (paragraph [0060]); and
a refill funnel (item 20, figure 9) having a mouth (item 28, figure 9) at a top end with a wider inner diameter in comparison to a neck (item 30, figure 9) at a bottom end, wherein a cooperating attachment feature disposed on an inner surface of the top end (item 42, figure14) and configured to selective couple to the attachment feature of the closure element.
Baughman teaches that the wider top end of the refill funnel attaches to the closure element and not the narrower neck at the bottom end as contemplated by the claim. However, providing similar threaded attachment means to the bottom neck end of the refill funnel would be obvious and would enable a user to attach the bottom neck end to the closure element.
Porter teaches another refill funnel (item 10, figure 2) that is attachable to a container (item 16, figure 2) via a closure member (item 20, figure 2), where the refill funnel has a wider inner diameter at a top end (item 18A, figure 9) than a bottom neck end (item 18B, figure 2), wherein the bottom neck end comprises threaded attachment features (item 18c, figure 2) to attach to the closure member attachment features (figure 2).
Calvo teaches a multi-use funnel (item 10, figure 1), that is attachable to a container neck (figure 4), with threaded configuration (item 22T, figure 1) at an inner surface of a neck (outer portion 22, figure 1) at a bottom end of the funnel, and a wider mouth top end (item 12, figure 1) which forms the liquid pouring openings for the funnel.
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 Baughman as taught by Porter to provide threaded attachment features to the narrower bottom neck end of the refill funnel such that it can be attached to the closure member easily via a removable but secure threaded connection and pour out or pour in contents to and from the container. Replacing or duplicating essential working parts of an invention is obvious since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)).
Furthermore, 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 combined the invention of Baughman and Calvo such that its funnel can be used with the container assembly of Baughman such that the threaded neck of Calvo is attached to the threaded closure element of Baughman to form a refill configuration.
Regarding claim 2, Baughman, as modified by Porter and Calvo, teaches that the refill funnel includes an integrally formed attachment ring (item 24, figure 1, Baughman), said attachment ring captured on the neck by the closure element (figure 8, Baughman).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baughman in view of Porter and Calvo, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Garneau (US PN 4,669,664).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Baughman teaches that the closure element comprises threads and is capable of being attached to any threaded dispensing element.
Garneau teaches a trigger sprayer (item 10, figure 1) comprising an attachment collar (item 20, figure 1) with a cooperating attachment feature (item 54, figure 2) selectively coupling to the attachment feature of a closure element (item 24, figure 2) of a container (item 26, figure 1).
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 used the trigger sprayer of Garneau to attach to the assembly of Baughman since the threaded assembly is capable of being attached to any dispensing element with cooperating threaded attachment features.
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baughman in view of Porter and Calvo, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Steiger et al. (“Steiger” hereinafter) (US PN 8,113,374).
Regarding claims 7-13, Baughman teaches a pull-out diaphragm (item 82, figure 9, paragraph [0063]) with a handle to provide a tamper-evidence mechanism but is silent to the specifics of such structure such as a removable panel and its shape, a finishing edge, a tether hinge, and a frangible arcuate section, and a handle connected to the tether hinge.
Steiger teaches a closure mechanism (item 40 ,figure 1) for a container (item 10, figure 1) comprising an oval removable panel (item 62, figure 2) that spans an inner diameter of the closure so as to seal the container when the closure is coupled to the container; a finishing edge (item 72, figure 2) is formed at a periphery of the removable panel; the periphery of the removable panel includes a tether hinge (hinge between panel 62 and tab 64, figure 2) and a frangible arcuate section (item 66, figure 2); and a handle (item 64, figure 2) is attached to the removable panel through the tether hinge.
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 Baughman as taught by Porter to improve the tamper-evident properties by including a comprehensive structure of the removable pull tab mechanism as shown by Porter. Furthermore, it is worth noting that such tamper-evidence features are old and well-known in the art and within the range of one of ordinary skill in the art to deploy.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baughman in view of Porter and Calvo, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Laveault et al. (“Laveault” hereinafter) (US PN 7,946,436).
Regarding claim 14, Baughman teaches that the closure element having one or more ribs formed on an inner facing of the extension below the panel (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Fig. 9 of Baughman
Furthermore, Laveault teaches another container (item 22, figure 1) comprising a closure element (item 80, figure 10) having one or more ribs (item 102, figures 10 and 11) on an inner facing of an extension of the closure element for providing rigidity and for the closure element to push in and deform the metal of the neck of the container for a secure attachment (column 10, lines 12-23).
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 Baughman as taught by Laveault to provide a closure element around the container neck and provide a reinforcing ribs at a bottom extension of the closure element for reinforcement and secure assembling purposes. It is also noted that providing reinforcing ribs in plastic components is old and well-known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 regarding the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 1-4 and 7-14 under Baughman, Porter, Garneau, Steiger, and Laveault have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Furthermore, it is noted that applicant’s considerable amendments to claims 1 and 14 required further search and consideration which resulted in a new grounds of rejection for claim 1 under Baughman in view of Porter and Calvo.
Applicant argued, in light of amended claim 1, that Baughman and Porter cannot render the claim obvious because Baughman’s funnel is for a different use than the one contemplated by the invention and that the Baughman does not teach use of a closure element. Applicant then went on to assert that Porter does not cure Baughman’s deficiencies because it does not teach a snap-fitting connection and the threads taught by Porter as inner facing on the adapter and therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the prior arts to arrive at the claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments are without any merit and contradict explicit teachings of Baughman and Porter which are clearly illustrated in their disclosure and drawings. First, even though Baughman does not explicitly teach the use of the funnel for refiling purposes, a person of ordinary skill in the art or even a layperson would know to use the funnel as a refill funnel by simply adding liquid or fluids to the interior of the container using the funnel. A funnel need not be only for one purpose as it can be used for both: dispensing and refilling.
Also, in response to applicant's argument that that ‘Baughman’s disclose does not recite using the invention of refilling’, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Second, Baughman indeed teaches a container 46 with a neck having a terminal edge with a protrusion 76 as clearly shown in figures 8 and 9 exactly as recited in the claims. Baughman also teaches a closure element 44 with a flange with an annular recess that is snap-fitted on the protrusion 76 of the container as clearly described in paragraph [0060]. Lastly, Baughman teaches a funnel 20 with a wide top end and a narrow bottom end, wherein the top end comprises internal threads 42. The only difference between Baughman and claim 1 is that Baughman’s funnel is attached to the closure element at the wider end using threads as opposed to the narrow neck using threads as contemplated by the claim. Therefore, Porter and Calvo are introduced to teach funnels with a wider top ends and narrower bottom ends, wherein the bottom ends comprise threads to attach to a threaded neck or a threaded closure element of a container. When combined, the resultant structure teaches each and every limitation of the amended independent claim 1 thus rendering it obvious.
Furthermore, examiner notes that the applicant has completely misconstrued the references and attacked them individually. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is clearly provided in both Porter and Calvo to attach a narrow-threaded end of a funnel to a closure element top of Baughman’s container for refill purposes. Thus, there is more than sufficient motivation to combine the prior arts to arrive at the claimed invention.
Therefore, for all of these reasons, claims 1 and 2 remain rejected as being obvious over Baughman, as modified by Porter and Calvo as discussed in detail above. Claims 3 and 4 remain rejected under Baughman, Porter, Calvo and further in view of Garneau as discussed in detail above. Claims 7-13 remain rejected under Baughman, Porter, Calvo and further in view of Steiger as discussed in detail above. Lastly, claim 14 remains rejected under Baughman, Porter, Calvo and further in view of Laveault 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