DETAILED ACTION
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 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) 1, 6, 7, 9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Hwang (US 2025/0289630) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hwang in view of Taylor 2014/0116586);
Claim(s) 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Taylor.
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses a dropper bottle protection assembly comprising:
[0040] a material at 200 to protect a dropper cap of a dropper and a pipette connected to the dropper cap 100 against breakage from impact forces and compression forces;
best seen in fig. 4, Hwang discloses a top portion (not numbered), said top portion having an aperture such that said top portion is configured for receiving a dropper bulb through said aperture such that said top portion is further configured to abut and cover a lower portion of the dropper bulb;
fig. 4 of Hwang also discloses a side portion at 200 extending from said top portion configured to cover a side surface of a dropper cap; wherein said dropper protection structure is in the form of a sleeve configured to fit onto and around an outer surface of a dropper cap and a lower portion of a dropper bulb; wherein said top portion is configured to cover a top surface of a dropper cap and surround and cover a lower portion of a dropper bulb, and said side portion extends transversely from said top portion and is configured to cover a cylindrical side surface of the dropper cap;
wherein said dropper protection structure further comprises a bottom portion 230 configured to project beyond and inwardly under a bottom edge of a dropper cap to cover and protect the bottom edge of the dropper cap and an annular ring of a bottle neck against breakage; and
a dropper of a dropper bottle, reference fig. 4, comprising a dropper cap 100, a dropper bulb 320, and a pipette 310, wherein said dropper protection structure is attached to said dropper cap such that said dropper cap is fixed to rotate with said dropper cap [0022].
Regarding the limitation a “shock-absorbing” material, although Hwang discloses that the inner and outer caps are formed from metal, Hwang also discloses that the outer cap protects the inner cap from external impacts [0040]. Depending on the thickness of the outer cap and the softness of the material used, it is reasonable to consider some metals to have shock absorbing properties.
Nevertheless, if it is interpreted that the materials disclosed for the outer cap of Hwang do not meet the limitation of ‘shock-absorbing’ the following modification is provided.
Taylor is analogous art in regard to protective sleeves and teaches a protective cap sleeve 20, fig. 2, [0038], made from robber or silicone [0022] which are shock-absorbing materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer cap of Hwang to be made from silicone or rubber as taught by Taylor in order to allow the cap to have increased resiliency and frictional gripping benefits that silicone and rubber provide in addition to impact protection (shock absorption).
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 9, Hwang discloses that the side portion has a cylindrical inner and outer surface, fig. 2 and fig. 4.
Regarding claim 11, the references applied above the shock-absorbing material of Hwang as modified above by Taylor is rubber or silicone which are flexible and resilient materials.
Regarding claims 13, 19, and 20, Hwang discloses a dropper bottle protection assembly comprising:
[0040] a material at 200 to protect a dropper cap of a dropper and a pipette connected to the dropper cap 100 against breakage from impact forces and compression forces;
best seen in fig. 4, Hwang discloses a top portion (not numbered), said top portion having an aperture such that said top portion is configured for receiving a dropper bulb through said aperture such that said top portion is further configured to abut and cover a lower portion of the dropper bulb;
fig. 4 of Hwang also discloses a side portion at 200 extending from said top portion configured to cover a side surface of a dropper cap; wherein said dropper protection structure is in the form of a sleeve configured to fit onto and around an outer surface of a dropper cap and a lower portion of a dropper bulb; wherein said top portion is configured to cover a top surface of a dropper cap and surround and cover a lower portion of a dropper bulb, and said side portion extends transversely from said top portion and is configured to cover a cylindrical side surface of the dropper cap;
wherein said dropper protection structure further comprises a bottom portion 230 configured to project beyond and inwardly under a bottom edge of a dropper cap to cover and protect the bottom edge of the dropper cap and an annular ring of a bottle neck against breakage; and
a dropper of a dropper bottle, reference fig. 4, comprising a dropper cap 100, a dropper bulb 320, and a pipette 310, wherein said dropper protection structure is attached to said dropper cap such that said dropper cap is fixed to rotate with said dropper cap [0022].
Hwang also discloses a bottle 400, fig. 7 and 8, [0068].
Regarding the limitation a “shock-absorbing” material, although Hwang discloses that the inner and outer caps are formed from metal, Hwang also discloses that the outer cap protects the inner cap from external impacts [0040]. Depending on the thickness of the outer cap and the softness of the material used, it is reasonable to consider some metals to have shock absorbing properties.
Hwang does not teach a bottle protection structure.
Taylor is analogous art in regard to protective sleeves and teaches a protective cap sleeve 20, fig. 2, [0038], made from rubber or silicone [0022] which are shock-absorbing materials, and a sleeve 1000 made from silicone or rubber (shock-absorbing material) for covering and protecting a bottle against breakage [0040], fig. 3. The bottle sleeve of Taylor comprises a bottom section 1020 with an orifice 1022, fig. 6, for assisting in removing the bottle from the sleeve [0048], configured to cover a bottom surface of a bottle body and a side section 1002, fig. 3, with an orifice 1004 for viewing the product in the bottle [0043], the sidewall section extending from and transverse to said bottom section, and a deformable neck shoulder portion at 1006 that is capable of covering a portion of a curved shoulder of a bottle body, [0047], [0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hwang with the teaching of Taylor to include resilient shock-absorbing cover with a bottom having an opening for assisting in removing the bottle from the sleeve and a transverse sidewall with openings for viewing the product and a neck cover for protecting the neck portion of the bottle and holding the cover on the bottle in order to reduce possible breaking of the bottle as taught by Taylor.
If it is interpreted that the materials disclosed for the outer cap of Hwang do not meet the limitation of ‘shock-absorbing’ the following modification is provided.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer cap of Hwang to be made from silicone or rubber as taught by Taylor in order to allow the cap to have increased resiliency and frictional gripping benefits that silicone and rubber provide in addition to impact protection (shock absorption).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Hwang discloses that the side portion has a cylindrical inner and outer surface, fig. 2 and fig. 4.
Claim(s) 8, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang and Taylor as applied to claims 6 and 16, above, and further in view of Nielsen (US D261854).
Regarding claims 8, 10, and 18, the references applied above each all of claim 6 and 16, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach the outer surface of the side portion has a plurality of polygonal sections.
Nielsen is analogous art in regard to cap covers. Nielson discloses a cover for surrounding a cap that has a plurality of straight side sections forming an outer polygon shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer surface of the cover of Hwang to have a polygonal shape in order to provide better gripping so that the cover can be more easily removed by an arthritic person.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Munday (US 2756749), col. 3: 5-10, fig. 9 and 11 teaches a rubber overcap at 22 and 33, respectively.
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 MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799