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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claim 1-14 and 16-20 in the reply filed on January 28, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that while claim 15 provides that the cartridge is inserted into the shell through the lower end of the shell, the shape of the cartridge 100 and the shape of the shell 2 inhibit the cartridge 100 from being inserted through an open upper end of the shell, which inserting was presented in the restriction requirement. Applicant urges that in view of the shape of the cartridge and shell, the method for mounting a cartridge as claimed cannot be used for a materially different apparatus and the device cannot be used to practice another materially different process and as such there would not have been a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required since claim 15 depends from claim 10. This is not found persuasive because the claims do not recite any particular shape to the shell or the cartridge, such that the claims do not necessitate that the cartridge must be inserted through a lower end of the shell until the opening fo the cartridge abuts against a shoulder of the shell. The article claims also do not require any abutment between the cartridge and a shoulder of the shell. Therefore, prior art directed to the device and/or the device together with the cartridge need not be manipulated in the manner recited in claim 15 thus resulting in a divergent search. That is, while prior art might read on the device and might read on the device and cartridge together, such prior art might not recite the requisite inserting of the cartridge as recited in claim 15, which would result in abutting of an opening of the cartridge against a shoulder of the shell.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 28, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim limitation of, “the valve stop has a ribbed wall” as presented in claims 13 and 19, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “an element for returning the movable part to the closed position” (see line 15). It appears that either a comma or a semi-colon should follow the term “position.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the neck being secured with the tubular body.” (see lines 38-39). While it is clear that the claim is reciting that the neck and the tubular body are secured together, especially in light of the specification, for matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “the neck being secured to the tubular body”
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “a locking crown, mounted on the neck and rotating” (lines 47-48) It appears that the term, “rotating” should be replaced with “rotatable.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation, “their lower ends” on line 5. For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “lower ends of the two rods”
Claim 4 recites the limitation, “each cam accommodating a rod.” For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “each cam of the two cam accommodating a rod.”
Claims 1, 5, 6 and 7 recite the limitations, “intended to be removed,” (claim 1, lines 41) and “intended to cooperate” (claims 5, 6 and 7). For matters of form, the term “intended” should be replaced with “configured.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation, “an element of returning the movable part in the closed position.” See the 3rd to last line of the claim. It appears that this should recite, “an element for returning the movable part in the closed position.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the cartridge being slidably mounted with respect to the shell.” (see lines 21-22). This limitation is unclear because it appears to positively recite that the cartridge is mounted with respect to the shell, however, the preamble to claim 1 recites that the claim is directed to a device which is capable of transporting, storing, opening and closing a cartridge. Therefore, it is not clear whether the claim is intending to positively recite the device together with the cartridge, or whether the claim is intending to only be directed to a device capable of having the cartridge mounted therein.
Similar to the above, claim 2 recites, “the two rods being dimensioned so that their lower ends are in contact with the fixed part of the valve.” Since this limitation recites that the lower ends of the two rods are in contact with the fixed part of the valve it appears that the limitation is positively reciting the valve as part of the device. However, the preamble to claim 1 recites that the claim is directed to a device which is capable of transporting, storing, opening and closing a cartridge. Therefore, it is not clear whether the claim is intending to positively recite the device together with the cartridge, or whether the claim is intending to only be directed to a device capable of having the cartridge mounted therein.
Claims 3-4 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 2.
Claim 5 recites the limitation, “the first coupling elements comprise a plurality of screws and bolts intended to cooperate with a plurality of orifices provided int eh first and second radial flanges and arranged facing each other…” (see lines 4-6). This limitation is unclear as to what are arranged to face each other, the coupling elements generally, the screws and bolts, the plurality of orifices or the first and second radial flanges.
Claim 7 recites the limitation, “the internal thread of the shell” on line 3. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites the limitation, “The device according to Claim 1, wherein the cartridge being mounted within the device” (see lines 1-2). In light of the preamble to claim 1 reciting, “A device for transport, storage, opening and closing of a cartridge…” it appears that claim 1 is directed to only a device that is capable of being used with a cartridge. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite because it appears to be directed to a different invention (i.e. a combination) from the claim from which it depends.
Claim 10 recites, “An assembly comprising a device according to claim 1 and a cartridge for mounting in the device.” The limitation of “the device” lacks proper antecedent basis because the claim recites “a device” on line 1 while also being dependent on claim 1 which also recites a device. Claim 10 recites the limitation, “the cartridge” on line 2. Since claim 1 recites the limitation, “the cartridge being slidably mounted with respect to the shell.” (see lines 21-22), which appears to positively recite a cartridge as part of the device, claim 10 limitation of, “the cartridge” also lacks proper antecedent basis . This rejection can be overcome by presenting claim 10 in independent form.
Claims 2-9 and 11-14 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a movable part, the movable part configured to slide”; “an element for returning the movable part to the closed position”, “an element for returning the movable part to the closed position,” “first coupling elements”, “second coupling elements”, “a safety system…the safety system configured to move between a low position…and a high position,” and “a locking crown…the locking crown configured to rotate” “in claim 1, 10 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Therefore, prior art structure that can form the recited function has been construed to be an equivalent to the above recited structures.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by De Gaulle (WO 2019207234).
Regarding De Gaulle (WO 2019207234) a machine translation has been relied on and is included with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 16, it is noted that the claim is only directed to a cartridge and not to the combination of a cartridge and device. In view of this, in order to meet the limitations of the claim, the prior art must only teach or suggest the recited cartridge.
In this regard, De Gaulle (WO 2019207234) teaches a cartridge capable of being mounted to a device, the cartridge comprising a wall defining a body (see figure 10, item 2), a bottom (figure 10, item 21), an opening that is closed by a valve (see paragraph 82-86 and paragraphs 93-95 disclosing upper and lower pistons 431 and 432 together with item 41 which are part of a valve which upon actuation allow for liquid to leave the cartridge (see paragraph 91-94).
De Gaulle’s valve comprises a fixed part secured to the opening (see figure 3, where item 3 is threaded to the cartridge opening) and a movable part (figure 1 and 3, item 41 and item 431 and 432 both of which slide) being capable of sliding with respect to the first part between an open position that allows liquid to pass (see figure 3 and 6) and a closed position that prevents passage of liquid (see figure 1).
De Gaulle further discloses a return element of the movable part in the closed position (see for example, spring 45; paragraph 68 of the machine translation “a spring 45 arranged to exert a restoring force and/or to hold the ejector in the closed position”).
As shown in figure 1, an upper end of the valve 41 can be construed as extending beyond the opening of the cartridge because the beverage reservoir 2 has a neck connected thereto, and which neck extends beyond the opening of the beverage reservoir. That is, at paragraph 90, De Gaulle discloses that the cartridge can include a crown (30) that clamps the upper column 439 onto the reservoir and the neck 3 (see figure 3). Since the column 439 is positioned between the reservoir 2 and the neck 3 and as the crown clamps the column to the reservoir and neck, the neck has been construed as part of the movable valve structure, extending beyond the opening of the reservoir (2), i.e. the opening of the cartridge and therefore an upper end of the movable part also projects beyond the opening of the cartridge.
Regarding claim 17, De Gaulle discloses that the wall of the cartridge can be made of glass (paragraph 103).
Regarding claim 20, De Gaulle discloses a carbonated beverage within the cartridge, such as champagne (paragraph 111).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malcom (GB 2541403).
Regarding claim 16, Malcom (GB 2541403) discloses a cartridge comprising a wall defining a body; a bottom and an opening, with the opening closed by a valve (see figure 1, item 1, 5, 11 which can be construed as the valve). Malcom teaches, at least in the abstract that the plug 2, is inserted into a neck of a bottle, such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that a bottle, which is being construed to be a cartridge, would have had a wall defining a body, a bottom and an opening into which Malcom’s valve assembly would have been inserted. The valve comprises a fixed part secured to the opening (see figure 1, item 2, 5, 6) and a movable part that is capable of sliding with respect to the fixed part between an open position and a closed position (see figure 1, item 11 and page 4, last paragraph). There is a return element of the movable part (see figure 1, item 13 and page 5, 1st full paragraph which discloses a spring acting as a biasing member). The upper end of Malcom’s movable part 11, projects beyond the opening of the cartridge, because it extends above the cork portion 2, 5, 6).
Regarding claim 18, Malcom teaches that the movable part of the valve comprises at a lower end a conical shaped valve stop (see figure 1, item 11A). Regarding the limitation of, “configured to cause a wedge effect with respect to the liquid contained in the cartridge,” since Malcom teaches a conical shape to a lower end of the valve stop, Malcom is seen to also have been capable of the intended use of cause a wedge effect with respect to the liquid contained in the cartridge.
Regarding claim 19, in view of Malcom teaching that there is a gasket ring as part of the valve stop, as shown in figure 1, Malcom teaches that he valve stop has a ribbed wall - especially because the claims do not provide any specificity as to a particular number of ribs.
Regarding claim 20, Malcom teaches that the cartridge is used for containing champagne, which would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to suggest a carbonated beverage.
Claim 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malcom (GB 2541403) in view of De Gaulle (WO 2019207234 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 17, the claim differs from Malcom in specifically reciting that the wall of the cartridge is made of glass.
De Gaulle also teaches a wall of the cartridge can be made of glass (paragraph 103) and which cartridge can be used to hold liquid such as champagne and sparkling wine (see paragraph 111). This is similar to Malcom (see the abstract).
To therefore modify Malcom and to make the wall out of glass would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on known materials for cartridges used for a similar purpose.
Regarding claim 20, Malcom teaches that the cartridge is used for containing champagne, which would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to suggest a carbonated beverage. If it could have been construed that Malcom’s teaching of “champagne or sparkling wine” did not specifically suggested a “carbonated” beverage, then De Gaulle teaches champagne and sparkling wine are carbonated beverages (paragraph 111), such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Malcom is teaching and suggesting a carbonated beverage.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Gaulle (WO 2019207234).
Regarding claim 18, De Gaulle teaches that a lower end of the valve comprises a valve stop that has a conical shape (see figure 2, item 431, which has a conical shape to the exterior thereof). The claim does not limit the particulars of the conical shape such that De Gaulle can be construed to teach and suggest that the cartridge comprises at a lower end, a valve stop of conical shape. See annotated figure 2 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
310
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since De Gaulle teaches a conical shape as claimed, it would have been reasonable to expect that such a conical shape to the valve stop would also have been capable of causing a wedge effect with respect to the liquid contained int eh cartridge.
Regarding claim 19, it is noted that the interior of the valve stop as taught above with respect to claim 18 can be construed as having a ribbed wall, in view of the threads.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coggiola (US 5226563 cited on IDS) in view of Meshberg (US 5516006) and Barber (US 20140263456)
Regarding claim 1, in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112b above, the claim has been construed to be directed to only the structure of the device, as recited on lines 18-52, and the device only requiring to be capable of accommodating the recited cartridge.
In this regard, Coggiola (US 5226563) discloses a device capable of transporting, storing, opening and closing of a cartridge, the device comprising a shell (see figure 1, item 3) that is capable of receiving a cartridge, a lower end of the shell capable of leaving free access to the bottom of a cartridge (see figure 1, item 7) and an upper end of the shell leaving free access to a valve (see figure 1 and 2, where the sleeve has an opening to which an end piece 20 can be affixed, via skirt and groove 21 and 22 - see column 3, lines 36-59). The cartridge is shown as being capable of being slidably mounted with respect to the shell between a low position and a high position (see figure 1 which shows a low position and figure 2 showing a high position).
Coggiola further discloses a cap that can close the upper end of the shell and control the opening and closing of a valve (see figure 1, item 20 and 31). The cap comprises a tubular body that is capable of receive liquid that leaves the cartridge (see figure 1, item 21, 23, which is hollow and therefore a tubular body). The tubular body uses friction as a first coupling element (column 4, lines 54-55) that is capable of securing a movable part of the valve. Using friction as the first coupling elements is seen to be equivalent to using glue or engagement by force, as disclosed at paragraph 34 of Applicant’s specification. Coggiola also discloses that the tubular body is secured to the upper end of the shell via grooves 22. The claim does not limit the particular structure of the tubular body and as such the structure bound by 23 and 21 can be construed as tubular:
PNG
media_image2.png
518
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The cap also comprises a neck (see figure 2, item 23) secured with the tubular body and comprising an open upper end (Figure 2, item 23, 24, column 4, lines 60-61). See annotated figure 1 below:
PNG
media_image3.png
556
691
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Coggiola also discloses a stopper configured to close the open upper end of the neck (see figure 1, item 33) and which stopper is capable of being removed.
Coggiola also discloses a base capable of being secured to the lower end of the shell to close access to the bottom of the cartridge (see figure 2, item 31), which base comprises a pusher capable of moving from a rest position (see figure 2 and 8 and at least, column 2, lines 59-30 and column 3, lines 5-6 which disclose a device that is ready to be actuated and therefore in a rest position); and an activation position (column 4, lines 44-59). Coggiola discloses that a user is pushing the pusher to move from a rest position to an activation position (see column 4, lines 44-59).
However, claim 1 differs from Coggiola because the claim requires the base and a cap, while Coggiola teaches a cap used as a pusher.
However, Meshberg (US 5516006) teaches a shell comprising a base that includes a pusher element to push a cartridge for dispensing the contents (see figure 1, item 301). In order to allow the user to vary the amount of material dispensed from the cartridge, there are a plurality of stop devices 202, 203 having a different thickness to provide a different dose size (see column 6, lines 27-38). Meshberg further teaches that there can be a separate cap in addition to the base.
To therefore modify Coggiola and to specifically include another base element that can function as a pusher as taught by Meshberg would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill so as to forego the need to specifically used the cap to perform this same function as well as to be able to more accurately control the amount of product dispensed from the cartridge.
Claim 1 differs from the above combination in specifically reciting:
“a safety system, slidably mounted opposite the neck, the safety system configured to move between a low position, in which the safety system inhibits the removal of the stopper and inhibits the activation of the pusher, and a high position, in which the stopper can be removed and the pusher can be activated; and
a locking crown, mounted on the neck and rotating with respect to the neck, the locking crown configured to rotate from a first position, in which the crown inhibits displacement of the safety system from the low position of the safety system to the high position of the safety system, to a second position, in which the safety system is allowed to move from the low position of the safety system to the high position of the safety system.”
Barber (US 20140263456) teaches a slidable safety “system” mounted opposite of a neck (see figure 38-39, item 711 and 723, where 723 provides for a bayonet style opening to allow or prevent sliding of the stopper 710; see paragraph 151 which discloses a narrower and wider part of the slot). The rotation allows for the cap to be moved into a high position that allows liquid to be dispensed, and a low, locked position that prevents liquid from being dispensed. There is also a locking crown (see figure 38 and 40, item 721) mounted to a neck (figure 38, item 720) of a cap; and which crown has a portion thereof that is capable of rotating (see figure 38, item 722,which are buttons that when pressed would pivot/rotate inward; see paragraph 147). In a first position where the buttons are not pressed (i.e. not rotated inward), the locking crown is capable of inhibiting displacement of the safety system because buttons 724 have a ramps that interlock with the legs 711 to prevent removal of the stopper (see paragraph 149-150) and upon rotating of the buttons 722, allow for the safety system to be moved into a high position that allows removal of the stopper. It is noted that the terms, “low position” and “high position” have been construed as being defined by their function of inhibiting removal of the stopper and activation of the pusher and allowing removal of the stopper and activating of the pusher.
Both Coggiola and Barber are directed to a similar concept of providing pushing of a cartridge against a shell for the purpose of dispensing a liquid therefrom and also teach a similar structure for the dispensing neck and open upper end of the neck. To therefore modify Coggiola and to use a safety system and locking crown as taught by Barber would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of preventing inadvertent activation of Coggiola’s device prior to its desired use.
Regarding claim 9, in view of Coggiola, the combination teaches the tubular body is coupled to a movable part of the valve of the cartridge (see figure 1 and 2, where item 23 is coupled to item 15 - which is a push rod that is movable part of the valve of the cartridge - see column 3, lines 30-35 and column 4, lines 55-65). The tubular body is also secured to the upper end of the shell (see figure 1, item 21a and 22). In view of Meshberg, the combination teaches and the cartridge as shown in figure 2 of Coggiola would have been in a low, and ready to be actuated position with the base secured to the lower end of the shell and Coggiola’s the stopper 31 closing the upper end of the neck.
In view of Barber, the combination teaches the safety system in a position that inhibits removal of the stopper and activation of the pusher and the locking crown in the first position to “inhibit” displacement of the safety system.
Regarding claim 10, the combination as applied to claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Regarding the cartridge, as recited in claim 10, Coggiola teaches a cartridge defining a wall body and a bottom and an opening being obviously closed by a valve (15). Coggiola teaches that there is a push rod 15 that can be construed as a movable part that can slide with respect to a fixed part 13, into an open position and a closed position and an element of returning the movable part in the closed position (see column 4, lines 54-65). An upper end of Coggiola’s movable part of the valve projects beyond the opening of the cartridge, as shown figure 1, item 15.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1 above which relies on Coggiola (US 5226563) as the primary reference, and in further view of Filleul (US 3229840).
Regarding claim 6, Coggiola teaches a groove which engages with the first end of the shell (see figure 1, item 22).
Claim 6 differs in specifically reciting, wherein the upper end of the shell is provided with an internal thread, the second coupling elements comprise an external thread intended to cooperate with the internal thread of the upper end of the shell in order to secure the tubular body to the shell.
Filleul teaches a cartridge (figure 1, item 4) within a shell (Figure 1, item 1) and which shell has a base (figure 1, item 6) and a cap comprising a tubular body (figure 1 and 2, item 15, 17). The cap comprises a tubular body, which couples with the shell, via an internal thread on the shell (see figure 2 item 18) and an external thread on the tubular body.
Since Coggiola already teaches that the tubular body is coupled to an internal surface of the upper end of the shell, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Coggiola and to have used another conventional expedient by such a tubular body can be secured to the internal surface of a shell, such as internal threads on the shell that mate with external threads on a tubular body as taught by Filleul, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design, based on a substitution of one conventional expedient for another, both recognized for securing a tubular body to the internal surface of a shell.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 6 above which relies on Coggiola (US 5226563) as the primary reference, and in further view of Meshberg (US 2914222, i.e. Meshberg222) or Rahn (US 3347423)
Claim 7 differs from the combination as applied to claim 6 in specifically reciting that the lower end of the shell is provided with an internal thread, the base is provided with an external thread intended to cooperate with the internal thread of the shell in order to secure the base to the shell.
It is noted that the claim recites that the lower end of the shell only requires one thread internally positioned with the bae comprising a single external thread.
Meshberg222 teaches a single internal thread of the shell engaging with a single external thread of a base that comprises a pusher (see figure 10, item 69 and 70 and column 4, lines 58-70). Rahn also teaches a cartridge positioned within a shell, and which shell has internal threads on a lower surface that engage with a base (see figure 4, item 72-76). Since Meshberg006 does not provide any specificity as to how the pusher 301 of figure 1 has been secured to the bottom of the shell, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination and include an internal thread on the shell and an external thread on the base, as taught by Meshberg222 and Rahn, for the purpose of ensuring that the base remained secure on the shell.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 7 above, which relies on Coggiola (US 5226563) as the primary reference, and in further view of Scott (US 20160167826).
Claim 8 differs from the combination, as applied to claim 7 in specifically reciting, wherein the shell is made of aluminum and is provided with portholes made of transparent plastic material, the internal threads of the upper end of the shell and the internal threads of the lower end of the shell being made of metal.
Regarding the shell provided with portholes made of transparent plastic material, Scott teaches a cartridge within a shell (see figure 8), and which shell can comprise transparent sections in order to view the contents of the cartridge (see paragraph 52) and which transparent material can be plastic (see paragraph 42). While only showing one porthole, to provide multiple transparent viewing windows would have been an obvious duplication of parts to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of being able to view the contents within the shell from different angles. (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). That is, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided more than one transparent porthole such that one need not only look to one side of the shell to see the contents within the shell.
While Scott does not specifically teach an aluminum shell with the internal threads of the upper and lower end being made of metal, McDaniel teaches a shell (see figure 10, item 1046) with a threaded upper end (figure 10, item 1048) and a thread lower end (figure 10, item 1050). McDaniel also teaches that the shell can be made of metal (see paragraph 62 and 63) such as aluminum (see paragraph 29). To therefore modify the shell as taught by the combination to have transparent plastic portholes as taught by Scott would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of being able to see the contents within the shell and to modify the shell as taught by the combination to be made of aluminum with metal threads would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of engineering and/or design based on known materials of construction for shells which can hold a glass cartridge therein, as taught by McDaniel.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coggiola (US 5226563) in view of Meshberg (US 5516006) and Barber (US 20140263456) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hayton (US 20090183744).
Claim 11 differs from the combination in specifically reciting that the wall of the cartridge is made of glass.
However Hayton teaches that known materials for cartridges (figure 1a, item 4) used to dispense liquids via a valve (figure 1a, item 5, 5a; paragraph 1 and 46), can be glass (see paragraph 44, “The phial 4 may be formed from any suitable material..for example glass…”
To therefore modify the Coggiola and to use another material conventionally used for cartridges that can dispense a liquid therefrom, such as glass, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design.
Claim 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coggiola (US 5226563) in view of Meshberg (US 5516006) and Barber (US 20140263456) as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Malcom (GB 2541403).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the combination teaches a valve, but claim 12 differs in specifically reciting that the cartridge comprises at a lower end of the valve a valve stop of conical shape configured to cause a wedge effect with respect to the liquid contained in the cartridge and claim 13 differs in reciting that the valve stop has a ribbed wall.
Malcom teaches that the movable part of the valve comprises at a lower end a conical shaped valve stop (see figure 1, item 11A). Regarding the limitation of, “configured to cause a wedge effect with respect to the liquid contained in the cartridge,” since Malcom teaches a conical shape to a lower end of the valve stop, Malcom is seen to also have been capable of the intended use of cause a wedge effect with respect to the liquid contained in the cartridge. Regarding claim 19, in view of Malcom teaching that there is a gasket ring, as shown in figure 1, Malcom teaches that he valve stop has a ribbed wall - especially because the claims do not provide any specificity as to a particular number of ribs.
Malcom is pertinent because the reference teaches a known type of movable part to a valve for dispensing liquid through the valve and is similar to Coggiola in this regard.
To therefore modify the combination, which does not provide specificity as to the particular structure of the movable part and to use a conical shape valve stop and a ribbed wall, as taught by Malcom, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on another known and conventional movable part to a valve structure, used to dispense a liquid therefrom.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coggiola (US 5226563) in view of Meshberg (US 5516006) and Barber (US 20140263456) as applied to claim 10 above, in further view of Malcom (GB 2541403) and Powell (US 20200307877).
Regarding claim 14, it is noted that Coggiola discloses that the device can be used for dispensing a fluid (see column 1, lines 5-14).
Regarding claim 14, the claim differs from the combination as applied to claim 10 in specifically reciting that the cartridge contains a carbonated beverage.
Powell teaches valved cartridges (see figure 2, item 24 and paragraph 41) within a shell (figure 2, item 20, 29) and which can comprise various fluids such as pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and perfumes (see paragraph 34), which is similar to some examples taught by Coggiola (see column 1, lines 10-11) while also suggesting other fluids such as carbonated fluids and drinks (see paragraph 34, “carbonated fluids” “juices”). To therefore modify Coggiola and to include a carbonated beverage within the cartridge would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on other known fluids that have been commonly dispensed from cartridges comprising a valved structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable upon overcoming above objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112b and if rewritten in independent form including 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 VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792