DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the heat of Corradini is hemispherical in shape and by nature a hemisphere does not have separate angled surfaces. However, “angled” is interpreted consistent with the present disclosure which depicts a generally hemispherical head similar to that disclosed by Corradini. The angled surfaces of the present application have a curvature in all directions (note that in fig. 3 the angled surfaces 128 and 130 have a slight curvature in the x-y direction). This the term “angled” is not interpreted to require a planar, flat, or straight portion; rather, the term is interpreted such that the angled surfaces are such that they generally converge toward the planar surface.
Response to Amendments
The rejections of claims 1-4 and 7-10 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claims 5 and 6 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
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, 3, 4, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140157527 by Corradini et al.
As to claim 1, Corradini discloses a dispenser for treating a textile, the dispenser comprising a dispenser body 10 with a wall extending along a longitudinal axis from a closed end to an open end defining an interior cavity (fig. 1).; an applicator assembly coupleable to the open end, the assembly comprising an applicator body 12 defining an outer surface with a central orifice 16 (fig. 2), and a plurality of projections 14 extending from and arranged on at least a first portion (e.g. central) and a second portion (e.g. outer) of the outer surface of the applicator body, the projections on the first portion (e.g. the central ring of projections, fig. 2) having a size and/or shape that differs from the projections on the second portion (e.g. outer ring of projections, fig. 2), wherein when assembled, the dispenser body can be oriented in a first orientation such that a composition is flowable from the open end through the central orifice 16 and capable of being massaged into a textile using the projections on the first portion or orientable into a second orientation for massaging the textile using the projections on the second portion, wherein the outer surface is convex with the first portion defining a substantially planar surface through which the central orifice extends and oriented substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, and the second portion defining first and second (e.g. left and right as shown) angled surfaces adjacent to and converging toward the planar surface (fig. 4).
As to claim 3, Corradini disclose that the projections comprise a first plurality of projections radially spaces around the central orifice on the planar surface, a second plurality of projections on the first angled surface, and a third plurality of projections on the second angled surface, wherein the size and/or shape of the first projections differs from the size and/or shape of the second and third projections (see annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
523
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 4, Corradini discloses that the first and second angled surfaces are angled at approximately a 45 degree angle and converging toward the planar surface, wherein the dispenser body is orientable into approximately a 90 degree angle in the first orientation and into approximately a 45 degree angle in the second orientation (see fig. 4).
As to claim 7, Corradini discloses that its projections may be a thermoplastic elastomer (para. 19). The claimed limitation that the projections are overmolded onto the applicator body is not structurally defined and is a method of production not given patentable weight as to the structure of the claimed dispenser. Patentability is determined based on the product, not the process. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As such, this claim is anticipated even though Corradini does not disclose a production method.
As to claim 8, Corradini discloses that the dispenser body has a non-rigid and depressible gripping region that allows for flow of the composition upon application of pressure (para. 37).
As to claim 9, Corradini discloses that the applicator assembly is permanently coupled to or removable from the dispenser body in the assembled configuration (figs. 1 and 4).
As to claim 10, Corradini discloses a cap 18 engageable with the applicator assembly (fig. 1), the cap defining a central projection that aligns with and covers the central orifice to prevent flow of the composition (fig. 3).
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140157527 by Corradini et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20120324653 by Chawla et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 20240367870 by Struthers et al., and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20040005186 by Ueda et al.
As to claim 5 and 6, Corradini does not explicitly teach that its projections have the claimed shapes and relative sizes, but does teach that its projections may vary in size and shape (fig. 5; paras. 15, 55). It was further recognized in prior art that projections may be of various shapes, including hemispherical and elongated hemispherical, of various relative sizes and that the particular shapes and sizes are design choices to achieve a desired usability and performance of a dispenser. See Chawla, paras. 134-135; Struthers, para. 41; and Ueda, para. 27. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the claimed shapes and relative sizes to have been obvious since prior art teaches a wide range of different shapes and sizes of projections for dispensers and explicitly recognizes that the shapes and sizes may vary as a design choice that one of ordinary skill in the art could readily implement for a desired, expected outcome. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
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 Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571.272.1414. 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
