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 § 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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the one-way valve". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beer (20170348715).
Regarding claim 1, Beer discloses a bottom dispensing package for a liquid composition comprising: a) a resiliently squeezable container (22) for housing the liquid composition, the resiliently squeezable container comprising a container wall (22A); and b) a base (32) operably connected to said container, wherein the base comprises an orifice (38A); wherein the container comprises a one-way vent (46), wherein the one-way vent allows the ingress of air into the container while preventing the egress of air from the container, wherein the one-way vent is positioned in the container top and/or in the container wall above a height of about 90% of the height of the package (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, the container comprises a cap (34), and the one-way vent is positioned in the cap (Figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, the container comprises a cap (34), and the one-way vent is centered in the cap (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, the container comprises a top portion (34), distal from the base, which is configured to prevent the package from being stably stood on its top (the check-valve, 46, projecting from the top would prevent the container from resting stably on the top), thereby maintaining a bottom-dispensing orientation.
Regarding claim 5, the top portion is curved (Fig. 4 shows that the top is curved at the upper rim; Fig. 1 shows the cylindrical side wall is also curved) or angled.
Regarding claim 6, the top portion comprises a cap (34) wherein the cap is curved (Fig. 4 shows that the top is curved at the upper rim; Fig. 1 shows the cylindrical side wall is also curved) or angled.
Regarding claim 9, the one-way valve is selected from: duckbill valves, umbrella valves, flapper valves, ball valves, degassing valves, and spring-loaded valves (par. 0032).
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) 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer.
Regarding claim 7, Beer discloses an opening pressure differential from exterior side to the interior side (par. 0033).
Beer discloses the claimed invention except for the one-way vent has an opening pressure differential from the exterior side to the interior side of from about 10 mbar to about 250 mbar measured at about 20° C. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the opening pressure differential from the exterior side to the interior side of from about 10 mbar to about 250 mbar measured at about 20° C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 II-A).
Regarding claim 8, Beer discloses an opening pressure differential from exterior side to the interior side (par. 0033).
Beer discloses the claimed invention except for the one-way vent has an opening pressure differential from the exterior side to the interior side of from about 15 mbar to about 150 mbar measured at about 20° C. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the opening pressure differential from the exterior side to the interior side of from about 15 mbar to about 150 mbar measured at about 20° C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP2144.05 II-A).
Regarding claim 10, the resiliently squeezable container has an elasticity index (par. 0029).
Beer discloses the claimed invention except for an elasticity index of from about 0.75% to about 1.75% as measured using the described elasticity index method. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the resiliently squeezable container to have an elasticity index of from about 0.75% to about 1.75% as measured using the described elasticity index method, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP2144.05 II-A).
Claim(s) 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer in view of Hall (151775).
Regarding claim 11, Beer DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the resiliently squeezable container is made from an elastomer, wherein the elastomer is selected from the group consisting of: thermoplastic elastomer, silicone rubber, rubber, or a combination thereof. Attention, however, is directed to the Hall reference, which discloses a resiliently squeezable container is made from an elastomer, wherein the elastomer is selected from the group consisting of: thermoplastic elastomer, silicone rubber, rubber, or a combination thereof (col. 1, paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Beer reference in view of the teachings of the Hall reference by employing an elastomer selected from the group consisting of: thermoplastic elastomer, silicone rubber, rubber, or a combination thereof because Beer teaches that any suitable material may be used to construct the container (par. 0029 of Beer).
Regarding claim 12, the container wall of the resiliently squeezable container comprises an interior surface and an exterior surface.
Beer DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the interior surface comprises at least one circumferentially oriented groove. Attention, however, is directed to the Hall reference, which discloses an interior surface of a container (A) comprises at least one circumferentially oriented groove (Fig. 1). Hall discloses the container has good resiliency (col. 1, paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Beer reference in view of the teachings of the Hall reference by including at least one circumferentially oriented groove for the purpose of improving the resiliency of the container.
Regarding claim 13, Beer DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the interior surface of the container comprises multiple circumferentially oriented grooves over a groove zone which extends over at least about 25% of the height of the container. Attention, however, is directed to the Hall reference, which discloses an interior surface of a container comprises a circumferentially oriented groove over a groove zone (Fig. 1). Hall discloses the container has good resiliency (col. 1, paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Beer reference in view of the teachings of the Hall reference by including a circumferentially oriented groove for the purpose of improving the resiliency of the container. It also would have been obvious to include additional grooves extending over at least about 25% of the height of the container, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 VI-B and 2144.05 II-A).
Regarding claim 14, the container has a wider portion, such that at least part of the exterior surface of the container has a convex shape (Fig. 1 of Hall), wherein the at least one groove is positioned in the wider portion of the container (Fig. 1 of Hall).
Regarding claim 15, Beer discloses the claimed invention except for 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 exterior surface and the groove top, measured perpendicular to the exterior surface of the container wall. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the height of the at least one circumferentially oriented groove from about 0.1 mm to about 6.0 mm wherein the height is measured as the distance between the exterior surface and the groove top, measured perpendicular to the exterior surface of the container wall, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP2144.05 II-A).
Regarding claim 16, discloses the claimed invention except for the interior surface comprises at least two circumferentially oriented grooves, wherein where the circumferentially oriented grooves are present, the grooves can be spaced out such that the pitch is from less than about 1 mm to about 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 resiliently squeezable container. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the interior surface with at least two circumferentially oriented grooves, wherein where the circumferentially oriented grooves are present, the grooves can be spaced out such that the pitch is from less than about 1 mm to about 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 resiliently squeezable container, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 VI-B and 2144.05 II-A).
Regarding claim 17, Beer discloses the claimed invention except for where the grooves are positioned, the container wall has a wall thickness of from about 0.25 mm to about 8.0 mm wherein the thickness is measured as the distance between the exterior surface and the groove bottom, measured perpendicular to the exterior surface of the container wall. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, where the grooves are positioned, configure the container wall with a wall thickness of from about 0.25 mm to about 8.0 mm wherein the thickness is measured as the distance between the exterior surface and the groove bottom, measured perpendicular to the exterior surface of the container wall, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP2144.05 II-A).
Regarding claim 18, Beer discloses the claimed invention except for the elastomer used to make the resiliently squeezable container has:
a. a Shore A (Type A) hardness of about 0 to about 80 wherein the shore A hardness is measured using the method described in ISO 868:2003
b. a tensile elongation (break), measured in the flow direction at a stretch rate of about 200 mm/min at about 23° C. using the method described in ISO 37:2017, of from about 200% to about 1000%
c. a compression set, measured at about 23° C. over about 72 hours using the method described in ISO 815-1:2019, of less than about 50%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the claimed elastomer, 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 (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 19, Beer discloses the claimed invention except for the elastomer used to make the resiliently squeezable container has:
a. a Shore A (Type A) hardness of about 5 to about 60 wherein the shore A hardness is measured using the method described in ISO 868:2003
b. a tensile elongation (break), measured in the flow direction at a stretch rate of about 200 mm/min at about 23° C. using the method described in ISO 37:2017, of from about 250% to about 750%
c. a compression set, measured at about 23° C. over about 72 hours using the method described in ISO 815-1:2019, of less than about 35%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the claimed elastomer, 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 (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer in view of Omori et al. (5823400).
Regarding claim 20, Beer DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the bottom dispensing 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. Attention, however, is directed to the Omori reference, which discloses dispensing package comprises a liquid detergent composition (col. 1, lines 5-10). Beer teaches that the package may be used to dispense a variety of flowable materials (par. 0004).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Beer reference in view of the teachings of the Omori reference by including a liquid detergent composition in the dispensing package for the purpose of dispensing a liquid detergent. It also would have been obvious to use a 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, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP2144.05 II-A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONNELL ALAN LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM-5PM.
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.
/DONNELL A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754