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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 9 line 4 "nozzle (of the mid capsule" should read "nozzle of the mid capsule". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a modular encapsulation system" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9-14 directly or indirectly depend from claim 8 and are also rejected. Isn’t the invention named “a modular encapsulation system”? Is this not referring to the name of the invention?
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the central hole" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9-14 directly or indirectly depend from claim 8 and are also rejected.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the bottom nozzle" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9-14 directly or indirectly depend from claim 8 and are also rejected.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the " in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9-14 directly or indirectly depend from claim 8 and are also rejected.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the of a bottom capsule" in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9-14 directly or indirectly depend from claim 8 and are also rejected.
The term “by having a” or “by the” in claim 8-14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “by having a” or “by the” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “by” seems to be used unnecessarily throughout the claims. For example, it is said “comprising: (line 2)……. an outer bottle (line 5)…. by having a connector inserted into (line 8)”. Is this stating an intended function or is it claiming the physical presence of a connector? Is “by having a” intended to modify the outer bottle or another feature. It is not clear. The phrase “by having a” does not seem to make grammatical sense. Perhaps the word “comprising” or “having” (alone) should be used instead. For the purposes of interpretation, it shall be interpreted that the statement “by having a” is meant to be interpreted similarly to the word “having a”. With respect to “by the”, the term “by” seems to be unnecessarily used in the phrase and indicates an action (that is absent). There are multiple instances of this throughout all of the claims. For the purposes of examination, the term “by” shall be removed from the phrase “by the”. Note, only a few usages of “by” are correct, for example “locking mechanism by rotation” is proper.
The term “a greater diameter outer circular base” in claim 8is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a greater diameter outer circular base” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is greater relative to? Is this redundant in saying the outer diameter of this feature is larger than its own inner diameter? Is "greater" being used in lieu of "larger"? It seems this phrasing is incomplete.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the mid capsule" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9-14 directly or indirectly depend from claim 8 and are also rejected.
The term “the connector”, “whose connector” and “the connector, the connectors and the connector of the modular encapsulation system” in claims 8is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term ““the connector”, “whose connector” and “the connector, the connectors and the connector of the modular encapsulation system” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In general, it is not clear what connector is being referenced through the claims. The term connector is being used to describe multiple different parts. It is unclear which connector is being referenced in latter statements of these features. For example, “the connector, the connectors and the connector of the modular encapsulation system” seems to have an antecedent issue but also does not clarify which connector is being referenced or which connectors. Each connector needs clear nomenclature, for example, a first connector, a second connector, etc. or the bottom connector of the top capsule, the top connector of the mid capsule, etc. This issue is present throughout the claims and needs correction. Multiple parts cannot have the same name. There are multiple instances of this throughout all of the claims. Claim 11 and 12 it is not easily understood which connector is being referenced.
The term “which receives the connector from bottom to top” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “which receives the connector from bottom to top” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In general, it is not clear what connector is being referenced through the claims. What is being claimed? How can an item (the mid capsule?) receive a singular item (the connector) from bottom to top? Is the statement trying to convey that there is are two connectors on the mid capsule; one at the bottom and one at the top? If so, it is written improperly. The idea of multiple connectors is not presented in the claims. A singular connector can not be both on the top and bottom.
The term “wherein the connector is employed on the bottom hollow nozzle of the top capsule by the circular perimeter recess; by the connector being fitted into the top hollow nozzle (of the mid capsule by a circular perimeter recess and, being fitted into the bottom hollow nozzle by circular perimeter recess; by the connector being fitted into the top hollow nozzle of the bottom capsule by the circular perimeter recess.” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wherein the connector is employed on the bottom hollow nozzle of the top capsule by the circular perimeter recess; by the connector being fitted into the top hollow nozzle (of the mid capsule by a circular perimeter recess and, being fitted into the bottom hollow nozzle by circular perimeter recess; by the connector being fitted into the top hollow nozzle of the bottom capsule by the circular perimeter recess. ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This seems like an antecedent issue. Multiple connectors are described in claim 8, which is being referenced now? A singular connector cannot be in multiple places at once. For example, “being fitted into the bottom hollow nozzle” of which capsule? Is this referring to the top capsule?
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boldis (US 9278781 B1) in view of Tsuge (US 4564119 A).
With respect to claim 8, Boldis discloses a modular encapsulation system for combining multiple fragrances for perfumes, comprising: a set of capsules that actuates (intended function) with a valve endowed with a tube, inserted into a threaded neck for perfumes, and an outer bottle (can be a bottommost container, so seventh 122), wherein the set of capsules has a modular encapsulation system formed by a top cylindrical base incorporated into a top capsule (topmost 122), wherein the cylindrical base comprises a threaded neck (124,134,138) that passes through the central hole of the top capsule being covered by a membrane (146); by having a connector (second 122) inserted into the bottom hollow nozzle (126, 136, 140) of the top capsule, whose connector presents a greater diameter outer circular base (body of second 122), which interconnects with a rising central body (top portion of second 122), completing a circular perimeter recess (recess of threads of 124, 134, 138); by the rising central body having an internal seat that accommodates a membrane (146 of second 122); by the connector (second 122) being equipped with a bottom projected cylindrical body (bottom of second 122) endowed with fitting beads (126, 136, 140); further, by the modular encapsulation system comprising a connector (third 122), which has a projected cylindrical body (144) equipped with an internal seat to house a membrane (intended function); by the projected cylindrical body (144 of third 122) being connected on a larger diameter cylindrical base (body of third 122) endowed with internal recesses, which are interconnected on extended channels; by the mid capsule (fourth 122) presenting a bottom hollow nozzle (130 of fourth 122), which receives the connector from bottom to top; by the modular encapsulation system also having a connector (fifth 122) which is inserted into the top hollow nozzle (144) of a bottom capsule (sixth 122), wherein the connector (fifth 122) is comprised of a greater diameter outer circular base, which is interconnected on a rising central body (144 of fifth 122), completing a circular perimeter recess; by the rising central body (144 of fifth 122) comprising an internal seat to house a membrane (intended function); by the connector (fifth 122) presenting a bottom projected cylindrical body endowed with fitting beads (threads 126, 136, 140); further, by the connector, the connectors and the connector of the modular encapsulation system forming a locking mechanism by rotation (inherent), which enables the top capsule to be interlocked in the mid capsule, and the bottom capsule to be interlocked in the mid capsule.
Boldis failed to disclose of the modular encapsulation system having aluminum seals, applied between the connector and the top capsule and, between the connector of the mid capsule, as well as between the lower connector of the mid capsule and the connector of the bottom capsule. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely cans/containers, Tsuge taught of a can that is made of aluminum (abstract) as is common in the art. Boldis failed to teach of the material of the can/container. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of can containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include aluminum as taught by Tsuge in the can container of Boldis since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present Boldis teaches of a can and adding an aluminum material as taught by Tsuge would maintain the same functionality of the Boldis, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Examiner Note: To read on the claimed limitation a stack of multiple containers 122s are used. As seen if figure 10, the container can be stacked. Nomenclature goes from top to bottom with first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth.
PNG
media_image1.png
640
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
622
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 14, the references as applied to claim 8, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Boldis further discloses wherein the modular encapsulation system is configured by means of a top capsule, two, four, five or more mid capsules and a bottom capsule. (the system as taught by Bodis can accommodate this amount of capsules)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 are rejected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 9 is rejected due to its dependency on the rejected claim 8. Search results for prior art in this field failed to identify wherein the connector is employed on the bottom hollow nozzle of the top capsule by the circular perimeter recess; by the connector being fitted into the top hollow nozzle of the mid capsule by a circular perimeter recess and, being fitted into the bottom hollow nozzle by circular perimeter recess; by the connector being fitted into the top hollow nozzle of the bottom capsule by the circular perimeter recess.
Claim 10 is rejected due to its dependency on the rejected claim 8. Search results for prior art in this field failed to identify wherein the membrane is accommodated on the internal seat of the connector of the top capsule; by the membrane being housed on the internal seat of the connector of the mid capsule; by the membrane being accommodated on the internal seat of the connector of the bottom capsule and; allow no type of handling of the fragrances incorporated in the top capsule, in the mid capsule and in the bottom capsule.
Claim 11 is rejected due to its dependency on the rejected claim 8. Search results for prior art in this field failed to identify wherein the locking mechanism by rotation actuating by the top capsule is inserted into the mid capsule, by the fitting beads situated on the bottom projected cylindrical body of the connector, which enter into the recesses of the larger diameter cylindrical base of the connector; further, by the locking mechanism by rotation enabling the top capsule to be rotated against the mid capsule, or vice-versa, meaning that the fitting beads access the extended channels interconnected to the recesses, whereupon locking occurs between the top capsule and the mid capsule.
Claim 12 is rejected due to its dependency on the rejected claim 8. Search results for prior art in this field failed to identify wherein the locking mechanism by rotation actuating by the bottom capsule is inserted into the mid capsule, where the fitting beads of the bottom projected cylindrical body of the connector, access the recesses of the larger diameter cylindrical base of the connector; further, by the locking mechanism by rotation enabling the bottom capsule to be rotated against the mid capsule, or vice-versa, meaning that the fitting beads access the extended channels interconnected to the recesses of the connector, whereupon locking occurs between the bottom capsule and the mid capsule.
Claim 13 is rejected due to its dependency on the rejected claim 8. Search results for prior art in this field failed to identify wherein the threaded neck of the top cylindrical base inserted into the top capsule is incorporated by a valve endowed with a tube, wherein the tube breaks the membrane of the top capsule, the two membranes of the mid capsule and the membrane of the bottom capsule, in a controlled manner, to cause the mixture of the fragrances to configure a perfume; since the top capsule may store a fragrance "X", the mid capsule a fragrance "Y" and the bottom capsule a fragrance "Z".
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-3067896-A OR US-2930408-A OR US-9278781-B1 OR US-4564119-A OR US-6021892-A OR US-11091295-B2 OR US-5671856-A OR US-7083043-B2 OR US-4598832-A OR US-4444324-A OR AU-2006346692-B2 OR EP-0260179-A1 OR FR-2764868-B1 OR FR-2663304-B1 OR US-20210394937-A1 OR US-20170203265-A1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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 on (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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735