CTNF 18/309,020 CTNF 87336 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 18-20 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 18 recites the limitation " the container holding the formulation " in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 19-20 are rejected as inheriting the defect of claim 18. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-2, 9, 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kusama (US 3032802) . Regarding claim 1, Kusama discloses a packaging comprising: a porous applicator (33); a porous reservoir (22) in contact with the porous applicator at an interface; and a refill component, including: an insert (37) configured to surround the porous applicator, a pintle (31) that extends from the interface between the porous applicator and the porous reservoir through the porous applicator and towards an application surface of the porous applicator (Fig. 1); and a deformable arm (30) connecting the insert with the pintle (via 27 and 24), wherein the deformable arm is configured to deform from a first state to a second state (col. 2, line 69 to col. 3, line 1). Regarding claim 2, Kusama discloses the packaging of Claim 1, further comprising a jar (24) configured to hold the porous reservoir, wherein the insert is configured to secure the porous applicator into the jar (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 9, Kusama discloses the packaging of Claim 1, wherein the packaging further comprises a gap between the application surface of the porous applicator and an end of the pintle (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 11, Kusama discloses the packaging of Claim 1, wherein the porous applicator and the porous reservoir are configured to transfer a formulation between the porous applicator and the porous reservoir through capillary action (col. 3, ll. 5-9). Regarding claim 12, Kusama discloses the packaging of Claim 2, wherein the porous reservoir forms a pocket (surrounding spring 30) when the porous reservoir is inside the jar. Regarding claim 14, Kusama discloses a system for refilling a packaging, the system comprising: the packaging of Claim 1; a formulation (ink); and a container (21) configured to hold the formulation . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shepard (US 4461408) . Regarding claim 3, Kusama teaches the packaging of Claim 1, wherein the deformable arm is a first deformable arm (spring 30), but does not teach that the refill system further comprises a second deformable arm. Shepard teaches a second deformable arm (50). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the spring of Kusama with the spring of Shepard, including first and second deformable arms, wherein doing so would merely be a matter of simple substitution of one known spring for another with predictable results. Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kusama and Shepard teaches the packaging of Claim 3, wherein the first deformable arm is disposed 180 degrees from the second deformable arm (Shepard prefers to have three arms, but broadly teaches a plurality of webs 50 circumferentially distributed at col. 3, ll. 61-64; with only two arms the arms would therefore be 180 degrees from each other). Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kusama and Shepard teaches the packaging of Claim 3, wherein the first deformable arm and the second deformable arm are angled to form a bi-arm spring (Shepard col. 3, ll. 61-64). Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kusama and Shepard teaches the packaging of Claim 3, wherein the refill system further comprises a third deformable arm (Shepard 50). Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kusama and Shepard teaches the packaging of Claim 6, wherein the first deformable arm, the second deformable arm, and the third deformable arm are disposed equidistant from one another (Shepard col. 3, ll. 6164) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama . Regarding claim 10, Kusama teaches the packaging of Claim 1, but does not teach that an end of the pintle is flush with the application surface of the porous applicator. At the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have change the size of the pintle such that the pintle is flush with the application surface of the applicator because Applicant has not disclosed that the length of the pintle relative to the applicator provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Kusama's device and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the pintle taught by Kusama or the claimed pintle that is flush with the application surface of the porous applicator because both pintles are equally capable of moving the valve 28. Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the pintle of Kusama to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Kusama. Regarding claim 13, Kusama teaches the packaging of Claim 1, but does not teach that the pintle tapers in the direction of the application surface of the porous applicator. At the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the shape of Kusama’s pintle such that it was tapered because Applicant has not disclosed that the shape of the pintle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Kusama's device and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the straight pintle taught by Kusama or the claimed tapered pintle because both pintles are equally capable of actuating the valve 28. Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the pintle of Kusama to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Kusama . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 8 and 15-17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 07-43-02 AIA Claim s 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY S OLIVER whose telephone number is (571)270-3787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7-3 ET. 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. /BRADLEY S OLIVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3754 /DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 Application/Control Number: 18/309,020 Page 2 Art Unit: 3754 Application/Control Number: 18/309,020 Page 3 Art Unit: 3754 Application/Control Number: 18/309,020 Page 4 Art Unit: 3754 Application/Control Number: 18/309,020 Page 5 Art Unit: 3754 Application/Control Number: 18/309,020 Page 6 Art Unit: 3754 Application/Control Number: 18/309,020 Page 7 Art Unit: 3754