DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
2. The indicated allowability of claims 2-3 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Licari 8,118,182. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 2-15 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.
I- Claim 2 recites the limitation "the fill material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 2-3, 7-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licari 8,118,182 in view of Gerhard (DE3700950).
Licari discloses a fill material dispenser (10), which comprises a bottle member (12) with a cavity to hold the fill material and having an open top and a closed bottom opposite of the open top as seen in Figure 1, a twist spout cap (14) to mate with the open top of the bottle member, the spout cap having a dispensing opening (16) and a spout cap opening that is opposite from the dispensing opening as seen in Figure 5, the spout cap opening to mate with the open top of the bottle member as seen in Figure 5; the bottle member includes multiple stacked bulb shapes as seen in Figure 3, wherein the bottle member has three stacked bulb shapes that are stacked atop of each other, a top bulb shape, a middle bulb shape, and a bottom bulb shape as seen in Figure 3, the top bulb shape includes an open top (32) of the bottle member as seen in Figure 5; a base/support (30); gripping (38). Licari lacks that a plurality of spikes extending downward from the closed bottom. Gerhard teaches the use of a container (1) with a closed bottom (Figure 1), a plurality of spikes (3) extending downward from the closed bottom, wherein the plurality of spikes includes 5 spikes as seen in Figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to substitute Licari’s support with spikes/support of Gerhard, in order to provide an alternate means to support the bottle.
8. Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licari 8,118,182 in view of Gerhard (DE3700950) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Nguyen et al. 2023/0014914.
Licari-Gerhard in combination have taught all the features of the claimed invention except that at least a portion of an outer surface of the bottle member has dimples. Nguyen et al. teach the use a bottle (10) with dimples (24F), at least a portion of the dimples are evenly spaced apart on the at least the portion of the outer surface of the bottle as seen in Figure 1 and the dimples have circular shapes as seen in Figure 3F.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to substitute the gripping of Licari and Gerhard with the dimples taught by Nguyen et al., in order to enhance the grip of the bottle as taught by Nguyen et al. in (col. 3, para. [0047]).
9. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licari 8,118,182 in view of Gerhard (DE3700950) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Papon (FR2831477).
Licari-Gerhard in combination have taught all the features of the claimed invention except that the plurality of spikes includes a plurality of flat-tipped spikes. Papon teaches the use of at least one spike (3) with a flat tip (10) (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to utilize the teaching of Papon onto the spikes of Licari and Gerhard to have a flat-tipped spikes, in order to prevent damaging the floor supporting the bottle.
10. Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licari 8,118,182 in view of Gerhard (DE3700950) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Winkler 2002/0056728.
Licari-Gerhard in combination have taught all the features of the claimed invention except that the spout cap is an L-shaped spout cap that partially extends perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the bottle member when the spout cap and the bottle member are mated. Winkler teaches the use of a bottle member (304) with a L-shaped spout cap (306) perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the bottle member, a wide-mouth dispensing opening (314) with a width and a height.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the spout cap of Licari and Gerhard to be L-shaped and perpendicular to the bottle member as taught by Winkler in Figures 1-4, in order to improve flow of the product as taught by Winkler in (col. 3, para. [0044]).
With respect to claim 14, the claimed subject matter that the dispensing opening is a wide mouth having a width and a height, where the width is at least three times the height and as well as the claimed subject matter in claim 15, the width is 4.02 inches and the height is 1.12 inches. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have the dispensing opening of Licari, Gerhard and Winkler to be wide by providing the opening a width and a height, where the width is at least three times the height and as well as the claimed subject matter in claim 15 because applicant has not disclosed that having a wide dispensing opening and as well as the claimed subject matter in claim 15 provide an advantage, are used for a particular purpose, or solve a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the dispensing opening of Licari, Gerhard and Winkler, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the dispensing opening taught by Licari, Gerhard and Winkler or the claimed the width is at least three times the height and as well as the claimed subject matter in claim 15, the width is 4.02 inches and the height is 1.12 inches because both dispensing opening would perform the same function of dispensing fill material. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the dispensing opening of Licari, Gerhard and Winkler to obtain the invention as specified in claims 14 and 15 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Licari, Gerhard and Winkler.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK C NICOLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM -:4:00 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 R. 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.
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754