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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 97 in Fig. 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-19 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the liquid composition” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether a liquid composition is being positively recited in the preamble. See also claim 15 below.
Regarding claims 2-3, 15, and 17-18, the term “about” in each claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. Therefore, the scope of: “about 50% of the first diameter” in claim 2; “about 60% of the first diameter” in claim 3; “about 50 mPa•s”, “about 3,000 mPa•s”, and “about 10 s-1” in claim 15; “about 20%” in claim 17; and “about 2 and about 5 times taller than wide” in claim 18.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “a top edge of the container”, “a first diameter”, and “a second diameter” in lines 1-2. The claim is dependent on claim 2, which already recites these features, raising the question of double inclusion and thus rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “the base wall” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 12-13, each claim recites “in any of the planes perpendicular to the longitudinal direction” in lines 2-3 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Thus, it is unclear if this is intended to refer to any particular planes, or if any single plane would satisfy the claim.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “further comprising the liquid composition” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As noted above, it is unclear whether a liquid composition is being positively recited in claim 1. If so, the phrase “further comprising” raises the question of double inclusion and thus renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “the difference between the outer diameter of the base and the outer diameter of the cap” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if Applicant intends to require unequal diameters of the relevant components. The specification does not clarify this ambiguity, as it provides alternative lower limits of the two diameters, rather than a range (“The difference may be less than 20%, i.e., D20 > 0.8 x D90 or D90 > 0.8 x D20”; Page 25, lines 11-12).
In light of the indefiniteness issues described above, the claims will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterling et al. (US 2016/0244222) in view of Beer (US 2017/0348715).
Regarding claim 1, Sterling et al. disclose a package (100) for a liquid composition comprising: a resiliently squeezable container (110) for housing the liquid composition (Paragraph 0037); a base (140) fixedly attached to the container (e.g., by snap-fit or permanent attachment; Paragraph 0046) and comprising a base ring (see 146 in Fig. 2) delimiting an orifice (150), wherein the base ring is rigid (140 may be composed of rigid plastic such as polypropylene; Paragraph 0048); and a cap (112) fixedly attached to the resiliently squeezable container opposite the base. Sterling et al. disclose that the cap may be a separate component from the body of the container (i.e., may be composed of a different material; Paragraph 0041), but are silent regarding its attachment and thus do not disclose an attachment ring.
Beer teaches a similar dispenser having a cap (34) comprising an attachment ring (sidewall 50) fixedly attached to a resiliently squeezable container (illustrated as threads, but may be “fixedly secured” to the container sidewall; Paragraph 0034). Beer teaches this cap as a means for providing a valve (46) that enables the container to resume its shape after dispensing (Paragraphs 0032-0033). The cap body would thus need to be rigid to support the flexible valve, and would be attached to the squeezable container via the integral (and thus also rigid) attachment ring.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the package of Sterling et al. with a cap having a rigid attachment ring, as taught by Beer, in order to enable air to enter the container from an advantageous location. Sterling et al. disclose that the container resumes its shape after dispensing by allowing air into the container through the orifice 150 (Paragraph 0059), but one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this means of air introduction could be problematic with certain types of liquids (e.g., thicker liquids that may be more resistant to allowing air to enter). Thus, the vented cap of Beer would be seen as an improvement to the package of Sterling et al. Additional motivation may also be found in the arrangement of Beer that includes dispensing from a flexible bag, which is facilitated by the vented cap (Sterling et al. contemplates an embodiment using such a flexible bag in Paragraph 0037).
Regarding claims 2-3, Sterling et al.-Beer in combination disclose the package of claim 1. In accordance with the teaching of Beer, the combined invention would further disclose a top edge of the container having a first diameter and the attachment ring of the cap having a second diameter that is greater than 60% of the first diameter (see 30 in Fig. 4 of Beer; inner diameter of attachment ring would be slightly larger than container opening to enclose it).
Regarding claims 4-6, Sterling et al. further disclose that the resiliently squeezable container is made of an elastomeric material (Paragraphs 0040-0041), and wherein at least the base ring is made of polypropylene (Paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 7, the cap of the combined invention comprises a one-way air valve configured to let air flow into the container (see valve 46 of Beer, as described above regarding claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Sterling et al. further disclose that the package is a bottom-dispensing package (see the Abstract), and that a slit-valve (152) reversibly opens or closes the orifice of the base (Paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 9, Sterling et al. further disclose that an interior surface of the resiliently squeezable container comprises at least one circumferentially oriented groove (192, Fig. 3b).
Regarding claim 10, Sterling et al. further disclose that the base comprises a base wall (148 with 144) made of an elastomeric material (base may be composed of separate components, any of which may be made of a flexible material such as PVC) and the base ring extends inwardly from the base wall (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Sterling et al. further disclose that the package may stably rest on the base wall (see Fig. 3A; the package is shown with 148 resting on an additional cap 160, which may be considered part of the base, but it is apparent that the package could also rest directly on 144).
Regarding claims 12-13, Sterling et al. further disclose that the package has a longitudinal direction (the vertical direction in Fig. 1, for example) and the resiliently squeezable container has a circular cross-section in any of the planes perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (it is apparent from the figures that the container is generally cylindrical and therefore circular in cross-section in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction; a circle is an ellipse, thus the cross section is also elliptical).
Regarding claim 15, Sterling et al. further disclose a liquid composition housed in the resiliently squeezable container (e.g., liquid detergent; Paragraph 0005). Since the combined invention of Sterling et al.-Beer discloses the same features of the claimed invention, it would be inherently capable of storing and dispensing the same liquid, but neither reference explicitly discloses a liquid composition having the claimed viscosity. However, the court has 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 1255 USPQ 416. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention with a liquid composition having a viscosity of from about 50 mPa•s to about 3,000 mPa•s measured at a shear rate of about 10 s-1. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular liquid composition, and it appears that the combined invention would work appropriately if dispensing a liquid composition with the claimed properties.
Regarding claim 16, Sterling et al. further disclose that at least the base ring is fixedly attached to the resiliently squeezable container by an adhesive layer, or by a mechanical snap (Paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 17, Sterling et al. further disclose that the base and the cap have a respective outer diameter, and the difference between the outer diameter of the base and the outer diameter of the cap is less than about 20% (apparent from Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Sterling et al. further disclose that the package is between about 2 and about 5 times taller than wide (apparent from Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Sterling et al. further disclose that the package has a longitudinal direction (the vertical direction in Fig. 1, for example) and the resiliently squeezable container has a longitudinal profile in a plane comprising the longitudinal direction, wherein the longitudinal profile comprises a convex portion and a concave portion, the base being closer to the convex portion than the concave portion (apparent from Fig. 1, with the concave portion indicated by 128).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterling et al. in view of Beer, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blackinton (US 5,871,119).
Sterling et al.-Beer in combination disclose the package of claim 1, but do not disclose that the cap comprises a lid which removably engages the attachment ring.
Blackinton teaches a dispensing container having a cap (Figs. 1-4) comprising a rigid attachment ring (20) fixedly attached to a container (Col. 4, line 66 - Col. 5, line 13), wherein the cap comprises a lid (35) which removably engages the attachment ring (Col. 5, lines 55-60). Blackinton teaches that this configuration enables the lid to be removed to create a large opening to dispense or evacuate the fluid stored in the container (Col. 5, lines 60-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the cap of the combined invention of Sterling et al.-Beer to separate the attachment ring from the remainder of the cap, as taught by Blackinton, in order to create a large opening for access to the interior of the container for replacing or emptying the liquid composition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. In particular, Nilson (US 5,857,595) discloses a device that may be configured according to at least claim 1, and Lowry (US 2004/0000566), Zitron (US 2020/0047948), and Stehli (US 8,960,502) could be modified or combined with other cited references to render obvious at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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 C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754