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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-16, and 19 are pending and examined on the merits.
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 “an inkjet-printed thin ring-shaped absorber layer” and “a clear joint between the transparent plastic container body and transparent separate bottom part” 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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olberding et al. (“Olberding” hereinafter) (US PG PUB 2021/0130079) in view of Vanderstraeten et al. (“Vanderstraeten” hereinafter) (US PG PUB 2023/0013157).
Regarding claim 1, Olberding teaches a fluid dispenser container (item 2, figure 1) comprising a transparent plastic container body made of PET (paragraph [0048]) with an open end and a separate transparent bottom part (item 6, figure 1, the disclosure promotes clear-clear laser welding which implies that the bottom part 6 is also transparent that can be welded to the transparent container body 2) joined by laser welding (paragraph [0062]) to the open end of the transparent plastic container body, wherein the separate transparent bottom part is made from the same plastic material as the plastic container body (base part 6 is initially part of container body 2 and is separated, inverted and welded to the bottom of the container body 2; thus the base part 6 is made of same transparent PET material, see figure 3, paragraph [0037]); and a clear joint between the transparent plastic container body and the separate bottom part (a clear joint is inherently formed when the clear plastic container body and clear base part are joined together by laser welding; furthermore, local melting of both of the components creates a joining effect resulting in a joining region, paragraph [0062]).
(NOTE: The claim recitations “injection stretch blow moulded”, “separate injection moulded”, “an inkjet printed”, “the transparent separate bottom part laser welded to the transparent plastic container body by melting mating surface lines on the transparent plastic container body (12) and onto the transparent, the separate bottom part (13)” are process recitations present in a product claim. It is noted that PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS (See MPEP § 2113). Therefore, only the structure implied by the steps is given patentable weight).
Here, Olberding is does not explicitly teach that a thin ring-shaped absorber layer applied onto the outer wall of the separate bottom part. (However, it is noted that clear-clear laser welding indeed uses a separate absorbing layer applied to one of the parts being welded to aid in absorbing laser energy for an effective weld).
Vanderstraeten teaches a fluid dispenser container (item 100, figure 5) comprising a plastic container body (item 60, figure 5) with an open end and a separate bottom part (item 2, figure 5) joined by laser welding (paragraph [0149]) to the open end of the plastic container body, wherein the separate bottom part is made from the same plastic material as the plastic container body (paragraphs [0098], [0116], [0137]). Furthermore, Vanderstraeten teaches that a graphite thin ring is provided on the bottom part to absorb laser energy during the laser welding process (paragraph [0149]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a thin absorbing layer on the bottom part in the device of Olberding as taught by Vanderstraeten in order to provide one of the components means to absorb laser energy and form a strong welded joint. Doing so allows for clear materials to be laser welded to each other without use of any other materials that may affect the clarity of the finished dispenser container product.
Regarding claim 3, Olberding teaches a piston (item 10, figure 1) for dispensing fluid is provided but is silent to being made from a plastic material with a density lower as the density of PET. Olberding does indeed teach that the plunger comprises components are made silicone, rubber, EPDM and like materials which tend to have lower density than harder plastics.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the piston of Olberding with the same PET material and same density as the same material since doing so only involves a routine skill in the art. Furthermore, 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. (See MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claims 4, 6, and 8, Olberding teaches that the transparent bottom part has a ring-shaped outer rim (outer rim of base part 6, figure 1) and an inner cup (conical wall in the center of base part 6, figure 1) with a lower central hole (hole that is closed by plug 7, figure 1). Olberding is silent to radial ribs, a cylindrical central tube, and an upper central hole
Vanderstraeten teaches that the transparent bottom part has a ring-shaped outer rim (figure 5), radial ribs (figure 5) between the central tube and an outer wall of the inner cup, an inner cup (figure 5) which has a central passageway (figure 5) provided by a central cylindrical tube (figure 5) with an upper central hole (figure 5) (see annotated figure 5 of Vanderstraeten below for detailed mapping of claimed items).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Fig. 5 Of Vanderstraeten
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bottom part of to provide radial ribs, a central cylindrical tube with an upper central hole in the device of Olberding as taught by Vanderstraeten in order to strengthen the bottom part against hydraulic forces and prevent crushing of the bottom part under dispensing pressures. Furthermore, providing a central passageway with a cylindrical tube closeable by a plug provides a means for refilling a container reservoir when it is empty.
Regarding claim 5, Olberding as modified by Vanderstraeten does not explicitly teach that the outer rim, the inner cup and the central tube have the same material thickness.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the central tube, the outer rim, and the inner cup of the same material thickness in the invention of Olberding as modified by Vanderstraeten in order to provide them with same strength and cross-sectional area and provide uniformity to the overall structure of the bottom part.
Regarding claim 7, Olberding as modified by Vanderstraeten teaches radial ribs but does not explicitly teach lower supporting ribs between the outer rim and the inner cup are provided which are protruding obliquely from the inner wall of the outer rim to the lower part of the inner cup.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided lower radial ribs between the outer rim and the outer cup protruding obliquely in the device of Olberding as modified by Vanderstraeten in order to provide additional strength and stability of the bottom part. Furthermore, strengthening ribs are old and well-known in the art in plastics manufacturing processes. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)).
Regarding claim 9, Olberding as modified by Vanderstraeten teaches that the upper central hole is bridged or domed by a cylindrical plug (item 42, figure 5, Vanderstraeten) which is connected to opposite pillars (see annotated figure above) protruding from the central tube.
Regarding claim 10, Olberding as modified by Vanderstraeten teaches a fill valve (item 42, figure 1, Vanderstraeten) as closing element is mounted in the central tube which has a cuplike base part with an inner blind hole and a ring- cylindrical protruding rim, whereas on top of the base part an upper frusto-conical section with two opposing grooves (figure 5) is provided.
Regarding claim 11, Olberding as modified by Vanderstraeten teaches the closing element is made from a polyester material (paragraphs [0030], [0090], [0091-0092], Vanderstraeten).
Regarding claim 12, Olberding as modified by Vanderstraeten teaches that the central cylindrical tube (figure 5, Vanderstraeten) has open ends on both ends and a movable closing element (item 42, figure 5, Vanderstraeten) of an elastomeric material (paragraphs [0030], [0090], [0091-0092], Vanderstraeten) is provided within the central tube.
Regarding claim 13, Olberding as modified by Vanderstraeten teaches that the closing element is designed as two stage Nicholson plug or as umbrella valve or as rope bung plug (paragraph [00150], figure 5, Vanderstraeten).
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regan et al. (“Regan” hereinafter) (US PG PUB 2007/0125809) in view of Olberding, Vanderstraeten, Yashiro et al. (“Yashiro” hereinafter) (US PG PUB 2024/0168352).
Regarding claim 16, Regan teaches a method for producing a fluid dispenser as discussed in detail in claim 1 above, wherein the transparent container body (item 50, figure 5, paragraph [0041]) made by injection stretch blow moulding from a preform (paragraph [0040]) and the bottom of the container body is cut-off to provide an open lower end of the container body (paragraph [0040]), further the separate bottom part is made by injection moulding in which molten plastic material is shaped in the desired form by multiple cavity molds (paragraph [0037]), and the separate bottom part is laser welded to the plastic container body by melting mating surface lines on the plastic container body and on the separate bottom part, whereas the heat to melt is created by a stationary laser means while the plastic container body has been rotated by rotating means at least over a full rotation or by a circularly movable laser means in a full circular motion while the plastic container is stationary (paragraph [0041]).
Regan does not explicitly teach that the bottom part is transparent and a thin-line absorber layer that is formed by inkjet technology.
As discussed in claim 1 above, Olberding teaches a transparent container body (item 2, figure 1) and a separate transparent bottom part (item 6, figure 1, the disclosure promotes clear-clear laser welding which implies that the bottom part 6 is also transparent that can be welded to the transparent container body 2) that is joined to the transparent container body by laser welding (paragraph [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transparent container of Regan be joined via laser welding to a transparent bottom part as taught y Olberding because it teaches that clear-clear laser welding is possible where the material of the both components is PET. It is noted that clear-clear laser welding is known in the art and thus forming two components out of transparent material and welding them together is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Vanderstraeten teaches a fluid dispenser container (item 100, figure 5) comprising a plastic container body (item 60, figure 5) with an open end and a separate bottom part (item 2, figure 5) joined by laser welding (paragraph [0149]) to the open end of the plastic container body, wherein the separate bottom part is made from the same plastic material as the plastic container body (paragraphs [0098], [0116], [0137]). Furthermore, Vanderstraeten teaches that a graphite thin ring is provided on the bottom part to absorb laser energy during the laser welding process (paragraph [0149]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a thin absorbing layer on the bottom part in the device of Olberding as taught by Vanderstraeten in order to provide one of the components means to absorb laser energy and form a strong welded joint. Doing so allows for clear materials to be laser welded to each other without use of any other materials that may affect the clarity of the finished dispenser container product.
Yashiro teaches a manufacturing technique to form plastic components wherein inkjet printing (paragraphs [0069], [0080], [0130]) method is utilized to coat plastic components (paragraph [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used inkjet printing method to deposit a thin layer of laser absorbing material layer on the bottom part in the device of Olberding and Vanderstraeten as taught by Yashiro since doing so allows addition of small layer of materials with efficiency of known inkjet printing processes.
Regarding claim 19, Regan teaches that the melting heat is created by a laser equipment selected by the group diode, YAG or fiber lasers which typically work with an absorber coating on one of the two parts to be joined (paragraph [0041]).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olberding in view of Vanderstraeten as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Regan.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Olberding teaches the invention as discussed in detail above but does not explicitly teach a disc with a pressure control device (figure 3) made of a transparent material is welded to the inner wall of the transparent container to provide a high-pressure chamber between the disc and the bottom part.
Regan teaches a disc (item 5, figure 3) with a pressure control device (figure 3) made of a transparent material (see claim 1 above) is welded to the inner wall of the transparent container to provide a high-pressure chamber between the disc and the bottom part (paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Olberding by providing an additional pressure control device that is welded to the inner of wall of the container to provide a high-pressure chamber between the disc and the bottom part to provide means to control the pressure changes in the container body during the dispensing operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2026 regarding rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-16, and 19 under Regan and Vanderstraeten have been fully considered but they are not moot because they do not apply to any of the combination of references and/or the interpretation of references being used in this rejection.
Applicant amended independent claim 1 to add limitations regarding a thin laser energy absorbing layer and a clear joint being formed between the bottom part and the container body and independent claim 16 to add limitations regarding a thin laser energy absorbing layer added by inkjet technology.
This required further search consideration which resulted in a new grounds of rejections for independent claims 1 and 16. Claim 1 is rejected under Olberding and Vanderstraeten which teaches all of the claimed limitations as discussed in detail above. Dependent claims 2-13 also remain rejected under the same combination of prior arts. Dependent claims 14-15 are rejected under Olberding in view of Vanderstraeten, further in view of Regan. Independent claim 16 is rejected as being obvious over Regan as modified by Olberding, Vanderstraeten, and Yashiro which teaches all of the claimed limitations. Dependent claim 19 is also rejected under same combination of prior arts.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-16, and 19 remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL J PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-9324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9 am - 7 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.
/Vishal Pancholi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights