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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 27, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pereira et al. (U.S. 2016/0016695). Regarding claim 1, a foil cartridge 10 fillable with at least one fluid, the foil cartridge comprising a foil bag (foil disclosed in paragraph [0087]) as a cartridge shell (figure 3), and a rigid head part 70, the head part 70 comprising an outlet opening (at lead line 70; figure 17) configured to empty the fluid of the foil cartridge and an external thread (shown at lead line 74; figure 17; paragraph [0120]) configured to fasten the foil cartridge to a support sleeve, the foil bag fastened to the head part such that the foil bag envelops the external thread (figures 14-16).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the foil bag is fixed to an outer side of the head part, as shown in figures 14-16.
Regarding claim 5, wherein the foil bag 10 is adhesively bonded to the head part (paragraph [0131]).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the head part is molded to the foil bag (figure 16).
Regarding claim 73, wherein the support sleeve has an internal thread that corresponds to the external thread of the foil cartridge.
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.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira et al. (U.S. 2016/0016695) in view of Matsumura et al. (JP 2002104448A). Regarding claim 56, Pereira et al. 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 foil cartridge of Pereira et al. with the web region, as taught by Matsumura et al., in order to protect the upper edge of the bag.
Claims 73-78 and 103 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira et al. (U.S. 2016/0016695) in view of Silveyra (U.S. 2,338,604).
Regarding claim 73, Pereira et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the support sleeve. Silveyra teaches that it is known to provide a cartridge with a support sleeve (see element b). 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 foil cartridge of Pereira et al. with a support sleeve, as taught by Silveyra, in order to provide reinforcement of the opening of the cartridge.
Further regarding claim 73, the support sleeve (b of Silveyra) has an internal thread (b’ of Silveyra) that corresponds to the external thread (at 74) of the foil cartridge (of Pereira et al.).
Regarding claim 74, the support sleeve (b of Silveyra) is formed from metal, or from plastic (element 2 of support sleeve is formed of metal; page 1 col. 2 lines 31-35 of Silveyra).
Regarding claim 75, wherein the support sleeve (b of Silveyra) is formed in one piece (since elements 2 and 1 of casing b of Silveyra are permanently secured together, they are considered one piece).
Regarding claim 76, the support sleeve (b of Silveyra) is formed from multiple parts (2, 1 of Silveyra).
Regarding claim 77, the support sleeve (b of Silveyra) has at least one connection point (at flange of 2 of Silveyra), configured to connect various parts of the support sleeve to one another.
Regarding claim 78, the connection point is a thread, a bayonet connection or a click closure (see thread taught by Silveyra).
Regarding claim 103, the support sleeve (b of Silveyra) has a plurality of connection points configured to connect various parts of the support sleeve to one another (at 8 and at the outer flange of 2 of Silveyra).
Claim 81 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira et al. (U.S. 2016/0016695) in view of Silveyra (U.S. 2,338,604), as applied to claim 73 above, and further in view of Babcock et al. (U.S. 2002/0134747). The modified cartridge of Pereira et al. 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 Pereira et al. 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 Pereira et al. (U.S. 2016/0016695) in view of Silveyra (U.S. 2,338,604), as applied to claim 74 above, and further in view of Levy (U.S. 4,147,282). The modified cartridge of Pereira et al. 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 Pereira et al. 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
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