DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: No description of an outer surface and inner surface of the dispenser part remaining in single plane as recited in claim 15-16.
Appropriate correction is required.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/214,299, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. There is no support in the original disclosure for outer surface/inner surface of the dispenser part remains in a single plane as recited in claims 15-16. Accordingly, claims 15-16 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-5, 7, 9-10, 15-16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,465,856 to Sheffler in view of US 2005/0067084 to Kagan et al. (Kagan).
Regarding claim 1, Sheffler discloses a dispenser part (Fig 16) having an inner surface (A, Fig 16 below) and outer surface (B, Fig 16 below), said dispenser part comprising a first injection molded plastic component part (22), a second injection molded plastic component part (26), an injection molded seam (58-64) in which the first component part (22) is mated directly to the second component part (26) to define the dispenser part, wherein a transverse cross section of the seam comprises a first surface (58) at an angle to the inner surface (A), a second surface (C, Fig 16 below) at an angle to the first planar surface (58), a third surface (60) at an angle to the second surface (C) and the outer surface (B), wherein the first (58) and second surface (C) are joined at a first corner (D, Fig 16 below), wherein the second (C) and third surface (60) are joined at a second corner (E, Fig 16 below) but does not teach wherein the first and second corner each comprise rounded surfaces. However, Kagan discloses using injection molding to produce a thermoplastic article where the seam is round shape (16e, Fig 3e) and comprises two surfaces joined at a rounded corner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to round the corners of Sheffler as suggested by Kagan in order to have a curved seam to facilitate sealing. Note that product by process limitations are given little patentable weight and so long as prior art has the structure as recited, then it can be made by the process as recited. In the instant case, the seam can be formed during injection molding since it has the structure as recited.
PNG
media_image1.png
449
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Sheffler further discloses surfaces extends along the length of the seam (Fig 9).
Regarding claims 3-4, Sheffer further discloses the contact surface having a transverse extension (94, Fig 9) but does not teach the recited difference between that and the thickness of a component part. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found to optimize the thickness range of the component parts to faciliate a stronger container since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA1955).
Regarding claims 5, Sheffer further discloses the surfaces forming a first step adjacent outer surface of dispenser part (Fig 16).
Regarding claim 7, Sheffer discloses the part of claim 5 but does not teach a second step adjacent inner surface of the dispenser part. However, Sheffer further discloses a shear joint comprising a second step (102, Fig 9) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a second step in order to form a shear joint.
Regarding claims 9-10, Sheffer further discloses the steps having a height but does not teach the recited difference between the height and the thickness of a component part as recited. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found to optimize the thickness range of the component parts to facilitate a stronger container since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA1955).
Regarding claim 15, Sheffer further discloses outer surface (B, Fig 16 above) of dispenser part remains in single plane across a portion of the first injection molded plastic component part nearest injection molded seam, injection molded seam, and portion of the second injection molded plastic component part nearest the injection molded seam (Fig 16 above).
Regarding claim 16, Sheffer further discloses inner surface (A, Fig 16 above) of dispenser part remains in single plane across a portion of the first injection molded plastic component part nearest injection molded seam, injection molded seam, and portion of the second injection molded plastic component part nearest the injection molded seam (Fig 16 above).
Claims 11-14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sheffler in view of Kagan and US Patent No. 6,168,588 to Wilson.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Sheffler does not teach additional step. However, Wilson discloses weld seams having additional steps (52, 54, 56, Fig 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to incorporate additional steps to the seam in order to have an elongated seam.
Regarding claim 12-14, the modified Sheffler teaches the dispenser part of claim 11 but does not teach the height and thickness as recited. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found to optimize the thickness range of the component parts to facilitate a stronger container since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims. Applicant argues the objection to the specification and priority benefits for claims 15-16. Applicant’s argument not persuasive because although the specification describes the front surfaces of the component parts being completely flush along the seam, this is not equivalent to the claimed recitation of the inner surface of the dispenser part remains in a single plane because applicant has not established that the front surface is the inner surface of the dispenser part. Applicant’s argument that the specification describes front, rear, inner and outer being defined in relation to a visible outer front or side surface of the dispenser or where the surfaces faces the user is not persuasive because the claims do not establish which side the user faces.
Applicant argues that none of the prior art teach an injection molded seam because Sheffler teaches an ultrasonic welded seam. This is not persuasive because product by process limitations are given little patentable weight and so long as prior art has the structure of the seam as recited, then it meets the claim. In particular, Sheffler discloses a seam comprising the surfaces as recited except for rounded corners. Kagan discloses a method of optimizing joined thermoplastic parts through injection molding a two-piece plastic assembly where the joined seam (16e) is round (€0028). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to curve the corners of Sheffler seam such that the seam was rounded as suggested by Kagan in order to facilitate sealing.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Sheffler discloses a seam formed by ultrasonic welding and there would be no motivation to form the seam by injection molding. This is not persuasive because not only are product by process limitations given little patentable weight, Sheffler also discloses that the seam can be formed by equivalent means involving heat fusing the mating abuttable surfaces of the injection molded components (col. 6, ll. 5-15). Kagan discloses injected molded seam where the mating abuttable surfaces are heat fused. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to round the corners of Sheffler in order to achieve a better seam as suggested by Kagan.
Applicant argues that Kagan fails to disclose any seam with steps or surfaces at different angles; however, Sheffler already discloses seams with steps or surfaces at different angles and furthermore, Kagan discloses seam with steps (Fig 3c) and also seam with rounded surface (16e) formed from a corner.
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 ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ROBERT POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
