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 Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claims 1 and 8, it is unclear as to whether or not the application material is intended to be part of the claimed combination, i.e., the preamble of these claims indicate the application material is not intended to be claimed, however, the passages in these claims which further define the application material (i.e., see claim 1, lines 7-15) seem to indicate the application material is being claimed. Should the Applicant intend to claim the application material, an antecedent basis should therefore be defined. Should the Applicant not intend to claim the application material, “adapted to be” / “for” language should be used when referring thereto.
For the purposes of examination, the application material is considered to be part of the claimed combination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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.
In regard to claims 1 and 8, the term “substantially” (see claim 1, line 10 and claim 8, line 10) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harris et al. (U.S. Patent 2,338,068, hereinafter Harris).
In regard to claim 1, the Harris reference discloses an application container for an application material 4 comprising:
a tubular member 1 including a tube hole to movably accommodate the application material in an axial direction in which the tubular member extends, and an opening 3 to expose the application material;
wherein a shape of the tube hole 3 and a shape of the application material 4, when viewed along the axial direction, have a flattened shape extending along a major axis and a minor axis (see Figures 2 and 4), the flattened shape extending substantially along the major axis;
wherein the application material has a thickness in a minor axis direction in which the minor axis extends;
wherein the application material includes a flattened surface extending in a major axis direction in which the major axis extends, and in the axial direction; and
wherein the tubular member includes a holding portion 6a configured to hold the application material by contacting the flattened surface along at least a length of the application material in the axial direction (i.e., a portion of element 6a extends in the axial direction and makes contact with the material along at least a portion of the axial direction).
In regard to claim 2, the tube hole has a first end forming the opening and a second end located opposite the first end in the axial direction and wherein the holding portion 6a is formed adjacent to the first end (see Figure 1) inside the tube hole and extends toward the second end.
In regard to claim 8, the Harris reference discloses an application container for feeding out an application material 4, the container comprising:
a tubular member 1 including a tube hole to movably accommodate the application material in an axial direction in which the tubular member extends, and an opening 3 to expose the application material;
wherein a shape of the tube hole 3 and a shape of the application material 4, when viewed along the axial direction, have a flattened shape extending along a major axis and a minor axis (see Figures 2 and 4), the flattened shape extending substantially along the major axis;
wherein the application material has a thickness in a minor axis direction in which the minor axis extends;
wherein the application material includes a flattened surface extending in a major axis direction in which the major axis extends, and in the axial direction;
wherein the tubular member includes a holding portion 6a configured to hold the application material by contacting the flattened surface;
wherein the holding portion 6a is a leaf spring portion formed by a slit in the tubular member (element 6 being considered part of the tubular member); and
wherein the leaf spring portion is configured to contact the application material and is elastically deformable along the minor axis direction.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris.
In regard to claim 3, the holding portion 6a has a protruding shape protruding toward the flattened surface. Although the Harris device discloses only a single holding portion 6a and not a plurality of holding portions oriented as claimed, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the time the invention was made the Harris device can be designed to have any suitable number of holding portions oriented in any suitable manner, as long as the holding portions secure the material, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Applicant has not indicated the particular number and orientation of the holding members is critical to the overall operation of the device.
Claims 4-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of Burry et al. (U.S. Patent 7,645,083, hereinafter Burry).
In regard to claims 4 and 9, although the tubular member in the Harris device does not include first and second constituent members, as claimed, attention is directed to the Burry reference, which discloses an analogous application container wherein the tubular member 11 includes a first constituent member 12 and a second constituent member 14 joined to the first constituent member to encase the application material between the first constituent member and the second constituent member. Such an assembly is commonly employed in order to enable the device to be easily assembled and dis-assembled as needed. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the tubular member in the Harris device can be formed from first and second constituent members in order to enable the device to be easily assembled and dis-assembled as needed.
In regard to claims 5 and 10, although the first and second constituent members are not disclosed as being joined to each other along a direction orthogonal to the axial direction, as claimed, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the area wherein the members are joined can include common step-type profiles or another other mating profiles, including profiles with extend along a direction orthogonal to the axial direction, without effect the overall operation of the device, especially since the Burry reference does not limit the mating structure between the members.
In regard to claims 6 and 11, the first and second constituent members are joined to each other along the axial direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Arrison and Ho references are cited as being directed to the state of the art as teachings of other solid material holders having a tubular member with holding members therein for holding the material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
DJW
2/11/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754