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 .
Preliminary Amendment
2. The preliminary amendment filed on 10/29/2025 has been entered.
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 1-4, 6-12, 14, 16-19 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- The term "substantial invisibility", “substantially different refractive index” and “substantially invisible” in claim 1, lines 2, 5 and 9, are relative term which render the claim indefinite. The term "substantial invisibility" and “substantially different refractive index” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the scope of "substantial invisibility", “substantially different refractive index” and “substantially invisible” are not clear.
II- The term "substantial invisibility", “substantially different refractive index” and “substantially invisible” in claim 14, lines 8-9, 10-11 and 15, are relative term which render the claim indefinite. The term "substantial invisibility" and “substantially different refractive index” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the scope of "substantial invisibility", “substantially different refractive index” and “substantially invisible” are not clear.
III- Claim 1 is indefinite because “the wall thickness” (line 8) lacks proper antecedent basis.
IV- Claim 4 is indefinite because “the outer diameter” lacks proper antecedent basis.
V- In claim 14, line 6, “pump and of liquid fragrance” are positively recited for a second time. This renders the claims confusing as it raises issues of double inclusion.
VI- Claim 14 is indefinite because “the wall thickness” (line 14) lacks proper antecedent basis.
V- Claim 16 is indefinite because “the outer diameter” lacks proper antecedent basis.
VI- Claim 19 is indefinite because “the refractive index” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
7. Claims 1, 6, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. 2024/0026096.
Wang et al. disclose in combination, a dip tube (505) and a liquid fragrance, the dip tube configured to provide substantial invisibility when disposed in the liquid fragrance in a glass container (501) (col. 9, para. [0081]), which comprises the dip tube having a non-fluoropolymer extruded thin-walled polymer dip tube having a substantially different refractive index than that of the liquid fragrance, wherein the difference in refractive index is 0.04 or more and wherein the liquid fragrance has a refractive index in a range of 1.38 to 1.41 (col. 2, para. [0022]), and wherein the wall thickness of the dip tube is no greater than 6 mils (0.152 mm) to render the thin-walled polymer dip tube substantially invisible in the liquid fragrance in the glass container (col. 3, para. [0037]); wherein the wall thickness of the dip tube is in a range of 2 mils (0.051 mm) to 5 mils (0.127mm) (col. 3, para. [0037]); wherein the outer diameter of the dip tube is in a range of 1.5 mm to 2.5 mm (col. 3, para. [0037]); wherein the extruded polymer has refractive index in a range of 1.45 to 1.48 (col. 2, para. [0025]); wherein the extruded polymer comprises cyclic olefin copolymer having a refractive index in a range of 1.52 - 1.56 (col. 9, para. [0089]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 2-4, 7-11, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. 2024/0026096.
Wang et al. have taught all the features of the claimed invention except that the difference in refractive index is in a range of 0.045 to 0.20. However, Wang et al. taught that the refractive index is not greater than about 0.04 (col. 2, para. [0022]). 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 difference in refractive index of Wang et al. in a range of 0.045 to 0.20 because applicant has not disclosed that having the difference in refractive index in a range of 0.045 to 0.20 provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, solves a stated problem or placed any criticality on the refractive index in a range of 0.045 to 0.20 other than in one embodiment the difference is in a range of 0.045 to 0.20 in which the refractive index of Wang et al. provides the same end result. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the difference refractive index of Wang et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2 because such a modification would have been considered an obvious and clear alteration to the prior art of Wang et al.
With respect to claims 7, 9, the claimed subject matter “wherein the extruded polymer comprises at least 90 percent by weight of polymethylpentene (PMP)” and as well as the claimed subject matter in claim 9. Wang et al. taught that the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) (col 2, para. [0024]). 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 extruded polymer of Wang et al. with at least 90 percent by weight of polymethylpentene (PMP) because applicant has not disclosed that having the extruded polymer with at least 90 or 95 percent by weight of polymethylpentene (PMP) provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, solves a stated problem or placed any criticality on the extruded polymer with at least 90 or 95 percent by weight of polymethylpentene (PMP) other than in the polymer material for the dip tube as defined herein comprises at least 90% or 95% by weight (of the PMP) in which the PMP of Wang et al. provides the same end result. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the extruded polymer of Wang et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 7, 9 because such a modification would have been considered an obvious and clear alteration to the prior art of Wang et al.
With respect to claim 8, the claimed subject matter “wherein the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) having a refractive index in a range of 1.45 to 1.48”. Wang et al. taught that the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) (col 8, para. [0077]). 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 extruded polymer of Wang et al. with a refractive index in a range of 1.45 to 1.48 because applicant has not disclosed that having the extruded polymer with a refractive index in a range of 1.45 to 1.48 provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, solves a stated problem or placed any criticality on the extruded polymer with a refractive index in a range of 1.45 to 1.48 other than in the extruded polymer with polymethylpentene having a refractive index in a range of 1.45 to 1.48 in which the PMP of Wang et al. provides the same end result. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the extruded polymer of Wang et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8 because such a modification would have been considered an obvious and clear alteration to the prior art of Wang et al.
With respect to claim 10, the claimed subject matter “wherein the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) having a flexural modulus of greater than 199.95 MPa (29,000 psi)”. Wang et al. taught that the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) (col 8, para. [0077]) and inherently having a flexural modulus. 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 modify the polymethylpentene of Wang et al. to have a flexural modulus of greater than 29,000 psi 199.95 MPa (29,000 psi) because applicant has not disclosed that having the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) with a flexural modulus of greater than 29,000 psi 199.95 MPa (29,000 psi) provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, solves a stated problem or placed any criticality on the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) with a flexural modulus of greater than 29,000 psi 199.95 MPa (29,000 psi) other than in the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) having a flexural modulus of greater than 29,000 psi 199.95 MPa (29,000 psi) in which the PMP of Wang et al. provides the same end result. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the extruded polymer of Wang et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10 because such a modification would have been considered an obvious and clear alteration to the prior art of Wang et al.
With respect to claim 11, the claimed subject matter “wherein the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) having a light transmittance of greater than 92%”. Wang et al. taught that the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) (col 2, para. [0025]) and inherently having a light transmittance. 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 modify the polymethylpentene of Wang et al. to have a light transmittance of greater than 92% because applicant has not disclosed that providing the polymethylpentene (PMP) with a light transmittance of greater than 92% provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, solves a stated problem or placed any criticality on the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) with a light transmittance of greater than 92% other than the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) having a light transmittance of greater than 92% in which the PMP of Wang et al. provides the same end result. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the extruded polymer of Wang et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11 because such a modification would have been considered an obvious and clear alteration to the prior art of Wang et al.
With respect to claim 16, the claimed subject matter “wherein the extruded polymer comprises at least 90 percent by weight of polymethylpentene (PMP)” and “wherein the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) having a refractive index in a range of 1.45 to 1.48”. Wang et al. taught that the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) (col 2, para. [0024]); the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) (col 8, para. [0077]). 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 extruded polymer of Wang et al. with at least 90 percent by weight of polymethylpentene (PMP) and to have the extruded polymer of Wang et al. with a refractive index in a range of 1.45 to 1.48 because applicant has not disclosed that having the extruded polymer with at least 90 or 95 percent by weight of polymethylpentene (PMP) and having the extruded polymer with a refractive index in a range of 1.45 to 1.48 provide an advantage, are used for a particular purpose, solve a stated problem or placed any criticality on the extruded polymer with at least 90 or 95 percent by weight of polymethylpentene (PMP) and on the extruded polymer with a refractive index in a range of 1.45 to 1.48 other than in the polymer material for the dip tube as defined herein comprises at least 90% by weight (of the PMP) and in the extruded polymer with polymethylpentene having a refractive index in a range of 1.45 to 1.48 in which the PMP of Wang et al. provide the same end result. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the extruded polymer of Wang et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16 because such a modification would have been considered an obvious and clear alteration to the prior art of Wang et al.
With respect to claim 17, the claimed subject matter “wherein the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) having a flexural modulus of greater than 199.95 MPa (29,000 psi)”. Wang et al. taught that the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) (col 8, para. [0077]) and inherently having a flexural modulus. 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 modify the polymethylpentene of Wang et al. to have a flexural modulus of greater than 29,000 psi 199.95 MPa (29,000 psi) because applicant has not disclosed that having the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) with a flexural modulus of greater than 29,000 psi 199.95 MPa (29,000 psi) provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, solves a stated problem or placed any criticality on the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) with a flexural modulus of greater than 29,000 psi 199.95 MPa (29,000 psi) other than in the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) having a flexural modulus of greater than 29,000 psi 199.95 MPa (29,000 psi) in which the PMP of Wang et al. provides the same end result. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the extruded polymer of Wang et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17 because such a modification would have been considered an obvious and clear alteration to the prior art of Wang et al.
With respect to claim 18, the claimed subject matter “wherein the extruded polymer comprises at least 95 percent by weight of polymethylpentene (PMP)”. Wang et al. taught that the extruded polymer comprises polymethylpentene (PMP) (col 2, para. [0024]). 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 extruded polymer of Wang et al. with at least 95 percent by weight of polymethylpentene (PMP) because applicant has not disclosed that having the extruded polymer with at least 95 percent by weight of polymethylpentene (PMP) provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, solves a stated problem or placed any criticality on the extruded polymer with at least 95 percent by weight of polymethylpentene (PMP) other than in the polymer material for the dip tube as defined herein comprises at least 95% by weight (of the PMP) in which the PMP of Wang et al. provides the same end result. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the extruded polymer of Wang et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18 because such a modification would have been considered an obvious and clear alteration to the prior art of Wang et al.
With respect to claim 19, the claimed subject matter “wherein the glass container is configured to hold 29.57 to 236.59 cubic centimeters (1 to 8 fluid ounces) of the liquid fragrance, and the refractive index of the glass is in a range of 1.5 to 1.6”. Wang et al. taught that the container is configured to hold a fragrance (see Figure 7) and having inherently refractive index. 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 modify the container size to hold 29.57 to 236.59 cubic and the refractive index in a range of 1.5 to 1.6 of Wang et al. because applicant has not disclosed that providing the glass container to hold 29.57 to 236.59 cubic centimeters of the liquid fragrance, and the refractive index of the glass is in a range of 1.5 to 1.6 provide an advantage, are used for a particular purpose, solve a stated problem or placed any criticality on the glass container holding 29.57 to 236.59 cubic centimeters of the liquid fragrance, and the refractive index of the glass is in a range of 1.5 to 1.6 other than the glass container is configured to hold 29.57 to 236.59 cubic centimeters of the liquid fragrance, and the refractive index of the glass is in a range of 1.5 to 1.6 in which the container of Wang et al. provides the same end result. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the extruded polymer of Wang et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19 because such a modification would have been considered an obvious and clear alteration to the prior art of Wang et al.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
11. 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