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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sterling does not teach a circumferential groove on an inner surface of the container. However, drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). MPEP 2125. In this case, Figs 2 and 3B, clearly depict the interior circumferential groove at 126/192 on the interior surface of the container, not that the gap was the groove. Further delineation is needed to adequately define over the prior art of record
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 22-23 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.
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, 6-8, 14, 17, 18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sterling et al. (US 2016/0244222 A1).
Re: Claim 1, Sterling discloses the claimed invention including a bottom dispensing package for a liquid composition comprising:
resiliently squeezable container (110) for housing the liquid composition (Fig. 1); and
a base (140) operably connected to said container, wherein the base comprises an orifice (152) (Fig. 3B);
wherein the resiliently squeezable container (112) comprises a container wall (116), wherein the container wall has a wider portion (116 points to wider portion), such that at least part of the exterior surface of the container has a convex shape (Depicted Fig. 1), and a narrow portion (128), such that at least part of the exterior surface of the container wall has a concave shape which is narrower than the adjacent parts of the container (Depicted in Fig. 1, Para. 36, narrow portion), and wherein the resiliently squeezable container is at least partially made from an elastomer (Para. 41, elastomer); and
wherein the container wall of the resiliently squeezable container comprises an interior surface and an exterior surface, wherein the interior surface comprises at least one circumferentially oriented groove (interior at 126/192) (Figs 2 and 3B, depict the interior circumferential groove).
Re: Claim 6, Sterling discloses the claimed invention including the narrow portion is situated adjacent to the wider portion of the container wall (Depicted in Fig. 1).
Re: Claim 7, Sterling discloses the claimed invention including the narrow portion is above the wider portion (Depicted in Fig. 1).
Re: Claim 8, Sterling discloses the claimed invention including the elastomer is a thermoplastic elastomer (Para. 41, thermoplastic elastomer).
Re: Claim 14, Sterling discloses the claimed invention including the body of the base is made from an elastomer (Para. 48, an elastomer).
Re: Claim 17, Sterling discloses the claimed invention including the elastomer used to at least partially make the body of the base is selected from the group consisting of: thermoplastic elastomer, silicone rubber, rubber, or a combination thereof (Para. 48, a thermoplastic elastomer).
Re: Claim 18, Sterling discloses the claimed invention including the orifice comprises a slit-valve (152) (Para. 45, slit valve).
Re: Claim 21, Sterling discloses the claimed invention the interior surface of the container wall has a circumferential length, and wherein the at least one circumferentially oriented groove extends over at least 70% of the circumferential length of the interior surface of the container wall where the at least one circumferentially oriented groove is positioned (Fig 2 depicts the groove extends over 100percent of the circumferential length).
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) 2-5, 9-10, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterling et al. (US 2016/0244222 A1).
Re: Claims 2-3, Sterling discloses the claimed invention except for expressly stating the claimed diameter. However, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would no perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, 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 device of Sterling by causing the narrow portion has a diameter of from about 35 mm to about 55 mm. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular diameter (see Specification wherein it is required simply that the diameter is “preferably” within the above range) and it appears that the device of Sterling would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of diameter.
Re: Claims 4-5, Sterling discloses the claimed invention except for expressly stating the ratio of the diameter of the wider portion to narrow portion. However, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would no perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, 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 device of Sterling by causing the ratio of the diameter of the wider portion to the narrow portion is from about 1.1:1 to about 3:1. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular ratio (see Specification wherein it is required simply that the ratio is “preferably” within the above range) and it appears that the device of Sterling would work appropriately if made within the claimed ratio range.
Re: Claims 9-10, Sterling discloses the claimed invention including the use of polymeric materials, such as, but not limited to, polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polyamides (PA) polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyvinylchloride (PVC) (Para. 41) except for expressly stating the inherent properties of the selected material for the sidewall, including the Shore A hardness, tensile elongation, and a compression set. 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 obvious 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 claimed invention to modify the device of Sterling by using a material having 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; 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%; and 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%. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular material properties (see Specification wherein it is required simply that the material is “preferably” or “can” have the above properties), and additionally Applicant discloses using similar thermoplastic elastomers as taught by Sterling, such that it appears that the device of Sterling would work appropriately if made with a material having the claimed properties.
Re: Claim 19, Sterling discloses the claimed invention including the slit valve opens at a pressure differential (Para. 39) except for stating the claim range of opening pressure. However, the court has 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Thus, 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 device of Sterling by causing the slit valve to open at a pressure differential of from about 10 to about 250 mbar measured at about 20° C. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular opening (see Specification wherein it is required simply that the opening pressure is “preferably” within the above range) and it appears that the device of Sterling would work appropriately if the valve opened within the claimed pressure range.
Re: Claim 20, Sterling discloses the claimed invention including the bottom dispensing package comprises a liquid detergent composition and the device of Sterling is inherently capable of being used with detergents of all different viscosities (Para. 5, liquid detergent) except for expressly stating the properties of the fluid that the applicant intends to use the device with. 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 obvious 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 claimed invention to modify the claimed invention of Sterling to use a 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 Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular detergent (see Specification wherein it is required simply that the liquid detergent is a “preferred field of use” have the above properties), and it appears that the device of Sterling would work appropriately if dispensing a liquid detergent with the claimed properties.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterling et al. (US 2016/0244222 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rivera (US 2018/0162607 A1).
Re: Claim 12-13, Sterling discloses the claimed invention including venting of the container (Para. 47) except preventing air egress . However, Rivera teaches the container comprises a one-way vent (30), wherein the one-way vent allows the ingress of air into the container while preventing the egress of air from the container, and the one-way vent is positioned in the container top and/or in the container wall above a height of 90% of the height of the package (Depicted in Fig. 1, Para. 40, one way vent at the top and preventing air egress).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include the claimed air vent as taught by Rivera, since Rivera states in para. 40 that such a modification allows the contained substance, such as butter, to remain at open end, while still allowing body unit to return to its pre-squeezed shape. This is particularly useful when nozzle is also a one-way valve which would not allow air to reenter body unit. Thus, allowing body unit to return to a pre-squeezed shape can aid in the storage of keeper-and-dispenser.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterling et al. (US 2016/0244222 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rivera (US 2018/0162607 A1).
Re: Claim 15, Sterling discloses the claimed invention including using injection molding (Para. 48) except for expressly stating co-molding the parts. However, Wellman teaches the body of the base and the resiliently squeezable container are co-molded together (Depicted in Fig. 1, Para. 32, container and base co-molded).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include the claimed air vent as taught by Wellman, since Wellman states in para. 31 that such a modification provides for manufacturing simplicity thus a reduction in cost and an increase in efficiency.
Re: Claim 16, Sterling discloses the claimed invention including the body of the base and the resiliently squeezable container are made from the same elastomer (Para. 41, 48, user inherently capable of selecting the same material for both).
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterling et al. (US 2016/0244222 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fitten et al. (US Patent No. 5,626,262).
Re: Claim 22, Sterling discloses the claimed invention except for multiple grooves on the interior surface. However, Fitten teaches the interior surface comprises multiple circumferentially oriented grooves (52, 77, 89, 82a) (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include multiple grooves as taught by Fitten, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Re: Claim 23, Sterling as modified by Fitten above in claim 22 discloses the claimed invention the container wall has a height, and wherein the circumferentially oriented grooves are present over a groove zone which extends over a portion of the height of the container wall except for expressly stating at least 50% thereof. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, 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 device of Sterling in view of Fitten by causing the groove zone to extend over at least 50% of the height of the container wall. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular groove zone range (see Specification wherein it is required simply that the groover zone “can be” and/or “preferably” within the claimed range) and it appears that the device of German in view of Hyland would work appropriately if made within the claimed groove zone range.
Conclusion
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 CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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.
/CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights