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(s) 11 and 12 is/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 11, Applicant references “the lower edges” of the anti-nesting projections. However, it is noted that Claim 11 is purported to depend from Claim 1 which does not define such “lower edges of the anti-nesting projections”. Rather these “lower edges” are first introduced in Claim 2 which is outside the chain of dependency for Claim 11. It is therefore unclear if these “the lower edges” are intended to be new lower edges to Claim 1 OR if Claim 11 was intended to depend from Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12, similarly the claim makes reference to “the lower edges” of the anti-nesting projections while being dependent on Claim 1.
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, 2, and 5-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2021/0212900 (“Reichling”).
Regarding Claim 1, Reichling discloses a dosing cup (100) comprising:
A base wall (112), the base wall comprising a centroid (see Fig. 1H);
A longitudinal axis orthogonal to the base wall and extending through the centroid of the base wall (see Fig. 1C);
An upper rim (109) located axially away from the base wall and around the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1C), the upper rim defining an inner diameter of the dosing cup (see Fig. 1E);
A side wall (104) extending about the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1E) from the base wall to the upper rim, thereby defining a fluid-receiving volume (see Fig. 1A), the side wall comprising an interior surface (107) and an exterior surface (105); and
three or more anti-nesting projections (each side of the cap having at least two projections 142a, 142b) that extend from the exterior surface of the side wall (see Fig. 1C), wherein each of the anti-nesting projections extends from the side wall a distance beyond the inner diameter of the upper rim (see Fig. 1C).
Regarding Claim 2, Reichling discloses each of the anti-nesting projections comprises a lower edge located axially away from the upper rim (see Fig. 1C and Fig. 1D), wherein the lower edge of each of the anti-nesting projections extends from the side wall a distance beyond the inner diameter of the upper rim (see Fig. 1E).
Regarding Claim 5, Reichling discloses the lower edges of the anti-nesting projections define a horizontal plane (see Fig. 1E – i.e. a plane which lies coincident to the lower edges of the anti-nesting projections).
Regarding Claim 6, Reichling discloses the anti-nesting projections are symmetrical in shape to each other (see Fig. 1D – wherein the opposite side is a mirror image).
Regarding Claim 7, Reichling discloses the dosing cup comprises a total of three anti-nesting projections spaced circumferentially apart (see Fig. 1D, 1C). Examiner notes the open transitional “comprising” whereby the phrase “a total of three anti-nesting projections” in association with the open transitional is permissive to additional projections and is not necessarily exclusionary to a fourth (or more) projection. Furthermore, Reichling suggests that the gripping projection sections (131) may total three such sections (see Par. 41) wherein each ripping projection section may be considered to collectively define separate anti-nesting projection features consisting of three such sections.
Regarding Claim 8, Reichling discloses each of the anti-nesting projections comprises side edges extending from the lower edge towards the upper rim (see Fig. 1D).
Regarding Claim 9, Reichling discloses each of the anti-nesting projections comprises an outer face that faces away from the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1D).
Regarding Claim 10, Reichling discloses the side wall comprises non-projecting portions located circumferentially between the anti-nesting projections (see Fig. 1D).
Regarding Claim 11, Reichling discloses lower edges of the anti-nesting projections indicate a predetermined fill-level of the fluid-receiving volume (see 120 which aligns with lower edges of the projections – Fig. 1E), thereby defining a first predetermined volume (122), wherein the first predetermined volume is from 1mL to about 50mL (see e.g. 128 – i.e. 15mL, exemplary).
Regarding Claim 12, Reichling discloses the dosing cup comprises at least one volume amount indicator (see Fig. 1C), wherein the at least one volume amount indicator is positionally coupled with a lower edge of at least one anti-nesting projection (see Fig. 1E).
Regarding Claim 13, Reichling discloses the dosing cup further comprises an additional volume indicator (see Fig. 1C) that indicates a second predetermined fill-level of the fluid-receiving volume (124), thereby defining a second predetermined volume.
Regarding Claim 14, Reichling discloses the side wall of the dosing cup comprises a visually contrasting portion that wraps circumferentially around the dosing cup (see Fig. 1B, 1C), i.e. the difference in diameters creates a visual contrast.
Regarding Claim 15, Reichling discloses the dosing cup further comprises one or more inner beads (150) located on the interior surface of the side wall and extending towards the longitudinal axis.
Regarding Claim 16, Reichling discloses the dosing cup is made of a material that is transparent, translucent, or a combination thereof (see Par. 27 – re: “clarified”).
Regarding Claim 17, Reichling discloses the dosing cup comprises polypropylene (Par. 27).
Regarding Claim 18, Reichling discloses the dosing cup is made by an injection molding process (Par. 27).
Regarding Claim 19, Reichling discloses a medicinal fluid delivery system (Fig. 5A) comprising: a bottle (201) and the dosing cup (100).
Regarding Claim 20, Reichling discloses a method of providing the dosing cup; providing a medicinal fluid to the fluid-receiving volume of the dosing cup; and orally administering the medicinal fluid from the dosing cup to a person in need of the medicinal fluid (Par. 29; Abstract).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0212900 (“Reichling”) as applied above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2003/0094393 (“Sahm”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Reichling discloses the upper rim defines an inner rim circumference (see Fig. 1E), wherein the lower edge of each of the anti-nesting projections circumferentially extends a circumferential length around the exterior surface of the side wall (see Fig.1G). Reichling discloses the invention substantially as claimed except that that the sum of the circumferential lengths of the lower edges of the anti-nesting projections is from about 10% to about 90% of the inner rim circumference OR each lower edge has a first end and a second end that defines a central angle (theta) having a vertex on the longitudinal axis, wherein the sum of the central angles defined by the first and second ends of the lower edges of the one or more anti-nesting projections is from about 0.1Pi radians to about 1.9Pi radians.
However, Reichling discloses that the number of anti-nesting projections can be more than explicitly depicted (see Par. 47 – re: “each include at least two anti-nesting projections”). Similarly Reichling discloses that the number of gripping sections carrying the anti-nesting features can also be varied in number (see Par. 41) wherein Examiner submits that the gripping sections, as a whole, can be considered to be anti-nesting projections with an irregular surface geometry, whereby these gripping/anti-nesting sections would, in light of the full disclosure, be understood to take up somewhere between 10 and 90% of the total circumference or 0.1Pi to 1.9Pi radians by carrying forward that general principal of increasing the number of these section, whereby such a carrying forward of the general crux of an invention to its inevitable conclusion is obvious, see In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Furthermore, other related cups (see Sahm) discloses a configuration which comprises a larger number of such projections (e.g. 16 projections – see Fig. 3) with the total sum of the circumferential lengths or sum of the angular extent of the projections collectively takes up much more than 10% or 0.1Pi radians of the total circumference (see Fig. 3), but also a value less than 90% or 1.9Pi radians of the total circumference (see Fig. 3). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to increase the number of anti-nesting projections of Reichling about the circumference of the cup such that they collectively total between 10-90% of the total circumference or 0.1Pi to 1.9Pi radians of the total circumference, as disclosed by Sahm, in order to distribute the anti-nest security about a larger extent of the circumference and thereby only achieving the expected and predictable results of duplicating the number of anti-nesting projections, as contemplated by Reichling, in order to obtain a predictable and expected outcome, whereby such mere duplication of the essential parts of an invention is obvious affecting only expected and predictable results, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R CARPENTER whose telephone number is (571)270-3637. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Thus. - 7:00AM to 5:00PM (EST/EDT).
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, KEVIN SIRMONS can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/WILLIAM R CARPENTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 07/21/2026
Prosecution Insights