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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 5, 6 and 73-77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silveyra (U.S. 2,338,604) in view of Pereira et al. (U.S. 2016/0016695).
Regarding claim 1, Sylveyra teaches a foil cartridge “a” fillable with at least one fluid (col. 1 lines 8-16), the foil cartridge comprising a foil bag b (made of foil as modified below) as a cartridge shell (figure 1), and a rigid head part at a’, the head part at a’ comprising an outlet opening (at lead line 12; figure 1) configured to empty the fluid of the foil cartridge and an external thread (shown at lead line 11; figure 1; page 2 col. 1 lines 7-13) configured to fasten the foil cartridge to a support sleeve b’ (page 2 col. 1 lines 14-22, the foil bag fixed to the head part so as to contact and be sealed with the external thread (page 1 col. 2 line 55 - page 2 col. 1 line 6).
Further regarding claim 1, Silveyra discloses the claimed invention except for the bag being a foil bag. Pereira et al. teaches that it is known to form a bag from foil material (see foil disclosed in paragraph [0087]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Silveyra with the bag being made of foil, as taught by Pereira et al., in order to reinforce the bag and since 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.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the foil bag (as modified above) is fixed to an outer side of the head part, (fixed to outer side of inner wall of a’).
Regarding claim 5, Silveyra discloses the claimed invention except for the foil bag being adhesively bonded to the head part. Pereira et al. teaches that it is known to provide an assembly with the foil bag being adhesively bonded to the head part (see paragraph [0131]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Silveyra with the foil bag being adhesively bonded to the head part, as taught by Pereira et al., in order to prevent the accidental separation of the elements.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the head part is molded to the foil bag (page 2 col. 1 lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 73, wherein the support sleeve has an internal thread at 4 that corresponds to the external thread of the foil cartridge (figure 2).
Regarding claim 74, the support sleeve b’ is formed from metal (page 41 col. 2 lines 32-35)
Regarding claim 75, the support sleeve 2 is formed in one piece (figure 1).
Regarding claim 76, the support sleeve (when comprised of elements 1 and 2) is formed from multiple parts (figure 1).
Regarding claim 77, the support sleeve has at least one connection point configured to connect various parts of the support sleeve to one another (page 2 col. 1 lines 28-32).
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silveyra (U.S. 2,338,604) in view of Pereira et al. (U.S. 2016/0016695), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumura et al. (JP 2002104448A).
Regarding claim 56, the modified foil cartridge of Silveyra discloses the claimed invention except for the web region. Matsumura et al. teaches that it is known to provide a cartridge with a web region (see element at lead line 11 in figure 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified foil cartridge of Silveyra with the web region, as taught by Matsumura et al., in order to protect the upper edge of the bag.
Claim 78 and 103 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silveyra (U.S. 2,338,604) in view of Pereira et al. (U.S. 2016/0016695), as applied to claims 77 and 73 above, and further in view of D’Anglade (U.S. 2013/0140306).
Regarding claim 78, the modified assembly of Silveyra discloses the claimed invention except for the connection point being a click closure. D’Anglade teaches that it is known to provide a cartridge with a connection point being a click closure (see elements 30 and 26). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified foil cartridge of Silveyra with the connection point being a click closure, as taught by D’Anglade, in order to provide a secure yet removable connection between the parts.
Regarding claim 103, the modified assembly of Silveyra discloses the claimed invention except for the multiple connection points. D’Anglade teaches that it is known to provide a cartridge with multiple connection points (see elements 30 and 26). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified foil cartridge of Silveyra with multiple connection points, as taught by D’Anglade, in order to provide a secure yet removable connection between the parts.
Claim 81 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silveyra (U.S. 2,338,604) in view of Pereira et al. (U.S. 2016/0016695), as applied to claim 73 above, and further in view of Babcock et al. (U.S. 2002/0134747). The modified cartridge of Silveyra discloses the claimed invention except for the multi-start thread. Babcock et al. teaches that it is known to form a neck with a multi-start thread (see paragraph [0004]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified cartridge of Silveyra with the thread being a multi-start thread, as taught by Babcock et al., for ease of closure removal.
Claim 102 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silveyra (U.S. 2,338,604) in view of Pereira et al. (U.S. 2016/0016695), as applied to claim 74 above, and further in view of Levy (U.S. 4,147,282).
Regarding claim 102, the modified cartridge of Silveyra discloses the claimed invention except for the support sleeve being made of aluminum. Levy teaches that it is known to form a support sleeve from aluminum (see col. 7 lines 3-7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified cartridge of Silveyra with the support sleeve being made of aluminum, as taught by Levy, in order to use a durable material, and since 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the primary reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The primary reference of Silveyra has been used in the rejection for the teaching of fixing the foil bag to the head part so as to contact and be sealed with external thread. The bag is secured to the inner surface of the external thread, as shown in figure 1).
Conclusion
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 NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
