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 Objections
Claims 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites “comprises plurality of side openings,” which appears to be a grammatical error. The examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “comprises a plurality of side openings.”
Claim 15 recites “comprises coupling means,” which appears to be a grammatical error. The examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “comprises a coupling means.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-8 are objected to because they include reference characters, for example “dr” and “df,” which are not enclosed within parentheses.
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.
The following 3-Prong Test is used to detail the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) pertaining to the limitation “coupling means” in claim 15:
The generic place holder, “means,” is identified and is not indicative of any specific known, limiting feature.
“means” is modified by the functional language “coupling.” The generic placeholder is set forth by the function it performs.
A lack of sufficient structure for achieving the claimed function follows the aforementioned limitation.
Thus, the limitation “coupling means” in claim 15 is given the broadest reasonable interpretation set forth by the specifications to mean: “a coupling slot configured to cooperate with elements of the cleaning appliance…in order to form a liquid conduit between the container and the cleaning appliance” (applicant’s specifications, p. 9 ll. 29-32).
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 5-8 and 10 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the thickness of the rigid portion" and “the thickness of the flexible portion” in lines 2 and 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the term “preferably” is indefinite as the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained since it is unclear what is actually required to meet the claim limitation. The examiner recommends removal of the term to overcome rejection.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the thickness of the rigid portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the thickness of the flexible portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “approximately” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is 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, the limitation "a surface area of the rigid portion is approximately the same surface area of the flexible portion," is indefinite as applicant's specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of similarity between the surface areas of both the rigid and flexible portions. See applicants’ specification, p. 3 l. 34 to p. 4 l. 1. The examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “a surface area of the rigid portion corresponds to the surface area of the flexible portion,” drawing support for fig. 3 of applicant’s disclosure.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balz et al. (US 7794165 B2) in view of Stanca et al. (US 20120193320 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Balz discloses a container body (container 106) and a cap (coupling structure 107b) connecting to an opening of the container body (refer to the annotated figure below),
PNG
media_image1.png
314
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
characterized in that the cap comprises at least one side opening arranged on a distal end of the cap (refer to the annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image2.png
302
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
however, remains silent to
a container body comprising a rigid portion and a flexible portion arranged as integral parts of the container body and together defining a product space inside of the container body.
Stanca teaches a container body (1300) comprising a rigid portion (combination of upper end 105, lower support base 115, and support portion 120, paras. 0065-0066, 0068, 0112, and fig. 14 showing rigidity) and a flexible portion (collapsible portion 130, para. 0107 and fig. 14 showing mechanical flexibility) arranged as integral parts of the container body and together defining a product space inside of the container body (refer to fig. 14 and para. 0107 describing integrally formed parts).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to include a flexible container with rigid and flexible portions. The device of Balz connects to a flexible bag via a rigid connector (Balz: mounting rings 108a and 108b) and is compatible with the container of Stanca which can utilize a variety of closure means with a variety of fastenings therein (refer to Stanca: para. 0086). Additionally, such a combination advantageously allows for a container with variable storage volume and usages (Stanca: para. 0062).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device teaches wherein the flexible portion is configured to deform in order to change a volume of the product space (para. 0068) upon discharging an amount of the liquid product () from the container (wherein, a user can press the flexible portion to induce positive pressure upon the fluid contained within, resulting in dispensation or cause deformation by connecting the cap to a dispensing device which applies negative pressure to the fluid contained within, Balz: col. 17 ll. 44-57).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device further teaches wherein the container opening is connected to the rigid portion of the container body (Stanca: refer to the annotated figure below and para. 107, wherein the neck 1306 is rigid).
PNG
media_image3.png
698
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device further discloses wherein the rigid portion and the flexible portion comprise the same material (Stanca: paras. 0065, 0107, and 0112) and wherein, a thickness of the rigid portion dr is larger than a thickness of the flexible portion df (Stanca: para. 0108, wherein the rigid portion is thicker than the flexible portion and the device further contemplates additional changes in thickness ratio, paras. 0082 and 0111).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device further teaches wherein the container body comprises plastic material, preferably one or more of the following: a polypropylene (PP), a high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Stanca: para. 0063, discussing polypropylene and high-density polyethylene).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device further teaches wherein the rigid portion comprises a plurality of surfaces arranged next to each other such that at least one central surface (area 1302, fig. 15) is surrounded by side surfaces and the flexible portion extends from peripheral edges of the side surfaces (refer to the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
674
996
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device further teaches wherein a surface area of the rigid portion is approximately the same as a surface area of the flexible portion (Stanca: para. 0082, wherein container 100 includes all the features of container 1300—refer to paras. 0105-0106).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device further teaches wherein the rigid portion and the flexible portion are separated by a plane extending through the container body (Stanca: refer to the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
697
528
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device further teaches wherein the container body comprises a distal end and a proximal end, and wherein the proximal end coincides with the rigid portion and the distal end coincides with the flexible portion (refer to the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image6.png
686
573
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Balz further discloses wherein at least one side opening is arranged radially around the cap side walls (refer to figs. 4E-4G).
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Balz further discloses wherein the cap comprises plurality of side openings arranged radially around the cap side walls (refer to figs. 4E-4G).
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Balz further discloses wherein the container comprises coupling means (coupling structure 107a, wherein the internal cavity—which receives 107b—is the coupling slot, see the Claim Interpretation section about) to couple the container to a cleaning appliance (wand 119 and backpack 100, wherein fluid is transferred via conduit 103 to wand 119 which dispenses liquid 121 to interact with pad 123) and the container body is configured to fit within a cleaning agent dispensing unit (back pack 100) of the cleaning appliance. It is the examiner’s position that the modified container is capable of being contained within the cleaning agent dispensing unit (Stanca: paras. 0077 and 0117, discussing a container of various shapes and sizes) and Balz appliance is capable of dispensing cleaning fluid for use with a cleaning pad (Balz: col. 4 ll. 2-6).
Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balz et al. (US 7794165 B2) and Stanca et al. (US 20120193320 A1), as applied in claim 1, further in view of Piccinino et al. (US 20040069800 A1).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device remains silent wherein the thickness of the rigid portion dr is at least twice that of the thickness of the flexible portion df; instead, Piccinino teaches wherein the thickness of the rigid portion dr is at most twice that of the thickness of the flexible portion df (paras. 0032 and 0033, wherein the rigid portion can have a thickness of 2-3 mm and the flexible portion can have a thickness between 1.5-3mm).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the rigid and flexible portions. Stanca allows for a container with varying thickness in both the rigid and flexible portions, which advantageously allows for different configurations, strength, and/or stiffness (Stanca: para. 0086, 0108, and 0112), which when combined with the teachings of Piccinino, the prior art range allows for the rigid structure to resist deformation by the mass of the contained liquid (para. 0032).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device remains silent wherein the thickness of the rigid portion dr is more than 1 mm; however, Piccinino teaches wherein the thickness of the rigid portion dr is more than 1 mm (para. 0032, wherein the thickness is between 2-3 mm).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the rigid portion. Stanca allows for a container with varying thickness in both the rigid and flexible portions, which advantageously allows for different configurations, strength, and/or stiffness (Stanca: para. 0086, 0108, and 0112), which when combined with the teachings of Piccinino, the prior art range allows for the rigid structure to resist deformation by the mass of the contained liquid (para. 0032).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, The already modified device remains silent wherein the thickness of the flexible portion df is less than 0.5 mm. Instead, Piccinino teaches wherein the thickness of the flexible portion df is about (1.5-3 mm).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of flexible portion. Stanca allows for a container with varying thickness in both the rigid and flexible portions, which advantageously allows for different configurations, strength, and/or stiffness (Stanca: para. 0086, 0108, and 0112), which when combined with the teachings of Piccinino, the prior art dimension allows for the flexible structure to collapse when liquid is withdrawn (para. 0033).
Additionally, the Federal Circuit have held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) discussing In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Applicant appears to place no criticality on the claimed dimension (see Specification: p. 7 ll. 18-19, wherein the thickness of the flexible portion may be less than 0.5 mm) and it appears the dimension of Piccinino would work equally well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Krajewski et al. (US 20190092533 A1) for a container with flexible and rigid portions made of PET and Chan et al. (US 5529224 A) discussing a container with rigid and flexible portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER STEVEN PARISI whose telephone number is (571)270-5490. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00 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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S. PARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754