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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 12 recites “wherein said threaded collar is discontinuous about said longitudinal axis” in lines 1-2 is not discloses in the specifications. Specification only discloses the collar being continuous.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 18 recites “wherein said container contains a liquid fabric care product” however specification does not disclose that the container a liquid fabric care product.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-5,11-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones (US6279766B1).
Regarding claim 1, Jones teaches a package comprising (annotated fig.1 below shows the package):
a closure engaged with a container, wherein said closure comprises (see annotated fig.1 of Jones below for a closure engaged with a container):
a threaded collar and a peripheral wall extending from said threaded collar (see annotated fig.1 below for a threaded collar and a wall extending from the threaded collar), wherein said peripheral wall extends around a longitudinal axis and has an engagement rotation direction in which said threaded collar engages with said container and a disengagement rotation direction in which said thread collar disengages with said container (see annotated fig.1 of Jones below for the wall extending around a longitudinal axis and has an engagement and disengagement rotation direction where the threaded collar engages and disengages from the container i.e. opening and closing of the closure);
a tab outboard of and spaced apart from said peripheral wall (see annotated fig.1 of Jones below for a tab outboard of and spaced apart from the wall) and connected to said peripheral wall by a deformable first arm extending from a first arm attachment location on said peripheral wall to said tab and deformable second arm extending from a second arm attachment location on said peripheral wall to said tab (see annotated fig.3 and 1 below for the first and second deformable arms extending from the first and second arm attachment locations; the two arms will deform as the cap is squeezed as seen in fig.5), wherein said second arm attachment location is radially offset from said first arm attachment location by from about 2 degrees to about 30 degrees in the engagement rotation direction (annotated fig.3 below shows the second arm attachment location that is radially offset from the first arm location by about 2 to about 30 degrees in engagement rotation direction and since the closure is a circle and half of it is 180 degrees the second arm location can be about 2-30; it is noted that by using “about” applicant is not claiming the range specific to 2-30 or it can be more than those limitation because 50 degrees would still be “about” 30 since it is closer to 30), wherein said first arm attachment location is radially offset from said tab by from about 0.5 degrees to about 20 degrees in the engagement rotation direction, wherein said tab has a tab width orthogonal to said longitudinal axis (see annotated fig.1 and 3 of Jones below for the first arm attachment location is radially offset from the tab by about 0.5 degrees to about 20 degrees in the engagement rotation direction and since the closure is a circle and half of it is 180 degrees the second arm location can be about .5-20; it is noted that by using “about” applicant is claiming the range specific to 2-30 because it can be more than those limitation under BRI and the tab has a tab width that is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis);
wherein said container comprises (see annotated fig.1 below for the container);
an open end about said longitudinal axis (see annotated fig.1 below for an open end about longitudinal axis when the closure is inserted); and
an abutment projecting above said open end and outboard of said open end and spaced apart from said peripheral wall by a clearance distance, wherein said clearance distance is greater than or equal to said tab width, and wherein said tab is abutted against said abutment (see annotated fig.1 of jones below for the abutment projecting above said open end and outboard of said open end i.e. vertically and spaced part from the wall by a clearance distance in the position seen in fig.1 below and the distance is greater than the tab width and the tab can abut against the abutment as seen in fig.2).
Annotated fig.1 of Jones
PNG
media_image1.png
810
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.3 of Jones
PNG
media_image2.png
520
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones further teaches wherein said tab has a first position abutting said abutment and a second position in which said tab is inboard of said abutment and rotatable in said disengagement rotation direction past said abutment (see annotated fig.1 and fig.2-5 where the two positions are shown and for second position the tab is inboard of the abutment and rotatable in the disengagement rotation past the abutment).
Regarding claim 3, the references as applied to claim 2 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones further teaches wherein said second arm attachment location is radially offset from said first arm attachment location by from about 2 degrees to about 20 degrees (see annotated fig.1 and 3 above for the second attachment location that is radially offset from the first attachment by about 2 to 20 degrees).
Regarding claim 4, the references as applied to claim 3 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones further teaches wherein said first arm attachment location is radially offset from said tab by from about 0.5 degrees to about 15 degrees (see annotated fig.1 and 3 above for the first attachment location that is radially offset from the tab by about .5 to 15 degrees; it is noted once again that stating “about” broadens the limitations).
Regarding claim 5, the references as applied to claim 5 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones further teaches wherein said tab has an engaged portion abutting said abutment, wherein said engaged portion has a height, wherein said threaded collar comprises threads having a pitch, wherein said pitch is at least twice said height (see annotated fig.1 above for the tab that has an engaged portion i.e. portions that abut against the abutment as seen in fig.2 and the portion has a height as the entire tab does not engage the abutment and the fig.1 shows the threads having a pitch that is at least two said height).
Regarding claim 11, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones further teaches wherein said threaded collar is continuous about said longitudinal axis (annotated fig.1 above shows the threaded collar is continuous about the axis i.e. inside of the collar).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood based on 112 issue identified above, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones further teaches wherein said threaded collar is discontinuous about said longitudinal axis (annotated fig.1 above shows the threaded collar is discontinuous about the axis i.e. where the tabs protrude out)
Regarding claim 13, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones further teaches wherein said tab has a first position abutting said abutment and a second position in which said tab is inboard of said abutment and rotatable in said disengagement rotation direction past said abutment (see annotated fig.1 above for the tab that has an engaged portion i.e. portions that abut against the abutment as seen in fig.2 and the portion has a height as the entire tab does not engage the abutment and the fig.1 shows the threads having a pitch that is at least two said height).
Regarding claim 14, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones further teaches wherein said threaded collar, said peripheral wall, tab, deformable first arm and said deformable second arm are unitary with one another (see annotated fig.1 above the closure is a unitary piece).
Regarding claim 17, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones further teaches wherein said tab has an engaged portion abutting said abutment, wherein said engaged portion has a height, wherein said threaded collar comprises threads having a pitch, wherein said pitch is at least twice said height (see annotated fig.1 above for the tab that has an engaged portion i.e. portions that abut against the abutment as seen in fig.2 and the portion has a height as the entire tab does not engage the abutment and the fig.1 shows the threads having a pitch that is at least two said height).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US6279766B1) and further in view of Brannon (US 20150048113 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the references as applied to claim 6 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones does not teach wherein said open end comprises a spout fitment engaged with a container body.
Brannon teaches wherein said open end comprises a spout fit engaged to a container body (fig.2 and 3 shows the drain back spout fitment 18 on the open end). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the open end of the container body disclosed by Jones by adding the teaching of drain back spout on the container body as disclosed by Brannon in order to control the flow of the liquid that comes out of the spout/container and since it’s a drain back spout it will drain the excess liquid back into the container. “An annular drain-back channel encircles the pour spout and depends downwardly from the deck within the lower skirt. The drain-back channel has a bottom wall sloping downwardly towards a rear terminal edge of the pour spout. A drain-back opening is formed in the drain-back channel so that a product may drain from the channel back into the container.” (0015-16, Brannon)
Regarding claim 8, the references as applied to claim 7 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones as modified in claim 7 further teaches wherein said spout fitment is a drain back spout fitment (fig.1-3 spout 18 is a drain back spout).
Regarding claim 9, the references as applied to claim 8 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones as modified in claim 8 further teaches wherein said threaded collar comprises threads oriented away from said longitudinal axis and said spout fitment comprises complementary threads oriented towards said longitudinal axis (fig.3 shows the threaded collar with threads away from the axis and the fitment comprises complementary threads oriented towards the axis).
Regarding claim 10, the references as applied to claim 9 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones as modified in claim 8 further teaches wherein said spout fitment comprises a spout projecting into said closure and a portion of said spout is positioned between said peripheral wall and said longitudinal axis (fig.2 shows the spout 18 projecting into the closure and a portion of it between the wall and axis).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Minnette (US20170029179A1).
Regarding claim 15, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones does not wherein said threaded collar, said peripheral wall, said tab, said deformable first arm and said deformable second arm are unitary with one another and comprised of plastic.
Minnette does teach wherein said threaded collar, said peripheral wall, said tab, said deformable first arm and said deformable second arm are unitary with one another and comprised of plastic (fig.1 container package 10 is made from plastic including all the parts). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the closure disclosed by Jones by adding the teaching of plastic material as disclosed by Minnette in order to allow the inhibitor to change shape from an expanded shape to a slimmed-down compressed shape and also move relative to the closure during use.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US6279766B1)
Regarding claim 6, the references as applied to claim 5 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said closure comprises two said tabs positioned radially opposite one another about said longitudinal axis and said container comprises two said abutments positioned radially opposite one another about said longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to two tabs and two abutments in order to reinforce the closure and make it even more temper proof, since such a modification would amount to a mere duplication of parts. 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.
Regarding claim 16, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said closure comprises two said tabs positioned radially opposite one another about said longitudinal axis and said container comprises two said abutments positioned radially opposite one another about said longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to two tabs and two abutments in order to reinforce the closure and make it even more temper proof, since such a modification would amount to a mere duplication of parts. 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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kasting (US20040011812A1).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood based on 112 issue identified above, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones does not teach wherein said container contains a liquid fabric care product.
Kasting does teach wherein said container contains a liquid fabric care product (fig.1 shows the container 20 that is used to container a liquid fabric care product). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container disclosed by Jones by adding the teaching of storing a liquid fabric care product as disclosed by Kasting in order to store the desired contents in the container as Jones container already used to store liquids. It has been 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, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
See PTO-892 for the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRINCE PAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9:30 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
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 on (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.
/PRINCE PAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3735