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 8 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.
The claim recites “a slit-valve” in line 2 after reciting the same in line 9 of claim 1, raising the question of double inclusion and thus rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
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 16-19 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) and Schoubben (US 2020/0239176).
Regarding claim 1, Sterling et al. disclose a package (100) comprising: a resiliently squeezable container (110) for housing a 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.
Sterling et al. further disclose a slit-valve (152; Paragraph 0045), but are silent regarding a related pressure differential. Sterling et al. are similarly silent regarding a particular viscosity of the liquid composition, and do not disclose an impact resistance system as claimed.
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).
The combined invention of Sterling et al.-Beer still does not explicitly disclose the claimed viscosity, pressure differential for the slit valve, and impact resistance system of amended claim 1.
Schoubben teaches a similar package (Fig. 1) for holding a liquid composition having a viscosity in the claimed range (“from 100 mPa•s to 3,000 mPa•s [. . .] measured at a shear rate of 10 s−1”; Paragraph 0047), a slit valve that opens at a pressure differential in the claimed range (“from 10 to 250 mbar”; Paragraph 0047), and a base (20) comprising an impact resistance system (50; Fig. 6) comprising a housing having a cavity therein and extending longitudinally and radially inwardly from the base, wherein the housing comprises at least one inlet opening that provides a flow path for the liquid composition from a resiliently squeezable container into the housing and at least one outlet opening that provides a path of egress for the liquid composition from the housing to the exterior atmosphere when the orifice is opened (Paragraph 0053). Schoubben teaches this combination of features as a means of minimizing spurting out of the orifice (Paragraph 0047) and leakage due to impact (Paragraphs 0052-0053).
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 of Sterling et al.-Beer with a liquid composition in the claimed viscosity range, a slit valve that opens in the claimed pressure differential range, and an impact resistance system, as taught by Schoubben, in order to avoid spurting and leakage.
Regarding claims 2-3, Sterling et al.-Beer-Schoubben 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 about 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 plane 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 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 outer diameter of the cap is greater than about 80% of the outer diameter of the base and is less than about 125% of the outer diameter of the base (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 and Schoubben, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blackinton (US 5,871,119).
Sterling et al.-Beer-Schoubben 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-Schoubben 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 1 final paragraph - Page 2 first paragraph of Applicants Remarks filed 4/14/2026, with respect to Applicant’s use of the term “about” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The term “about” will be considered in the context in which it is used in the specification and the claims of the instant application, in accordance with MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(A). The rejections of claims 2-3 and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Amended claim 1 recites a viscosity, pressure differential, and impact resistance system that, upon further search and consideration necessitated by the amendment, were found to be present in the Schoubben reference cited above, among others cited in the attached PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form for additional examples of packages having features claimed in amended claim 1.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights