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 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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-18 are 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. More specifically, the limitation “said refill connection portions comprising fewer components than components of the cap connection portions of the reusable cap” of claim 1 is not supported by the specification and the drawing of the disclosure of the current application. Above recited amendment of claim 1 is asserted to have support in paragraphs [0087] and [0089] of the specification. However, these paragraphs merely cite that the connection portions 7 of the refill are minimal and thus have minimal number of parts and the connection portions 8 of the cap can be complex and thus comprises several parts.
First, none of the specification supports that the refill connection portions does indeed comprise fewer components than the components of the cap connection portions of the reusable cap. Reciting that the refill connection portions may be minimal and cap connection portions may comprise several parts does not automatically mean that the refill connection portions has fewer components. Not only that, such assertion from the specification and claim 1 is not supported by any written example in the specification nor any drawings. If anything, the disclosure only recites that there are one cap connection portions 8 which interact with refill connection portions. These cap connection portions are only shown in figures 1 and 12 where reference numeral 8 is shown as a single protrusion extending from cap 3. On the other hand, the refill connection portions 7 are shown in multiple figures with multiple components such as cover 11, orifice 8, screw threads 7, layer 10, etc. (see figures 2 and 3). The application even mentions that the cap connection portions is assembled to the refill connection portions via threads which equates to both of the connection portions having exactly the same number parts (which is one). Thus, the amended claim limitation asserts the complete opposite of the disclosure regarding the number of connection portions parts for the refill and the reusable cap. For all of these reasons, claim 1 is rejected as failing to comply with the written disclosure requirement.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-18 are also rejected under the same grounds for being dependent on claim 1.
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 1-8, 10-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (US PG PUB 2017/0256387) in view of Gross (US PN 6,095,382) or Thomas et al. (“Thomas” hereinafter) (US PN 2,998,902).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Patel teaches a packaging (tube) (figures 1 and 8) comprising:
a reusable cap (item 5, figure 1) providing functionalities to the packaging, the reusable cap including cap connection portions; and
a refill (item 2, figure 8) that is a tubular body (see figure 1),
the refill forming a body of the packaging, the refill comprising refill connection portions (nozzle 4 and seal 20, figures 2 and 8) of the refill cooperating with the cap connection portions of the reusable cap (threads of cap 5 or any other connection portions of cap 5, paragraphs [0022], [0029], [0030], [0032-0033]) to ensure closure of the packaging and its sealing once the refill and the reusable cap are assembled (figure 1),
Patel is silent to said refill connection portions comprising fewer components than components of the cap connection portions of the reusable cap.
However, such configurations depend on the type of caps being used with the tubular packaging.
Furthermore, Gross teaches another packaging dispenser device (figure 1) comprising a tubular container (item 32, figure 10 comprising a neck (item 43, figure 2) with a connection portions (thread 46, figure 2) and a reusable cap (item 40, figure 1, closure 40 can be reused) comprising multiple connection portions (threads 110 and inner wall 102, figures 7 and 9) which interact with the tubular container connection portions to form a removable yet secure assembly (figures 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the cap of Gross in the invention of Patel such that the resultant assembly comprises a valved and sealed closure device which only dispenses liquid on-demand due to a flexible valve. Combining the invention is obvious because both of the inventions use threads to engage cap and container components together which also old and well-known in the art.
Alternatively, Thomas also teaches another dispensing device (figure 1) comprising a container (item 10, figure 1) with a neck having connection portions (thread, figure 1) and a reusable cap (item 12, figure 1) comprising connection portions having multiple components (items 16, 20, figure 2, column 3, lines 37-40) to form a dispensing closure assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the cap of Thomas in the invention of Patel such that the resultant assembly comprises a sealable nozzle and cap closure device which only dispenses when the nozzle and cap are axially moved with respect to each other. Combining the invention is obvious because both of the inventions use threads to engage cap and container components together which also old and well-known in the art.
Regarding claims 2-4, Patel teaches that the connection portions of the refill are created by a piercing zone with piercing portions and are added by molding or clipping or welding on the refill and comprise an orifice (items 4, 5, 20, figures 1, 2, and 8, paragraphs [0022], [0029], [0030], [0032-0033]).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Patel teaches that the cap is assembled to the refill by screwing (paragraphs [0022], [0033]) and opens and closes the refill packaging.
Regarding claims 6-8, Patel teaches that the orifice is closed by closing system, which is a cover or a lid (item 20, figure 8), before the assembly of the cap on the refill.
Regarding claim 10, Patel teaches that the refill is based on cellulose (paragraph [0019]) but is silent to the cellulose content being at least 70%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the bio-degradable packaging refill of Patel’s device from 70% or more of cellulose content since doing so allows for a majority of the material of the refill being biodegradable to achieve the inventor’s aim of creating a bioplastic collapsible dispensing tube. Patel also teaches other biodegradable material in paragraph [0019] and thus provides more than sufficient motivation for forming the refill packaging with more than 70% material being bio-degradable.
Regarding claim 11, Patel teaches that the refill is based on biodegradable resin or based on recyclable or recycled resin (paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 12, Patel teaches that the refill comprises a shoulder (area next to top 8, figures 2 and 8) fixed to the tubular body.
Regarding claim 13, Patel teaches a structural layer (items 11, 12, figures 2, 3, and 5) forming the shoulder and a structural layer (items 11, 12, figures 2, 3, and 5) of the tubular body are of similar or identical composition (refill 2 comprises foil layer 11 or 12 which extends throughout its body, paragraphs [0032], [0036]).
Regarding claim 16, Patel teaches at least one functional layer (items 11, 12, figures 2, 3, and 5) inside the packaging.
Regarding claim 19, Patel as modified by Gross or Thomas teaches that the reusable cap is configured to meter a product contained in the packaging (column 2, lines 19-28, Thomas) (The flexible valve of Gross regulates the flow of fluid and only dispenses fluid when the applied pressured is higher than the opening pressure of the valve, figures 1-9, Gross).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Gross or Thomas, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kobayashi (US PG PUB 2004/0050875).
Regarding claim 15, Patel teaches the cap as discussed in detail above but does not explicitly teach a mirror and/or temperature sensors and/or interactive sensors are integrated into the cap.
Kobayashi teaches another liquid dispenser (figure 9) comprising a cap assembly (items 20, 23a’, 56, figure 9) that comprises a motion detection sensor (item 57, figure 9, paragraphs [0063-0064]) to detect presence of objects or users to carry out the dispensing operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cap assembly of Patel as taught by Kobayashi to provide a motion sensor or any other type of sensors to efficiently carry out the dispensing operation. Providing known components in caps or refill body or other parts of the dispenser are known and within the range of one of ordinary skill in the art as clearly demonstrated by Kobayashi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 regarding the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8, 10-14, and 16-17 under Patel and Kobayashi have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued, in light of amended claim 1, that Patel does not teach claim 1 because it does not teach a refill, a reusable cap, and that the refill comprising connection portions which comprises fewer parts than the parts of the connection portions of the reusable cap. Applicant asserted that Patel does not teach a container that is a refill with refill connection portions or a cap that is reusable and comprises more connection parts than the refill.
Examiner would like to first point out that applicant’s amendment of the independent claim required further search and consideration which resulted in a new grounds of rejection under Patel in view of Gross or Thomas. Second, as discussed in detail above, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement because it does not support the limitation “said refill connection portions comprising fewer components than components of the cap connection portions of the reusable cap”. However, assuming, arguendo, that such amendments may be supported by the disclosure of the application, it is found that claim 1 is rendered obvious under Patel as modified by Gross or Thomas.
Examined would like to direct applicant’s attention to figures 1-2 and 8 Patel, where it is clearly shown that the container 2 is tubular and comprises a threaded nozzle 4 with a removable seal 20 with the threaded nozzle 4 being closed by a threaded cap 5. Contrary to applicant’s arguments, the container 2 is a refill body because the cap 5 is capable of being used and reused with similar containers over and over again. Nothing in the disclosure or structure of Patel stops a user from treating the container 2 as a refill container and the cap 5 as a reusable cap. Applicant’s assertion that there is no explicit disclosure in Patel regarding reusability of the cap and the refill type container of tube 2 is irrelevant. A person of ordinary skill in the art would easily recognize that these components are inter-usable with multiple other similar components regardless of any explicit or implicit disclosure. Therefore, applicant’s arguments that Patel does not teach a container a refill and a cap that is reusable is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant also asserted that the removable seal 20 and threaded nozzle 4 are not refill connection portions and the threaded cap 5 does not comprise cap connection portions as recited in the claim. However, this is without merit. The seal 20 and nozzle 4 are capable of being connected to the cap. Thus, by definition, they are indeed connection portions. The cap also comprises threads, which are clearly known in the art as connection portions. Both of these structures are connection portions and therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Lastly, Gross and Thomas are introduced which teach cap components (the caps are clearly capable of being reusable due to their threaded nature) with multiple connection portions parts that interact with a single component of a connection portion of a container. The caps of Patel and Gross and Thomas as perfectly capable of being interchangeable and used together and thus the amended subject matter of claim 1 is rendered obvious.
For all of these reasons, claim 1 remains rejected as being obvious over Patel in view of Gross or Thomas as discussed in detail above. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-18 are also rejected under the same grounds. Dependent claim 15 is rejected under Patel in view of Gross or Thomas, further modified by Kobayashi as discussed in detail above.
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 VISHAL J PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-9324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9 am - 7 pm).
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/Vishal Pancholi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights