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
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(s) 1-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brouwers, et al. (“Brouwers”) (U.S. Pub. 2019/0218484) in view of Hubner, et al. (“Hubner”) (U.S. Pat. 2,207,294).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Brouwers discloses a bottom dispensing package for a liquid composition comprising:
a resiliently squeezable container (11) for housing the liquid composition, the container comprising a container wall which is at least partially made from a thermoplastic elastomer (¶ [0138]), the container wall comprises an interior surface and an exterior surface (seen in Fig. 9) and a base (16) comprising an orifice (23) operably connected to the container.
Brouwers does not disclose that the interior surface comprises at least one circumferentially oriented groove.
Hubner discloses a compressible dispensing container (1) with a wall (8) having at least one circumferentially oriented groove (Fig. 2: 12) on the interior surface of the wall. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teaching of Hubner by using circumferentially oriented grooves on the interior surface of the container wall to produce a highly elastic protective zone serving to take up the tensile stress arising when the receptacle is deformed. (page 2, col. 1, lines 38-40)
Hubner does not specify that the height of the at least one circumferentially oriented groove is from about 0.1 mm to about 6.0 mm, wherein the height is measured as the distance between the groove bottom and the groove top, measured perpendicular to the exterior surface of the container wall.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to test for the various parameters associated with the dispenser as taught by Brouwers in view of Hubner, specifically to test for the height of the at least one circumferentially oriented groove, by routine experimentation, in order to determine the ideal height of the groove, such as 0.1mm to 6.0 mm, wherein the height is measured as the distance between the groove bottom and the groove top, measured perpendicular to the exterior surface of the container wall, associated with the dispenser.
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses multiple circumferentially oriented grooves (Hubner) over a groove zone which extends over at least about 25% of the height of the container. (seen in Fig. 2 of Hubner)
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses multiple circumferentially oriented grooves (Hubner) over a groove zone which extends over at least about 25% of the height of the container (seen in Fig. 2 of Hubner) but does not specify that the groove zone extends over at least 50% of the height of the container, however, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to test for the various parameters associated with the dispenser as taught by Brouwers in view of Hubner, specifically to test for the height of the groove zone, by routine experimentation, in order to determine the ideal height of the groove zone, such as about 50% of the container height, associated with the dispenser.
Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses that the container wall has a wider portion (Brouwers: Fig. 1A, seen towards the top and bottom), such that at least part of the exterior surface of the container has a convex shape (Brouwers: Fig. 1A, seen towards top) and it would have been obvious to position the at least one groove at least partially in the wider portion of the container wall to take up the tensile stress arising when the receptacle is deformed. (page 2, col. 1, lines 38-40)
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to test for the various parameters associated with the dispenser as taught by Brouwers in view of Hubner, specifically to test for the height of the at least one circumferentially oriented groove, by routine experimentation, in order to determine the ideal height of the groove, such as 0.5 mm to 5.0 mm, wherein the height is measured as the distance between the groove bottom and the groove top, measured perpendicular to the exterior surface of the container wall, associated with the dispenser.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to test for the various parameters associated with the dispenser as taught by Brouwers in view of Hubner, specifically to test for the height of the at least one circumferentially oriented groove, by routine experimentation, in order to determine the ideal height of the groove, such as 1.0 mm to 3.0 mm, wherein the height is measured as the distance between the groove bottom and the groove top, measured perpendicular to the exterior surface of the container wall, associated with the dispenser.
Regarding claim 7, the combination, as modified by Hubner discloses at least two circumferentially oriented grooves (Hubner: Fig. 2: 12) but does not specify their pitch; however, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to test for the various parameters associated with the dispenser as taught by Brouwers in view of Hubner, specifically to test for the pitch between grooves, by routine experimentation, in order to determine the ideal pitch spacing of the grooves, such as 1 mm to 15 mm, wherein the pitch is defined as the distance between two adjacent peaks of the circumferentially oriented grooves on the interior surface of the container.
Regarding claim 8, the combination is silent in regards to the wall thickness size where the grooves are positioned; however, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to test for the various parameters associated with the dispenser as taught by Brouwers in view of Hubner, specifically to test for the wall thickness, by routine experimentation, in order to determine the ideal wall thickness , such as 0.25 mm to about 8.0 mm where the grooves are positioned on the container.
Regarding claim 9, the combination is silent in regards to the wall thickness size where the grooves are positioned; however, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to test for the various parameters associated with the dispenser as taught by Brouwers in view of Hubner, specifically to test for the wall thickness, by routine experimentation, in order to determine the ideal wall thickness , such as 0.5 mm to about 6.0 mm where the grooves are positioned on the container.
Regarding claim 11, Brouwers discloses that the resiliently squeezable container is made from a thermoplastic elastomer but does not specify the hardness, a tensile elongation or a compression set of the material; however, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to manufacture the flexible container of known materials, with properties such as Shore A of about 0-80, a tensile elongation of about 200mm/min @23°C of from about 200% to about 1000% or a compression set of less than 50% measured at about 23°C over about 72 hours, on the basis of their suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 12, Brouwers discloses that the resiliently squeezable container is made from a thermoplastic elastomer but does not specify the hardness, a tensile elongation or a compression set of the material; however, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to manufacture the flexible container of known materials, with properties such as Shore A of about 5-60, a tensile elongation of about 200mm/min @23°C of from about 250% to about 750% or a compression set of less than 35% measured at about 23°C over about 72 hours, on the basis of their suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 13, Brouwers discloses that the container has a wider portion (seen in Fig. 1, towards top), such that at least part of the exterior surface of the container has a convex shape.
Regarding claim 14, Brouwers discloses that the container wall has a narrow portion (seen in Fig. 1, towards middle), such that at least part of the exterior surface of the container has a concave shape.
Regarding claim 15, Brouwers discloses that the container wall has a wider portion (seen in Fig. 1, towards the bottom) and a narrow portion (seen in Fig. 1, towards middle), such that the narrow portion is above the wider portion.
Regarding claim 18, Brouwers discloses that the orifice comprises a slit valve (25).
Regarding claim 19, Brouwers discloses that base does not comprise a cap.
Regarding claim 20, Brouwers discloses that the package comprises a liquid detergent composition, the liquid detergent composition having a viscosity of from about 100 mPa·s to about 3,000 mPa·s, measured at a shear rate of about 10 s-1. (¶ [0045])
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brouwers and Hubner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leonoff (U.S. Pub. 2008/0314933).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Brouwers does not mention a vent located at the top of the container. Leonoff discloses a squeezable dispensing container with a one-way vent (Fig. 1: 46) at an end of a container directly opposite a dispensing end (18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teaching of Leonoff’s air vent on the top of Brouwers container, opposite the dispensing end, which allows air to enter from the environment into the interior of the container, but does not allow liquid to exit through the check valve from inside the container which will prevent container deformation and noise associated with internal container pressure fluctuation. (¶ [0022])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892, attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MELARAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-7735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8 am - 5 pm +/- flex.
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.
/MICHAEL J. MELARAGNO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 January 30, 2026