DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response the communication filed by the applicant on 08/26/2024. The application claims priority foreign application EP 22167381.1 filed on 04/08/2022. Because all of the foreign priority requirements are met, the effective filing date for the claims is 04/08/2022. Currently claims 1-17 are pending in the application and examined on the merits.
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 Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because they include reference characters which are either not enclosed within parentheses or only some claims includes references characters and other claims do not include reference characters for the same limitations.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-17 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.
The terms “minimal” and “complex” in claim 1 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “minimal” and “complex” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, claim 1 recites that “said refill connection means (7) being minimal and said cap connection means (8) being complex”. However, the claim does not recite what is included in the structure of the refill connection means and the cap connections means that renders them minimal or complex. This leads to ambiguity which does not define the metes and bounds of the claims sufficiently. The only explanation is provided in paragraph [0087] which merely states that minimal means minimal number of parts are provided and complex means several parts are provided. This does not resolve the ambiguity of the claim. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. For the purpose examination the limitations of line 5 in claim 1 are not considered or given patentable weight.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites “the body of the packaging” in line 2, “the cap” in line 4, “refill connection means” in line 5 and “cap connection means” in line 5. Claim 1 recites “a tubular body” in line 1, “a reusable cap” in lines 1-2, and “connection means” in line 3. The claim does not follow requirements for having proper antecedent basis for each limitation as they are referred back to using different terminology. Therefore, there are insufficient antecedent basis for the above discussed limitations.
Claim 2 recites “the connection means (7) of the refill” in line 1. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 recites “the refill…comprising connection means” in lines 2-3 and “said refill connection means” in line 5. There is no consistent terminology being used for the limitation. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation.
Claim 3 recites “the connection means (7) of the refill” in line 2. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 recites “the refill…comprising connection means” in lines 2-3 and “said refill connection means” in line 5. There is no consistent terminology being used for the limitation. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation.
Claim 4 recites “the connection means” in line 2. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 recites “the refill…comprising connection means” in lines 2-3 and “said refill connection means” in line 5. There is no consistent terminology being used for the limitation. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation.
Claim 5 recites “the cap” in line 2. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 which recites “a reusable cap” in lines 1-2. There is no consistent terminology being used for the limitation. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation.
Claim 6 recites “the cap” in line 2. Claim 6 depends from claim 2, which depends from claim 1 which recites “a reusable cap” in lines 1-2. There is no consistent terminology being used for the limitation. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation.
Claim 7 recites “the closure means” in lines 1-2. Claim 7 depends from claim 6 which recites “closing means” in line 2. There is no consistent terminology being used for the limitation. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation.
Claim 8 recites “the lid” in line 1, “the outer face” and “the inner face” in line 2. Claim 8 depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 6, which depends from claim 2, which depends from claim 1. None of these claims recite “a lid”. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation. It is not clear what these limitations are referring to and therefore the limitation is considered as “a lid fixed on a top of the connection means (7).”
Claim 9 recites “the closure means” in line 2. Claim 9 depends from claim 6 which recites “closing means” in line 2. There is no consistent terminology being used for the limitation. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation.
Claim 13 recites “the structural layer (10)” and “the structural layer of the tubular body (4)” in line 2. Claim 13 depends from claim 12, which depends from claim 1. None of these claims recite “a structural layer” or “a structural layer of the tubular body”. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claim 14 recites “the cap” in line 2. Claim 14 depends from claim 1 which recites “a reusable cap” in lines 1-2. There is no consistent terminology being used for the limitation. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation.
Claim 15 recites “the cap” in line 2. Claim 15 depends from claim 1 which recites “a reusable cap” in lines 1-2. There is no consistent terminology being used for the limitation. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation.
Claims 10-12 and 16-17 are also rejected under the same grounds for being dependent on claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding claims 1-17, claim limitations “connection means (7)”, “connection means (8) of the cap”, and “facilitated piercing means” are used multiple times throughout the claims. These terms invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not clearly recite what structure is included when the terms “connection means for the refill”, “connection means of the cap” and “facilitated piercing means” are used. If anything, the specification repeatedly uses the same terminology in an attempt to explain what these “means” include without providing any sufficient structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patel (US PG PUB 2017/0256387).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Patel discloses a packaging (tube) (figures 1 and 8) comprising a refill (item 2, figure 8) in the form of a tubular body (see figure 1) and a reusable cap (item 5, figure 1) providing functionalities to the packaging, the refill forming the body of the packaging and comprising connection means (nozzle 4 and seal 20, figures 2 and 8) cooperating with connection means (threads of cap 5 or any other connection means of cap 5, paragraphs [0022], [0029], [0030], [0032-0033]) of the cap to ensure the closure of the packaging and its sealing once the refill and the cap are assembled (figure 1).
Regarding claims 2-4, Patel discloses that the connection means of the refill are created by a piercing zone with piercing means 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 discloses 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 discloses that the orifice is closed by closing means, which is a cover or a lid (item 20, figure 8), before the assembly of the cap on the refill.
Regarding claim 9, Patel discloses that the closure means comprises a controlled perforation means (cover 20 is capable of being perforated, paragraphs [0029], [0040]).
Regarding claim 11, Patel discloses that the refill is based on biodegradable resin or based on recyclable or recycled resin (paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 12, Patel discloses that the refill comprises a shoulder (area next to top 8, figures 2 and 8) fixed to the tubular body.
Regarding claim 13, Patel discloses 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 discloses at least one functional layer (items 11, 12, figures 2, 3, and 5) inside the packaging.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following documents disclose subject matter related to tubular packaging devices to be used in dispensers: US PN 4,513,884, US PN 6,863,193, US PG PUB 2014/0020337, US PN 9,150,334, US PG PUB 2016/0207684, US PG PUB 2020/0070464, US PG PUB 2020/0102123.
The following documents disclose subject matter related to sensors and other electronic components in a cap of the dispenser: US PG PUB 2007/0000941 and US PG PUB 2023/0051196.
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