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.
Claims 1-15 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 claim 1, line 1, the limitation “intended to be” is vague and indefinite. Is the dosing cap mounted on the neck or not? Is this feature optional? What structure is being claimed?
In claim 1, line 8, the limitation “intended to be” is vague and indefinite. See questions above. Is this feature optional? What structure is being claimed?
In claim 1, line 21, the limitation “when they are” is vague and indefinite. What does “they” refer to here? Does they refer to the means form line 19? What structure is being claimed?
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said graduations" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prodromou et al. US PGPub 2022/0306356 in view of Catteau, EP 2,781,895.
PNG
media_image1.png
782
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Prodromou et al. discloses a dosing cap (see fig 8), intended to be mounted on the neck (with 53) of a container (1) formed of a wall (see fig 9) able to be deformed under the effect of an external pressure (“squeezable), said wall (as described above) defining an inside (interior of 1) of said container (1), in which a liquid (see [0040]) is contained, said dosing cap (as described above) comprising: means (53,54) for mounting the dosing cap (as described above) to said neck (as described above), said mounting means (53,54) being configured to ensure a hermetic connection (see [0054]) of the dosing cap (as described above) to the neck (as described above), a dosing chamber (43) comprising a lower end (bottom in fig 8) and an upper end (top in fig 8), said lower end (as described above) being intended to be arranged opposite the liquid (as described above) contained inside said container (1) when the dosing cap (as described above) is mounted on said neck (as described above), said lower end (as described above) comprising an inner wall (bottom wall containing 44) separating the dosing chamber (43) from the inside (as described above) of the container (1), said inner wall (as described above) being provided with a regulating device (45) configured to block the passage of said liquid (as described above) from the inside (as described above) of the container (1) towards the dosing chamber (43) and from the dosing chamber (43) towards the inside (as described above) of the container (1) under the simple effect of gravity, in the absence of any stress exerted on the wall (as described above) of the container (1), and to enable passage of the liquid (as described above) and gas from the inside (as described above) of the container (1) towards the dosing chamber (43) and from the dosing chamber (43) towards the container (1) under the action of a determined pressure exerted on the wall (as described above) of the container (1), said upper end (as described above) being open, means for closing (70) the upper end (as described above) of the dosing chamber (43), adapted to be removably fastened on said upper end (as described above) and configured to ensure a hermetic closure (see [0057]) of said upper end (as described above) with respect to the external environment when they are fastened (see fig 9) on said upper end (as described above), said dosing cap (as described above) further comprises: a protection device (44) located in the dosing chamber (43) above the regulating device (45), said protection device (44) being configured to prevent liquid portions (as described above) originating from a lower portion (see fig 8) of the dosing chamber (43), under the action of a pressure (a squeeze) exerted on the wall (as described above) of the container (1) in the absence of the closure means (70) of the upper end (as described above) of the dosing chamber (43), beyond said upper end (as described above) of the dosing chamber(43). Prodromou et al. does not specify that the dosing cap has no dipper tube.
PNG
media_image2.png
634
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Catteau teaches a similar dosing cap (1) which has no dipper tube. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ gravity feed rather than a dipping tube in order to simplify the structure reducing costs, and allow the cap to fill in a intuitive gravity fed manner simplifying operation.
Regarding claim 2, Prodromou et al. in view of Catteau discloses the dosing cap (as described above) according to claim 1, wherein the protection device (44) comprises a transverse wall portion (flat top wall – see fig 8), located opposite the regulating device (45) and distally with respect to this regulating device (45), and a load-bearing structure (pillars separating 48) connecting said transverse wall portion (as described above) to said inner wall (as described above), said load-bearing structure (as described above) comprising at least one recess (48).
Regarding claim 3, Prodromou et al. in view of Catteau discloses the dosing cap (as described above) according to claim 2, wherein said load-bearing structure (as described above) comprises a plurality of recesses (48), said recesses (48) being separated from one another by a plurality of pillars (as described above) extending from said transverse wall portion (as described above) to said inner wall (as described above), distributed along the perimeter (see fig 8) of said transverse wall portion (as described above).
Regarding claim 4, Prodromou et al. in view of Catteau discloses the dosing cap (as described above) according to claim 3, wherein said recesses (48) and said pillars (as described above) are evenly spaced (see fig 8) along the perimeter of said transverse wall portion (as described above).
Regarding claim 5, Prodromou et al. in view of Catteau discloses the dosing cap (as described above) according to claim 2, wherein said recess(es) (48) is/are confined in a determined angular section (angular section being the perimeter) of the periphery of the load-bearing structure (as described above).
Regarding claim 6, Prodromou et al. in view of Catteau discloses the dosing cap (as described above) according to claim 1. wherein the dosing chamber (43) is delimited by a transparent or translucent cylindrical wall (see wall adjacent label 40) provided with graduations (see 10ml, 20ml and 30ml in fig 8) for assisting in dosing.
Regarding claim 7, Prodromou et al. in view of Catteau discloses the dosing cap (as described above) according to claim 5, wherein said graduations (as described in claim 6) are located in an angular section (along perimeter) of the transparent cylindrical wall (as described above) diametrically opposite to said determined angular section (as described above).
Regarding claim 8, Prodromou et al. in view of Catteau discloses the dosing cap (as described above) according to claim 1. wherein said protection device (44) is configured to store an amount of liquid in a flipped over position of the dosing cap (as described above). Prodromou et al. in view of Catteau do not specify the range being from 1 ml to 5 ml. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to construct a smaller cap since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated employ a smaller cap in order to optimize the dosing cap size for a specific medicine dosage and specific application.
Regarding claim 9, Prodromou et al. in view of Catteau discloses the dosing cap (as described above) according to claim 2, wherein said transverse wall portion (as described above) is provided with a proximal peripheral rim (see 48 does not extent to transverse wall allowing for liquid storage) able to contain said amount of liquid on a proximal face of said a transverse wall portion (as described above).
Regarding claim 10, Prodromou et al. in view of Catteau discloses the dosing cap (as described above) according to claim 1. wherein said regulating device (45) comprises an elastomeric valve (see fig 9).
Regarding claim 11, Prodromou et al. in view of Catteau discloses the dosing cap (as described above) according to claim 1, wherein said regulating device (45) comprises one or several hole(s) (see [0053]) formed in the inner wall (as described above) separating the dosing chamber (43) from the interior of the container (1). Prodromou et al. in view of Catteau does not specify that the holes have a diameter ranging from 0.1 to 8 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to construct holes of the specified size since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated employ holes of the specified size in order to optimize the flow rate of the liquid for a specific medicine dosage and specific application.
Regarding claim 12, Prodromou et al. in view of Catteau discloses the dosing cap (as described above) according to claim 1. wherein the regulating device (45) comprises a sealing gasket (leaflets) equipped with a valve system (opening between leaflets).
Regarding claim 13, Prodromou et al. in view of Catteau discloses the dosing cap (as described above) according to claim 2, wherein at least one of said recesses (48) extends distally (see fig 8) from said inner wall (as described above).
Regarding claim 14, Prodromou et al. in view of Catteau discloses the dosing cap (as described above) according to claim 1, wherein the mounting means (53,54) are configured to ensure an irreversible connection of the dosing cap (as described above) to the neck (as described above).
Regarding claim 15, Prodromou et al. in view of Catteau discloses a container (1) comprising a neck (as described above) and formed of a wall (as described above)) able to be deformed under the effect of an external pressure, said wall (as described above) defining an inside (as described above) of said container(1), in which a liquid is contained, wherein the dosing cap (as described above) according to claim 1 is mounted on said neck (as described above)according to a hermetic, connection, by means of said mounting means (53,54).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7956. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6 EST Monday - Friday.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
MICHAEL A. RIEGELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654