DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication mailed by the applicant on 01/23/2026. There are 20 pending claims which are examined. This office action is a final rejection.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4-20 are objected for the following reasons
Claim 4 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. Here, claim 4 is multiple dependent claim which depends from claim 3 which is also a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claims 5-7 are also objected for being dependent on claim 4.
Claim 8 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. Here, claim 8 is multiple dependent claim which depends from claim 3 which is also a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 9 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. Here, claim 9 is multiple dependent claim which depends from claim 8 which is also a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 10 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. Here, claim 10 is multiple dependent claim which depends from any one of claims 4 to 9 which include a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claims 11-13 are also objected to for being dependent on claim 10, 4, and 12, respectively.
Claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. Here, claim 14 is multiple dependent claim which depends from any one of claims 1 to 13 which include a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. Here, claim 15 is multiple dependent claim which depends from any one of claims 1 to 13 which include a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. Here, claim 16 is multiple dependent claim which depends from any one of claims 1 to 15 which include a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claims 17-20 are objected to for being dependent on claim 16.
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 1-5 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regan et al. (“Regan” hereinafter) (US PG PUB 2007/0125809).
Regarding claim 1, Regan teaches a fluid dispenser container (figure 5) comprising a transparent plastic container body (item 50, figure 5, paragraph [0041]) with an open end and a separate bottom part (item 1, figure 5) joined by laser welding (paragraph [0041]) to the open end of the transparent plastic container body, characterized in that the separate bottom part is made from the same plastic material as the plastic container body (paragraphs [0037], [0040]).
(NOTE: the claim recitations “the separate bottom part is laser welded to the plastic container body by melting mating surface lines on the plastic container body (12) and on the separate bottom part (13), 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 at least full circular motion while the plastic container is stationary” 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, Regan is silent on whether the bottom part is made of a same transparent plastic material or not.
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 made the bottom part of Regan from same transparent PET material as the plastic container body since doing so ensures a secure and reliable welding connection between the two parts. Furthermore, keeping the container and the bottom part transparent keeps the entire dispenser assembly transparent and add to the aesthetics of the assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Regan teaches a piston (item 52, figure 5) for dispensing fluid is provided but is silent to being made from a plastic material with a density lower as the density of PET.
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 Regan 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 claim 4, Regan teaches that the transparent bottom part has a ring-shaped outer rim (item 32, figure 1) and an inner cup (item 35, figure 1) which has a central passageway (item 36, figure 1) provided by a central cylindrical tube (tube formed by wall 35, figure 1) with an upper central hole (figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Regan 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 Regan 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 10, Regan teaches a fill valve (item 37, figure 1) 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 1) is provided.
Regarding claim 11, Regan teaches the closing element is made from rubber (paragraph [0018]).
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 chosen any appropriate material for the closing element in the invention of Regan such as rubber, PET, polyester or any other material suitable for application. 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 claim 12, Regan teaches that the central cylindrical tube (figure 1) has open ends on both ends and a movable closing element (item 37, figure 1) of an elastomeric material is provided within the central tube.
Regarding claim 13, Regan teaches that the closing element is designed as two stage Nicholson plug or as umbrella valve or as rope bung plug (paragraph [0018], figure 1).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, 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]).
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 transparent 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]).
Regarding claim 17, Regan teaches that a thin ring-shaped absorber layer is applied to the outer wall of the transparent bottom part and then joined by laser welding to the transparent container (paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 18, Regan teaches that the thin-lined absorber layer is applied on the outer wall of the bottom part but is silent to the application being done by inkjet technology.
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 applied the carbon material as an absorbing layer on the bottom part with an inkjet method or any other suitable and known method since doing so does not change the resultant structure of the plastic dispensing assembly as long as effective laser welding is carried out between the plastic container body and the bottom part.
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]).
Regarding claim 20, Regan teaches that transparent laser plastic welding (TLPW) is applied , in which a higher wavelength laser is used than the typical 808nm or 980nm infrared lasers used in through-transmission welding (paragraph [0041]), such that some of the laser energy is still transmitted or passed through the trans- parent container body, but at this higher wavelength laser energy is absorbed through the separate transparent bottom part, in order to heat and plasticize the plastic material at the joint area between the transparent container body and the separate transparent bottom part (paragraph [0041]).
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderstraeten et al. (“Vanderstraeten” hereinafter) (US PG PUB 2023/0013157) in view of Regan.
Regarding claim 1, 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 transparent plastic container body, characterized in that the separate bottom part is made from the same plastic material as the plastic container body (paragraphs [0098], [0116], [0137]).
(NOTE: the claim recitations “the separate bottom part is laser welded to the plastic container body by melting mating surface lines on the plastic container body (12) and on the separate bottom part (13), 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 at least full circular motion while the plastic container is stationary” 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, Vanderstraeten is silent on whether the bottom part is made of a same transparent plastic material as the plastic container body.
Regan teaches another plastic container body made of a transparent PET material (paragraphs [0037], [0040-41]).
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 made the bottom part of Vanderstraeten, as taught by Regan, from same transparent PET material as the plastic container body since doing so ensures a secure and reliable welding connection between the two parts. Furthermore, keeping the container and the bottom part transparent keeps the entire dispenser assembly transparent and add to the aesthetics of the assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Vanderstraeten teaches a piston (item 52, figure 5) for dispensing fluid is provided but is silent to being made from a plastic material with a density lower as the density of PET.
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 Vanderstraeten 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, 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).
Regarding claim 5, 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 Vanderstraeten in order to provide them with same strength and cross-sectional area and provide uniformity to the overall structure of the bottom part.
PNG
media_image1.png
510
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Fig. 5 Of Vanderstraeten
Regarding claim 7, 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 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, Vanderstraeten teaches that the upper central hole is bridged or domed by a cylindrical plug (item 42, figure 5) which is connected to opposite pillars (see annotated figure above) protruding from the central tube.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 regarding rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under Regan and Vanderstraeten have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued, in light amended claims 1 and 16, that the amendments overcome the prior arts Regan and Vanderstraeten because they do not teach amended claim recitations. Applicant contended that the amendment added the limitation regarding “an extra layer” in claims 1 and 16 which are not taught by the prior arts and thus the claims are allowable.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “an extra layer”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to point out that no such amendment is present in claims 1 and 16. It is not clear as to what the applicant is referring to because both claims 1 and 16 only include addition of “-to” as amendments in any case, none of the amendments overcome the rejections of claims. Furthermore, the applicant has not responded to any rejections in particular but merely concluded that the amendments do overcome the prior arts. The amendments do not change the claim rejections because they are aimed at product-by-process limitations of claim 1 which are not overcome through amendments or arguments.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
For these reasons, the rejections of claims 1-5 and 10-20 under Regan and the rejections of claims 1-9 under Vanderstraeten are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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