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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Dilg (US Patent 766,604), Dilg teaching the claim amendments as evidenced in the rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dilg (US Patent No. 766,604), and further in view of Chung et al. (US 2022/0136174 A1).
Re: Claim 1, Dilg discloses the claimed invention including a container configured to hold a fluid or granular substance and extending along an axis[[ A]], said container comprising a top part (A) and a bottom part (C) (Fig. 2);
said top part comprising;
a container body configured to hold said fluid or granular substance (Fig. 2, p. 1, lines 32-33, container for fluid or granular substance);
a first resealable opening (A’) with a first area (Fig. 2, p. 2, lines 15-16, first opening via perforation and seals via lid (B));
said bottom part (C) configured to be permanently fitted to said top part(Fig. 2, p. 2, lines 1-3, permanently),
said top part and said bottom part being fitted to each other to form said container (Depicted in Fig. 2)
wherein said bottom part comprises a second resealable opening (C2) with a second area (Fig. 2), and wherein said second area is larger than said first area (Fig. 2) depicts the first area smaller than the second), wherein said container body comprises an annular wall (below a’) with an angle alpha in relation to said axis, wherein said bottom part comprises a sealing wall (C1) extending around said bottom part with said angle alpha in relation to said axis (Depicted in Fig. 2 annular wall tilted at an angle) and configured to engage said annular wall (Fig. 2), and wherein said bottom part is configured to be permanently fitted into said top part by pressing it into said container body (Fig. 2, p. 2, lines 1-3, permanently) such that a tight seal between the annular wall of said container body and the sealing wall of said bottom part is obtained only using friction between said annular wall and said sealing wall (p. 1, lines 84-85, friction press fitting into top part),
Dilg states the container may be made out of any material (p. 1, line 10, any suitable material) except expressly stating molded paper pulp material. However, Chung teaches a container made from molded paper pulp material (Para. 65, paper pulp material).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a paper material container as taught by Chung, since Chung states in paragraph 5 that such a modification involves replacing plastics with revolutionary technologies in molded fiber without compromising product performance, within a competitive cost structure, thereby reducing plastic pollution and providing a renewable material for future use. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re: Claim 2, Dilg discloses the claimed invention including said bottom part comprises a spout (108), and wherein said second resealable opening is arranged in said spout (Fig. 5, p. 2, lines 8-9, spout resealable).
Re: Claim 5, Dilg discloses the claimed invention including said spout extends into said container body when said bottom part is fitted to said top part, and wherein said spout comprises a spout wall extending around said second resealable opening and having a tapered shape (Fig. 2 depicts spout extends into the container body).
Re: Claim 8, Dilg discloses the claimed invention except for specifying said angle alpha is between 2-8 degrees. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dilg by causing the alpha angle to be between 2-8 degrees. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular angle (see Specification wherein angle just cannot be too big) and it appears that the device of Dilg would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of angle.
Re: Claim 9, Dilg discloses the claimed invention including said bottom part further comprises a protruding rim (C3) extending around said sealing wall (Depicted in Fig. 2), and wherein said container body comprises a container sealing recess (a’) extending around said annular wall, and wherein said protruding rim is arranged to engage said sealing recess (Depicted in Fig. 2).
Re: Claim 11, Dilg as modified by Chung in the rejection of claim 1 above discloses the claimed invention including the paper material is formed from a fiber-based slurry comprising a fiber base comprising at least 50% by weight of old corrugated container (OCC) (Chung: Para. 50/65, corrugated container or softwood as base fiber slurry of a range of 10-90); a moisture barrier (Chung: Para. 65, moisture barrier); and an oil barrier (Chung: Para. 65 oil barrier) , wherein said moisture barrier and said oil barrier are in a range of about 1% — 4% by weight respectively (Para. 65, within the claimed range amounts).
Re: Claim 12, Dilg as modified by Chung in the rejection of claim 1 above discloses the claimed invention including the paper material is formed from a fiber-based slurry comprising a fiber base comprising at least 10% softwood (SW) (Chung: Para. 50/65, corrugated container or softwood as base fiber slurry of a range of 10-90); a moisture barrier (Chung: Para. 65, moisture barrier); and an oil barrier (Chung: Para. 65 oil barrier), wherein said moisture barrier and said oil barrier are in a range of about 1% — 4% by weight respectively (Para. 65, within the claimed range amounts).
Re: Claim 13, the device of Dilg as modified in the rejection of claim 1 above is capable of performing the claimed method for filling a container according to claim 1 with a fluid or granular substance (p. 1, lines 32-33, fluid or granular) comprising: filling a container body of a top part of said container with a fluid or granular substance (p. 2, lines 13-15, recharged); and permanently attaching a bottom part to said container body (p. 2, lines 1), wherein said bottom part comprises a second resealable opening (p. 2, lines 8-10, resealable).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dilg (US Patent No. 766,604) and Chung et al. (US 2022/0136174 A1) as applied to claims 2 above, and further in view of Gowans et al. (US 2007/0284332 A1).
Re: Claim 3, Dilg discloses the claimed invention including said spout includes a cap (C2) (Fig. 2)except for using a threaded cork cap. However, Gowans teaches using cork as a closure with threads or in the alternative use a conventional cap as taught in Dilg (Para. 22, cork with threads or cap with threads may be employed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to use cork as taught by Gowans, since Gowans states in paragraph 22 that such a modification provides a suitable structure with threads for closing an opening, and further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re: Claim 4, Dilg discloses the claimed invention including said spout comprises a spout sealing rim around said spout (Fig. 2), wherein said bottom part further comprises a cap (C2) comprising a spout sealing recess, wherein said cap is configured to be pressed onto said spout so that said spout sealing rim engages said spout sealing recess (Para. 178, threads cap onto threads) except for using cork. However, Gowans teaches using cork as a closure with threads or in the alternative use a conventional cap as taught in Dilg (Gowans: Para. 22, cork with threads or cap with threads or snap fit may be employed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to use cork as taught by Gowans, since Gowans states in paragraph 22 that such a modification provides a suitable structure with threads for closing an opening, and further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dilg (US Patent No. 766,604) and Chung et al. (US 2022/0136174 A1) as applied to claims 5 above, and further in view of Gowans et al. (US 2007/0284332 A1).
Re: Claim 6, Dilg discloses the claimed invention including said spout wall is tilted an angle beta in relation to said axis, and wherein said spout is sealed by a cap (C2) with a cap wall tilted said angle beta and being fitted into said spout so that said cap wall engages said spout wall (Fig. 2, p. 2, lines 8-10, cap to seal spout) except for cork. However, Gowans teaches using cork as a closure with threads or in the alternative use a conventional cap as taught in Dilg. (Para. 22, cork with threads or cap with threads or snap fit may be employed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to use cork as taught by Gowans, since Gowans states in paragraph 22 that such a modification provides a suitable structure with threads for closing an opening, and further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re: Claim 7, Dilg discloses the claimed invention except for specifying said angle beta is between 2-8 degrees. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dilg by causing the angle of the spout wall be between 2-8 degrees. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular angle (see Specification wherein angle just cannot be too big) and it appears that the device of Dilg would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of angle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References cited on the PTO-892 are provided teaching other examples of bottom dispensing containers
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 CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 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.
/CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights